A Chicken Is Not Pillage

Worth 1000 Words

I've been saying this since the great "tax cuts = energy subsidy" of 2001.

Will Max Baucus Buy My Vote?

Gee, let's see.  Considering I've never gotten one red cent from the guy, I'm thinking ... not.  That won't stop the stupid from thinking so.  One can only assume that in their universe the appropriate amount of money will cause them to drop on their knees and su* ... lets just leave that.  It's probably more to the point that Wiley is on the payroll and can't see beyond his own nose, which is stuck deep in  ... let's just leave that too.

And, since my response comment is "in moderation", and I don't trust Republicant astroturf as far as I can throw it, I leave my reply here:

See that middle finger waving there?  That’s for you, Wiley.

I didn’t leave myself “an exit strategy”. I was dead serious. That’s called integrity. Look into the concept, you insulting pissant.

Update #1:  Excuse me, little dog, but it's pathetic to call my reaction "venom" when you've just accused me of being 'purchased'.  And I don't give a crap what you think I'd be like in person.  Truth in a teacup, if you come up to my face and call me a whore, I'm likely to take issue.  A coward such as you may think yourself clever that you can do so while hiding, and isn't the Internet grand.  I am a decent guy, undeserving of your bullshit, and you ... show what you know, cupcake.

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?

Reason Number 47 to *LOATHE* Adobe.

I just downloaded the online updates to Acrobat Pro 7, and the install required *5* reboots.  That can't have actually been necessary.

DEATH IS BAD ... Unless It's Not

To date, an estimated 1 million Iraqis have died in the conflict to bring them freedom, and kill crush destroy the enemies of the US of A such that soccer Mom's can be more MILF and less terrorified.   28% of Americans are just down with collateral damage (that would be a serious case of death for someone else).   Slightly less than 3700 American service persons have died in that same cause.  People are killed, maimed and mangled on the highways of America every day, and yet we really love to drive.  Hundreds of thousands die each year due to, well, death.  These are the simple facts of the case:  Death is our birthright.  No one gets out of this life alive.  Ever, (except Enoch).  The Rapturists keep forgetting that the real birth into the love of God comes with death; but we can discount their lunacy because ... they're lunatics.  Everyone of us will die.  We don't want to,  I know, but the leading cause of death is living.  We all suffer from it.

Can we please just get a Goddamned handle on that fact so that we don't make kneejerk stupid reactions towards a Nanny state?

(I actually have some slightly more substantive posts in the works, but after a 10 hour day coming into Rush ... I'm just not in the mood.)

Not Subtle

The Onion perfectly captures my sentiments.

What The Hell Is Wrong With 'Progressives'?

I've been spending this weekend (working) mostly trying to get my head together.  The influx of insanity (more to come) has gotten the better of me, and despite the stupid self-congratulatory arrogance of the so-called right, not all of  the delusions that drive me to distraction come from them.  Some have been coming from 'progressives'.  And I'm trying to put my finger on that as well.

I wasn't going to post about this until I had a much better handle on it, but I think I've got a few idears to throw on out there.   The first is this:  progressives are ashamed to be "Democrats".  I've been thinking about this ever since David Sirota wrote his infamous thesis about the difference between 'liberals' and 'progressives'.  David skirted the issue.  (Yes, I know that some would argue that he often does.)   That's beside the point.  The question, begging a point, is this:  why do liberals and progressives favor the Democratic party?

There's a significant point there that goes well beyond David's silliness that liberals want to garner and spend the public largess.  David argues that progressives want all entities to pay their fair share for the take they get of the benefit of American society.  Is there really any difference?  David argues:

there is a fundamental difference when it comes to core economic issues. It seems to me that traditional "liberals" in our current parlance are those who focus on using taxpayer money to help better society. A "progressive" are those who focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules.

Follow his thesis through and what you find is that our disagreement isn't a more liberal ideology, it's the Democrats.

Many of today's liberals are not fully comfortable with progressivism as defined in these terms. Many of today's Democratic politicians, for instance, are simply not comfortable taking a more confrontational posture towards large economic institutions (many of whom fund their campaigns) - institutions that regularly take a confrontational posture towards America's middle-class.

I'm just having a real hard time with this.  If there is a confrontation, it isn't between liberals and progressives;  it's (according to Sirota) between those who favor liberal ideology and those who have power who profess to be Democrats. This makes some kind of sense, I'm sure, when put couched in terms of anti-corporatism.  But it doesn't account for the reality of how people live, or what they think.  In Sirota's mythos, the middle class is poised in conflict with corporate interest who need the middle class for their very survival, and 'Democrats '  are in favor (do favor) such interests that hate (need) the middle class.  That doesn't really make much sense, does it?

