A Chicken Is Not Pillage

My Weekend Amusement

"Jhwygirl" calls me a liar for posting her exact words written, and then claims I owe her a defense against her accusations.

I’d expect that someone being called a liar – twice – would actually make some effort to prove me wrong.

No.  Sorry, little Puritopian.  I don't owe you shit.  If you want to prove that I'm lying, then offer evidence. 

Here’s a link to my twitter feed. Here’s a link to to the specific tweet in question that you intentionally obfuscated.

She tries, except the link she thinks she posted is broken, not that it would have proven me a liar in any case at all.  So sad.  You failed, kitten.  My response:

J’girl, your link doesn’t work. I didn’t take D, Gregory to task. That’s a lie. I took you to task for exactly what you wrote. Please do try again.

and

Now this is kind of funny:

I’d expect that someone being called a liar – twice – would actually make some effort to prove me wrong.

Expecting someone to react to lies is a wingnut kind of thing, and grossly arrogant. Faux News does that. Aaron Flint does that. Rush Limbaugh does that. The Havre Daily Corrupter does that. Jhwygirl does that. Just saying …

Given the behavior of the drama squad at 4 and 20, I expect this entire exchange to be deleted.  If it isn't then good on them.  If it is, at least it is preserved here.

Just like the U of M, and the city of Missoula, and the Puritopian illiterati these people need to get a fricking grip.

 

But hey, they have poems ...

Single Issue Voters and the Puritopian Will

I don't fault people for being single issue voters, when the issue they favor is one that affects them quite personally.  It's all the better when that issue is not a betrayal of other beliefs they might have.  I will never support people voting against their own self-interest, so it would be foolish to chide them when they vote for that best self interest.

D. Gregory Smith will not support Steve Bullock in his candidacy for the Governorship of Montana.  It looks like he's got a very good reason not to do so.   I admit to not having paid due attention to Heather Margolis in the primary, but will do so in the future.  That was inspired by Smith's impassioned plea for equality.

Notice please, that doesn't mean I don't have disagreement with D. Gregory.   I actually kind of do.  In my view of the law, the Constitution and democratic representation, I don't see that any Governor or Gubernatorial candidate should have the desire or will to overturn what has been clearly stated by the people.  They can foster a change in the Constitution, but not demand it.  That would be no better than a legislature that overturns the people's will to have access to medical marijuana, now would it?  CI 96 was passed by a significant majority of Montanans.  As awful as it is, it is the law that the executive must deal with because the people wrote it into the Constitution.  A Governor cannot and should not be able to overturn the will of the people in this state.  Unlike the medical marijuana initiative, this was a constitutional change, which can only be overturned by the people's vote or a federal judicial declaration of violation of rights.   I'm hoping the latter happens sometime in the near future.

Bullock's statement was not a support of GBLT individuals, and I understand that clearly.  But it was a statement of support for Montana law as passed by the people.  No one has a microscope to see into Bullock's soul such that we can parse his statement to be what we want, or to see what he meant by:

I do not favor changing the constitution

To be honest, I don't favor changing the Montana Constitution either, by non-Constitutional means.  The Governor should have no such power.  I think Bullock, as AG, knows this.  Maybe he favors CI 96, and maybe he doesn't.  That isn't what was asked of him.  Personally, if this issue directly affected me, I would state exactly what D. Gregory Smith did.  As it stands, Margolis should be considered, and that's a good thing. 

But then the Puritopians hoist their banner of "All or Nothing"!  One Montana blogger tweeted today:

Bullock's anti-equality message means less votes for governor of Montana. JUST SAY NO TO THE BULLOCK

Oh yeah, that's helpful.  Bullock pushed Gays to the back of the bus, and so he is evil and must be reviled.  Like Joan of Arc, holy writ must be observed, and Bullock spoke words of evil.  Stand against the Bullock!  Do any folk remember what happened to Joan of Arc?

There is no holy writ, save that doing the right thing must be recognized and considered.  Calling for people to "Just say no to the Bullock" is stupid, and actually could well stand against the desires that caused Smith to make his decision in the first place.   Calling for crucifixion of one who might favor your desires while allowing the opponents to gather strength is exactly what lead to the fiery end of many crusades, including that of Joan of Arc.  The Puritopians want it all, in one fell swoop, and will be sorely disappointed when that doesn't happen.  Worse still, they will thwart the desires of those who actually have a dog in this hunt, like D. Gregory Smith does.

