A Chicken Is Not Pillage

Things That Really Irk Me, Volume ... 47?

Jeff Krause, the once and future mayor, keeps bringing up his close relationship with Jon Tester because he takes Tester to the bar that is the thorn in my side.   And I'm supposed to give a shit ... why? My response, meant with all full heart:

(Q)uit rubbing my nose in the hang time you get to spend with Senator Tester. I helped get him elected. Did you? Seriously, Jeff. That's quite deliberately annoying and rather petty.

Jeff is a Republicant, although probably one of the good ones.  Still, I retch at the idea that he gets preferential treatment he lords over us dirty unwashed plebes.  'Gotta admit.  This is one thing that totally pisses me off.

Why I Think The 'Neighborhood Zone' Idea Is Full Of Crap

I like Jeff Krause, the once and future mayor of Bozeman.  I really do.  He has a really good fantastical idea of how things 'ought' to work in the town.  Okay, not so much town anymore, but city.  Ya' see, Jeff's idea is neighborhood communities, groupings of business and residence such that people can co-exist with pride in neighborhood, and lack of strife.  What a load of crap.

This idea would be sterling in Philly, or Denver, or Pheonix.  Not so much in Bozeman.  Montana is mobile and, gas prices not withstanding, it will remain so.  People will drive a block to go to the store.  I'm not making this up, and I can't fall in line with the fantasy that does make this up.  That would be Jeff's fantasy ... and it doesn't apply to the real world.

It should be obvious that the only reason I care about this is because I have a fricking BAR across the street.  Jeff rightly portrays it as a 'neighborhood pub', though technically it is a 'tasting room'.  Bullshit.  It is a bar, complete with priviledged regular customers and a negative impact on the area.  Honestly, I try as hard as I can to ignore the negative impact, but there really is no ignoring it.  There is no parking, there is noise, there is outside drunkenness and there is confrontation.  There are those who damage property in adjacent areas, and freely allow their dogs to do the same.  (Do you really need the pictures of the drunk assholes who throw rocks at my tree, or my house, or the dogshit that actually litters the sidewalk in front of my residence?  If you'd like, I can post the pictures of the toddlers who are left playing on the walkway in front while their parents are in getting sauced.  Family-friendly pub, indeed.)  I am not out of line in saying that this 'happy neighborhood pub' will negatively impact the resale value of my house.  And it certainly negatively impacts the quality of my life in this neighborhood.

Just 30 minutes ago:

Me, opens front door and speaks to the guy who just parked his motorcycle half in front of the driveway:  "Excuse me.  Could you please move your bike out from in front of the driveway.  Please."

Dipspork:  "Yeah.  But there's a curb here."  (Points to the rear tire against the slope of the curb leading into the driveway.)

Me:  "Yeah, but your front tire is parked in front of the driveway.  Couldn't you just move the bike?"

DS:  "What?  Who's comin' in here?"

Me:  "My wife will be coming home soon.  Could you please just move your bike?"

DS:  "Man, I can park here.  I'll just be here for a while.  You can still pull in."

Me:  " Fine.  You can argue with me, or I'll call the cops and you can fucking argue with them."

DS:  "Fine!  Call the cops."

He pulled the bike back, which would have been completely acceptable.  But apparently, he didn't really trust that I wouldn't call the cops  (I did and will continue to, and one does wonder what he had to hide ...).  He left not one minute later.  And that's the point.  These asses know that they are doing the wrong thing, but they won't care unless there are legal consequences.  Neighborhood zones?  They only work when it's neighbors who are affected.  In Bozeman?  Assholes rule.

I'm sorry, Jeff.  The neighborhood zone idea is a really good fantasy.  But in Montana, especially as regards alcohol provision, it's a load of crap.  I fully expect my tires to be slashed tonight.  It won't be the first time, but hey ... it's all about the neighborhood pub, right?

Oh Sweet Gods Of Irony

I've been waiting, rather patiently in fact, to see if anyone would notice something peculiar in Jeff Krauss' refusal to sign the Bozeman Anti- Iraqi-War proposal.  It's rather telling that no one, 'til now, has.  Let's go to the tape:

Bozeman Mayor Jeff Krauss said Wednesday that he would not sign the resolution because he did not agree with it, making it one of the rare occasions when he has declined to sign a resolution the commission has voted to support.

"This is one I feel like taking a stand on," Krauss said.

Fair enough, except ...

Krauss said he opposed the resolution for two reasons: he considered it inappropriate for the city to be discussing a federal issue; and U.S. troops' perseverance in Iraq is saving lives.