It sounds good.  Edwards is building a campaign on it.  But really truly and seriously, what is the difference between a progressive and a Democrat?  Not very much.  No, nothing at all.

Here's the deal:  progressives supposedly give all power to popular desire.  We (progressives) require that those who benefit from public giving, give back to the public.  That would be precisely Democratic.  Forget the 'liberal' strawman.  It makes no sense here.  It's the difference between 'tax-and-spend' and tax-and-spend where the latter have no power to do so.  Progressive ideals are liberal ideals, but they are also Democratic ideals.

The Democratic party, as formed by such forgettable folks as Thomas Jefferson, believed that the public will controlled the function of government.  Of the people, by the people, for the people.  That would be the Democratic party.  If, as a certain Senator would strive for, his people want pork coming to their low populace state, they should vote for that Senator, regardless of his *evil* corporate backing. Senators represent the people they represent.  Period.  It's easy to say that 'they suck!!!'.  But it it is disingenuous to claim that progressives don't play that game, and still support the idea that that very party holds to the idea that we are the government.  Sorry, David, but progressivism isn't any more moral than being a good Democrat.

I'm an old-school Democrat.  I believe in public will and the social contract we formed when the 13 colonies ratified that Constitution thingy.  I believe in the rule of law.  That would be being a good Democrat.  Our Democratic congressional representatives aren't so much defying our will because they affront us, personally.  They defy our will when we can show how they affront us representationally (*cough cough* Conrad Burns).

What brought this to the fore for me was a diary on the Great Orange Website of Doom.  John Laesch, a candidate in Illinois, tried to distinguish himself between his primary opponent based on the FISA vote (which neither of them partook of. )  Laesch is a 'progressive' and his opponent is a 'blue dog'  Democrat.  Which, to me, means absolutely squat.  Laesch has a good resume, no doubts.  But attacking Democrats is getting really ... fricking ... tiring for me.  Either you understand the term "Democratic" or you don't.  It's not a campaign slogan.  It's a way of thought.  Sirota hardly seems to get it, and Laesch really doesn't.  The Democratic party is a belief, and should be.  I'm stunned that so many who follow it's politics don't appear to have the first clue what being a Democrat means.

Whack The Troll

Yeah, it's kinda like that.

St. Pat Was All About The War

One of my coworkers hinted today that something nasty happened at the St. Patrick's day parade in Denver.  So, after work, I dids me a Google and guess what?  It wasn't Denver, but rather Colorado Springs.  Having read the stories, I'd just like to say that I adore living in a country where a permit buys you a beating from over-zealous dipsticks who don't want *you* to carry a gun ('cause that might threaten their ability to administer the righteous smack-down).

Most days, I really do respect and admire law-enforcement personnel.  But I'm certain that the reader will understand how able-bodied men whipping up on septuagenarians just might sour my attitude a little.  Now if the Crips were fielding a float in the parade, I might understand a little paranoia on the part of a cop.  But a bunch of old folk accompanying a Bookmobile?

Now, I do well admit that the parade rules state that people couldn't march for social causes.  That would be the anti-fag clause, no doubt.  The organizers didn't want no assless chaps on display.  I git that.  But a group of folk displaying peace symbols, on a holiday celebrating a Catholic Saint canonized for bringing peace to Ireland*?  Yeah, that's a dangerous bunch of motherfuckers right there, ain't it?  Why didn't somebody in authority simply ask them not to carry the protest signs?  Would that have been too difficult?  Or was it simply just too enjoyable to use a nightstick on the hip of an overweight 65 year old woman?  Fun is where you find it, I guess.

Folks, this violence in the name of maintaining order has got to stop.  In Iraq, and here at home.  It's got to end or it will be the death of us all.  Violence is the tool and mother of chaos.  It does not birth order.  It never has, it never will.  Violence can keep you alive, but it will never 'make you safe'.  And the funny thing about brutality is that there's always someone who's better at it than you are.  The only real hope we have is companionship, unity, the group.  When cops start beating down grandmothers, it's time to say "Watch it, little man.  We are bigger than you."  Wanting peace is not an invite to predators, so why on Earth do we think it so?  I really wonder exactly what those CS cops were protecting and serving ...

*  I know that Patrick of Ireland was no pacifist, and much violence was perpetrated in his name.  But that ain't why we get drunk every March 17th, is it?