 

The difference between "I will not" and "you must not" should be resoundingly clear.  Sadly, for the Puritopians, it never really is.

Nuance?

A few reminders for those who have become so learned that they've gotten stupid about the most basic things.

A linear function does not need to describe a "straight line".  It simply means that it's variable or variables are constrained by at least one constant.  Non-linear functions are (generally speaking) not constrained by a constant, but still subject to the extremity of inputs.  Regardless, it remains clear that all functions will moderate (become more controllable, more predictable) the more that extreme inputs are removed.  (And further clarification for the stupid, high school geometry *is* high school math.)

Triangulation is the effort to identify two points on the given line by taking a  position that is not directly between those points.  In political terms, it means staking a different position between the points of extreme, not on the line between them, in an attempt to draw one linear point towards the center.  Those who subscribe to triangulation as a net bad are truly engaging in straight line thinking.  They're being stupid.  One can triangulate by taking a point outside the linear boundaries of Democrats and Republicans to pull the median volume of the triangle to the right or the left.  The right has been very successful at that, using shock doctrine to accomplish the effort of pulling the popular will further to the right.  The deeply stupid scream "nuance" while thinking in terms of straight lines and blaming anyone who wants to move the triangle's volume in a favorable direction for not just wizarding such a miracle up.  A reminder.  Triangulation can take place outside the boundaries of the set extremes on the run of the triangle such that the volume moves leftward.  That's what many on the left are screaming for, but don't understand how they're shooting themselves in the foot by replacing movement with magical quantum leap.  Yes, if "we organize" this magical jump to personal satisfaction could happen .... And monkeys could fly out of my butt.  What organizing can do is move the volume of the triangle in a favored direction.  The Tea Party is committed to doing that, and that's why they will support Mitt Romney, even though they hate him.

Vacuums (discretely) do not exist in a vacuum.  If you remove all the air from a bottle inside a chamber filled with chlorine gas, it will not magically fill with liberal fairy dust.  If you uncork that bottle, it will fill with toxic gas, and it will do so in such a hurry, it's likely to break the bottle.  Removing Obama, Bauchus and Tester will not open the way for progressive heroes who will save us.  It will allow in Romney, Gingrich, Rehberg.  The vacuum will be replaced with toxic representation.  The deeply stupid think that somehow, some way, this will lead to 'organizing' that takes control of our governance.  I'd certainly appreciate it if even one of these so-called smart folk could explain how we're supposed to get to self-governance from that point, especially since they've rejected the idea of violence (which for the record, I have not.)

Finally, it is the ultimate of stupid to rely on chaos theory when you've already bought into Illuminati conspiracy.  Politics is chaos, if you actually wish to ignore the variables that make you uncomfortable and focus on those you prefer.  It is the height of stupidity to claim that politics is chaos when you've spent years insulting others because they don't understand how controlled politics actually is.   To claim that the rich choose our candidates and manipulate our representation and yet it's all CHAOS is truly and deeply stupid.  Pick one, Mark, because only the stupid think both can be real.  Either way, my post still holds true.  Defeat the extreme and you're closer to getting what you want (or didn't you think that chaos was describable by math as well?  Sorry kitten, it is.)

Finally, I appreciate Tokarski affording me another 'Wanda' moment.  I'm glad for him that he was born a white male American and never had to want beyond his desire to be 'different'.  I'm happy that he continues to read people smarter than himself, and pigeonhole them into his particular delusion, his mythology.  This gives me many laughs.

Otto:  Apes don't read philosophy!

Wanda: Yes, they do, Otto.  They just don't understand it.

Update:  Shorter Tokarski response:  I don't really know what he's talking about so I'll just denegrate it now,  and insult the reader's intelligence later.

 

Here's to a Leftward Moving 2012

2011 probably wasn't the best year for most folks, though there was considerable improvement for many.  Politically speaking, it's been one of the most polarizing years I can think of.  Here's hoping for a better 2012.

We can make that happen.  Many individuals, smart and otherwise, have argued loud and long that America has a two-party problem.  We have a center right party and a far right party.  I'm not going to argue that; I never would or have.  Here's the thing, though.  Our challenge, which should be clear, remains muddied.  How do we get a left party in control of our governance?