Wait, what?  He's refusing to sign because it's inappropriate for local politicians to discuss but his refusal is based (in part) on the belief that what we're doing is for the best and he takes a stand to defend that?  (Just for the dim among you {Hi Dave} he is a local politician  refusing to sign as a message about how he won't support the wrong message.)

Imagine my head spinning in Exorcist-like fashion.

Jeff, I like you, and agree with one of your points.  More to the facts, I agree that nothing done at the local level ... any local level ... will change the hard-headed-hearted policy of the Commander in Chimp.  But, Dude, even you've gotta see how silly the irony of your stand looks at this point.

Sentiments Shared

Out of deference to one of my frequent readers, I haven't wigged out about the sadistic bastard engineer who feels that Bozeman's northside should be unaccessible from anywhere else in town.  So, imagine my joy at reading this letter to the editor in the Bozeman Comical that succinctly sums up my frustrations:

Is there any street, avenue, highway, boulevard, bridge, alley, place, drive, court, circle, square, sidewalk, path, trail or driveway in Bozeman not under repair or construction?  If there isn't, who's paying for it?

Don Kreitz
Bozeman

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Feel Good Policy

Let's get this right out in the open and up front like:  To those who don't know, I work on the MSU campus.  However, I am not a University employee.  That written, I think I have the wiggle room to comment every once in a while on University policy.  I've been pretty vocal about the fact that I don't like "feel good" policy, either from the government or the University administration that works for them.  It is often pointless, counter-productive and, let's face it, stupid.

Though I don't think this qualifies as stupid, the new proposed University weapons policy certainly qualifies as pointless.  I'll leave it to others to argue the 'counter-productive' because they are often more fear-driven and extreme in their fantasies than I am.  I'll just stick to the pointless aspects.

Just so that we're clear, these are the weapons that are proposed to be banned from campus:

rifles, shotguns, handguns, knives with blades four (4) inches or longer, explosives, swords, nunchucks, throwing stars and other martial arts weapons, crossbows, compound bows, recurve bows, pepper spray (except for small, personal protection dispensers), BB guns, paintball guns, dangerous chemicals, and non-functioning replicas that could be confused with actual firearms.

That sounds like a very thorough list, yes?  It is also ambiguous.  Two of the very most effective "martial arts" weapons of all time are the long staff (Bo) and the short staff (Jo).  I may be in error here, but I find it awfully pointless to ban sticks on campus.  The ambiguity goes further, however when one considers what a 'replica' gun can look like.  Does this include squirt guns?  Who adjudicates the confusion involved in an appearance?  The policy prohibits compound and recurve bows, but I have a flat bow.  Banned?  Long Bows?  Native ceremonial bows?  MSU does have a very vibrant native student population.  And would somebody please explain to me, just what exactly is a dangerous chemical?  Bleach?  Ammonia?  Windex?

This is what the AP article has to say is the impetus behind revising the policy:

MSU was the site of a double fatal shooting in 1990, and the university has long had a policy concerning the possession of weapons on campus. But campus administrators found that it was troublingly vague after the tragedy at Virginia Tech,

I don't think I'm wrong in pointing out that the policy is *still* troublingly vague.  To that degree, it remains pointless.  If the effort is to control school shootings, then it is pointless to prohibit BB guns, wrist-rockets (oops, not banned), sticks, banana knives and and water pistols.

For the record, I was an MSU student (non -trad) in 1990.  The shooting was done with a hunting rifle, and was, to some wacko degree, premeditated.  It should have taught us this:  if you're going to whack somebody on campus, having instant access to your weapon of choice is not really that big an obstacle.  Most people aren't gonna choose their paint-ball gun.  Specifically defining weapons won't change intent.  Pointless.

Further, the ban isn't a ban on weapons; it's a ban on seeing them.  From the AP article:

Students or university employees who are preparing for a hunting trip may store a weapon in their vehicle, but only if it's unloaded and kept out of sight.

I have some killer seat covers, lovingly hand-crafted by the most beautiful woman I know.  I guarantee you that I can store my entire arsenal in my truck, and no one would ever know that those weapons are there.  And if the weapons are out of sight, how in the hell can the questions surrounding lock'n'load ever arise?  They can't.  They won't.  I know at least two individuals on campus who have conceal-carry permits.  Even though, a C&C permit doesn't allow you to carry on campus, they are concealed ... that first pesky little C.  Just exactly how is one supposed to know the danger if a weapon is hidden?  They won't.  The provisions of concealment:  Pointless.

So, I'm hoping by now that you're asking the right question.  What is the point of the newly proposed Firearm and Weapons policies at Montana State University?  Money.   The University is a business, and it has a product to sell.  That product should, in the minds of most, just be education.  But now, thanks to events in far distant lands, they have to try and sell security as well.  The fear-laden security Moms want Junior to be safe ... or at least those marketing the MSU brand would like to think so.  So, they've generated pointlessness in order to sell safety, as well as an edumacation.  Again to the article:

Time was when it was common to see rifles in racks on the rear windows of pickups -- and who knew if they were loaded? But times have changed. The horrific shootings at Virginia Tech -- the worst in the nation's history -- reminded us of what's possible in an era in which violence has become all too commonplace.

Not at MSU it hasn't.  And if it was so damned commonplace, why did it have such a huge impact on the national consciousness?  It isn't commonplace.  It was random, just as almost every other bit of "random violence" tends to be.  It is a possibility, not a certain effect of the availability of "nunchucks".  Violent minded people will commit violence.  It's the talent, not the tools, kids.  Do something about that, if you can.  But, efforts to cage that particular beast remain mostly ... pointless.

I Caved

Whelp, I went and dun it.  I have subscribed to the Bozeman Daily Chronicle.  I've been fighting it for over a year, now, especially after they put all of their online content behind a subscribe only firewall.  Notice, it wasn't my objection to paying so much as it was that this is a piss poor business model, and I don't tend to reward stupidity with money.  Though I've been meaning to write a post for some time explaining exactly what I mean, I've obviously never gotten around to it.   So this will have to do.

In short, the media in general, and the Comical in specific, do not own the news.  Say that to yourself out loud, remembering your American roots ... *The media do not own the news*.  The Comical's argument is that they must pay to "bring you" the news, and thus must support themselves with compensation.  I agree.  However, they're lying about their agenda.  The agenda is profit, simply and clearly.  It isn't that they need to recoup for providing a service, it's that they wish to enrich themselves (owners) by controlling access to information.  If we were talking about an independent newspaper that supported itself from advertising, donation, and a reasonable subscription rate, they might have a point.   As things stand, they don't.

The Comical has shown itself over time to be a divisive, biased and rather poor provider of the news.  Can anyone seriously argue it's stature among Montana papers?  Not so much.  They are the most comprehensive coverage of Bozeman ... I freely give them that.  That puts them in such fine company as the Dillon Tribune and the Ravalli Republic.  Yet they fancy themselves in the same league as the Lee newspapers in the state, with subscription rates to match.  Simply put, they are overcharging, and yet they can do so because of monopoly status.

Now now, I understand if you think I'm making baseless claims, but let's take a look, shall we?  The Billing's Gazette, undoubtedly the largest newspaper in the state, does charge about $7.00 more a month than the Comical, and yet ... you get much more paper for the money.  They do a much better job of covering Montana comprehensively, as well as covering Wyoming and regional news.  The Billing's Gazette also offers itself online, fully readable and linkable for free.  I'm certain that you can see how linkability has value to me, a blogger.  The Comical, on the other hand, allows free online content (linkable for only 7 days) if you have an EZ-pay subscription.  Otherwise, it's an additional $5 a month ... for the same news.  If you believe, as I do, that the news doesn't get better with age, and that access to the news should be open to all, then that's not a real great value, is it?

Ultimately, it comes back to the idea that the Chronicle "owns" the information, and has the right to charge you for access to it.  No no no.  They have every right and duty to charge you for provision of it, but not access to it.  And yet, seemingly they do.

As an aside, I wonder how the journalists who work at the Chronicle feel about the administrative termites limiting access to their work?  Walt, Kellen?  How does it feel knowing that your careers grow at the whim of others who make all effort to hide your abilities for their profit?  Just askin' ...

Obviously, there's no love lost between me and the Bozeman rag.  However, we were offered a special deal for a hard-copy subscription, and  my beloved desired to read  the paper.  I'm also well aware that it's difficult to blog about the area if you aren't getting the area news.  So we signed up ... for hard copy only.  I caved, and they will have my money, just not very much of it.  And I am suspicious as to why they would offer such a ridiculously low rate for hard copy if their business model is so outstanding.  I will be very amused to watch and see if  I am right, and their own protectionist  defensive efforts implode on them.

I do have a few rules, though, and I will write them here:

1)  I reserve the right to publish quotes and content at will.  It's the news, and the Comical doesn't own that or the words.  And just so's you know, OCR software rocks!

2)  I payed for it; I *will* critique it.   Too many business ventures seem to carry the idea that I owe them because of my patronage (our Universities are the most terrible at this).    Nope, notta.  I payed you, not vice-versa.

3)  Pursuant to rules 1 and 2, as long as the Comical features her fever dreams, Tammy Hall is again my bitch.