If 2010, an awful year, is any indication, then the path would be to kill off the center right party.  How'd that work out?  Not well, obviously.  Since handing the US House back to the Republicans, the 99%ers have been held hostage at least 5 times.  I'm certainly glad we got rid of those Blue-Dog Dems in favor of truly partisan tea-baggers.  After all, partisanship is the problem and getting rid of partisans for more strongly partisan folks is surely the answer.

Or not.  How about this?  If the country has moved to the right because we have a center-right party and a far-right party, maybe the solution in defending the left isn't to attack the anchor in the middle.  Just saying ...  Maybe, just maybe, if we destroy the far right, utterly obliterate them, then maybe we might have vision left to support the left.  Just maybe.  It's easy to see that destroying the far right would leave us with a center right party in control, and doesn't that suck.  Maybe it does, except ...

You've all taken high school math, right?  If you want a function to move in a desired direction, you don't remove a moderating variable.  You remove the extremes.  It is that simple.  Remove the far right and you have a median that resembles more the country in representation.  The center right party already contains those who are of the left.  Destroy the far right, and you can't help but have a policy forwarded that better favors the middle and lower classes.  More to the point, you have a starting position for moving policy and politics towards the left.  This isn't that goddamned difficult.  Remove people like Skees, Burnett and Rehberg and you are left with people who are more pliant to your needs.  Start from the center right, and you're  one helluva lot closer to where you want to go than giving the game away to the far right, as we liberals did in 2010.

Here's to a happy New Year, one in which liberals finally decide to fight back rather than let the right take our apathy as acquiescence.

'He Made Sure We're Screwed'

Forrest Gump:  "Stupid is as stupid does."

Forrest Gimp: 

I don’t care about the outcome of the Obamacare bill. Without it we’re screwed, but he (Obama) made sure that with it we’re screwed as well.

~sigh~  Obama didn't put Scalia or Thomas on the SCOTUS.  He didn't even have a chance to vote for or against them.  But it's somehow his fault that these two ethically challenged assholes are on the court ruling against the people.

Yes, stupid is as stupid does.  Blaming a person in whatever position for screwing you over when they had no say in the screwing is doing the stupid.  Thanks, Mark.

Moronic

If there is something that I cannot stand it's an idiot who thinks he can use logic as a cudgel, and doesn't understand what he's saying/writing.  Posting two alternatives, and requesting more, is not in anyway a fallacy as Mark Tokarski would present it.

First, he proclaims that I engaged in the fallacy of the Excluded Middle.  He obviously doesn't understand that since I didn't present violence as the negation of voting, I did no such thing.   The law of the excluded middle assumes that two things negate each other.  Apparently recognizing his error, he now claims that I and others have presented a False Dilemma.   The false dilemma assumes that there are only two choices possible.   To any who actually think, please notice that these are not the same.  ~sigh~  No.  It's a simple fricking question.  If we aren't to engage in violence or voting, exactly what will "organizing" accomplish?  It's a question.   Mark will provide no answer of the sort required.   If he responds at all, it will only be to continue positing failure on the part of others such that he not see the failure on his own part.

 

Yeah.  I really hate that.

Occupy Reality

I've been informed that police violence is making the 'occupy' movement stronger, in the face of remarkable evidence to the contrary.  The Occupy Movement is a worthy effort, but let's be real.  So far, it has accomplished next to nothing.  Just so that we're clear.

I'm going out on limb here, but I suggest that camp outs are not a mechanism of change.

Whatever happened to Occupy Missoula anyway?

 

UPDATE:  To the Drama Queen:  I'd say it's working out pretty fricking well.  Beyond personal whine, what do you have?

The Drama Queen Haz A Sad

The neighborhood drunk was apparently unhappy with his efforts at sympathy.  Not content with his sloppy "I Luv You, Man', he again attempts to turn the beige house against others in the neighborhood by mischaracterizing what has been written by others.  It's a classic troll.  And the Drama Queen bites, hook, line and sinker.

JC stupidly pens:

If politics is only all about process–the nuts and bolts an mechanics of electoral politics (the fluffery), then there is no room for vision or leadership, or building one’s actions out of a base built on solid principles, or motivated by the vision of a charismatic leader like MLK.

Well allow me to retort.

Not only is your premise flawed, JC, but your conclusion follows from nothing.  Politics isn't "only" about process, as you state. I've never said that, and neither has anyone I know.  Some of us focus on process, because that's who we are, and what we do.  What you've just stated is that those who are not you are denying what you desire.  We're stopping you from getting what you want, in your narrow mind.  Actually, we agree about much of what we want.  I just think you're a full-of-shit emoprog when you deny that there is a process by which we reach such a destination.

Here's a clue or two for you.  MLK is dead.  Get over it.  Nor was he solely responsible for the Civil Rights act.  Politicians passed that act, y'know, legislators?   Those folk get elected by a process.  At no point does a process like that negate a principle, or any of the principles which drive it.   What does negate that process and the principles behind it is whining about the process folk who are attempting to get you what you want because we haven't succeeded in providing you with a 'leader'.  Grow up.  This ain't recess, and you don't need the teacher to protect you from the bullies or demand that you get chosen first for dodgeball.

JC:

I’m learning that my cynicism needs to be tempered with letting others have their own experiences.

Seems like you need to learn a little bit faster, kitten.  No one owes you a "leader".   That isn't anyone elses role.  But we all do have  a part to play.  For some of us, like your daughter and myself, that part is process.

Just as Tokarski keeps wailing that "we" need to organize, and won't do a damned thing to accomplish that, JC keeps calling for a leader and refuses to be one.  No problem.  That happens all the time.  JC has been writing a great deal of good stuff about the Occupy Wallstreet protests.  But he won't go, he isn't there.  He would, no doubts, talk smack about others who aren't there because this is the Most Important Thingy Ever,  but yet he's not there.  Think on that for a second.  I'd bet that he doesn't have the money and he has to work, and that's why he hasn't joined this brave protest.  You know what?  That's process.  That is what process folk focus on, like me.  That's why I'm not there.  For me it was a simple decision, as I'm certain it was for the Drama Queen.  But his angst is so much more important.  Why would that be?  Why isn't he challenging Mark, the champion of extra party organizing,  for sitting on his ass in Colorado and instead JC's  uttering bullshit about what process folk do?

They See Me Rollin'. They Hatin'

I got hit with something last night that I admit leaves me angry and gobsmacked.  While chiding problembear for attempting unfunny humor about the mass death of our government, he decided to play internet tough guy.  He claimed that the 'bear' smacks 'the dog' across the floor.  So I had some fun with him, pointing out that he was agreeing with Rush Limbaugh, and I would love to see a fight between 'the bear' and 'the hog'.  My comment:

If you think yourself that tough, take on Limbaugh. You share the same sense of humor.

I’ve always wanted to watch a fight between a bear and a hog. My money’s on the hog.

It's his response that set me back more than just a bit.  Problembear:

this from someone who is only tough enough to threaten j-girl……

Wow.  That was rather shocking, considering that I've never threatened jhwygirl.  (Don't fret that you can't see those comments.  The Drama Queen is excellent at ass-covering.  That's why I copied those comments verbatum, with html.)  Ive had the Drama Twins (JC and Lizard) accuse me of slander (It's libel, dickheads) but they've never had the guts to actually provide any proof.  And here problembear accuses me of an actually crime, threatening is a crime online or off, and my surprise was overwhelming.  It was also educational.

I've butted heads with most every wingnut blogger in this state.  We've called each other names, and accused each other of all manner of ill-behavior.  Not once, not even once, has anyone accused me of threats against their person or lively hood.  Very much like Tokarski, it took "progressives" to cross that foolish line.  I give problembear this much credit.  He had the chutzpa to actually speak the truth.  He won't actually tell where this information came from, and his tracks of courage have been erased by the weak.  No surprise there.

I've been amazed, truly, at how virulent the anger at me has been from 4 & 20 Egobirds.  Now I at least know why.  Those folk are convinced that I have threatened the poor girl, with what I still have no idea and likely never will.  But the question remains out there.  How did these pricks get the idea that I threatened jhwygirl?  There is an obvious answer that suggests itself.  But none of them will actually give it.  And if they try, JC will delete it.

Jhwygirl has said that I am dedicated to hating on 4 & 20 Egobirds.  I wasn't before.  I am now.  Liars, egoists, assholes.  I am not happy with this decision, but it really doesn't matter does it?

No Shit, There I Was In The Congo, Part 2

I thought the dumbest thing I would read today was that the President wants to kill a Supreme Court Justice.  I was wrong.

Apparently, when politicians play their roles, it's just Kabuki theater, worthy of much disdain.  When citizens act like complete jackasses, it's "art".  Whocouldaknowed ...