The list of Greatest Hits for my very favorite Really Awful Political Candidate keeps growing. In a discussion about the GOP war on women, a political gadfly once again tried to derail the discussion by calling President Bill Clinton a rapist. ~yawn~ What perked up my interest, however, was a comment from candidate Norma Duffy (slogan: Fuck off and get a life!) It was typically reactionary, and full of her trademark mangling of the written word. She wrote:
Ah Ingy, let’s just say there were no victims in the Clinton /Lewinsky
thing. She was an immature sleaze( yes a woman can call another a
sleaze, but a man shouldn’t) who had done this sort of thing before and
President Clinton was an Testosterone accident looking to happen.
Let's just disregard, for a moment, that men have "Testosterone accidents" (I think I've only really had those while sleeping, and it's kind of embarrassing), and the implication that women's sexual desire is simply an 'estrogen accident' .?. The part that stands out is the claim that women can call each other "a sleaze", but a "testosterone accident" prone man shouldn't. Hmmm.
Now, it could be the case she was alluding to the idea that the term can rightly be used ironically or as a bridge of conspiratorial comradery, the way that some folks use "nigga" or how girlfriends might call each other a 'slut' or 'bitch' in fun. But that's not the manner in which Norma Duffy used it. She referred to Monica Lewinski in purely judgmental terms as a "sleaze", a mark of shame for desiring sex with a man who is attractive, powerful and receptive. By extension, it was okay that Ann Coulter referred to Sandra Fluke as a slut, but not that Rush Limbaugh did so. Hmmmm.
This is only tangentially related to the topic, but someday, just once,
I’d love to read you posting a moral, or even rational, foundation for
such idiocy, Norma.
It is my bad for calling her pronouncement "idiocy". After all, it's possible that she did have a moral and/or rational reason for why women can judge other women's sexuality and men "shouldn't". After all, we don't have 'estrogen accidents' the way women do. Ms. Duffy's response was - disappointing. Certainly not moral and absolutely not reasonable.
And then we Hear from the Righteous Man who continually believes he is
better at knowing a woman’s definitions about others, then the woman
So, apparently, I was wrong to even ask for a definition. Two things:
This kind of bullshit is what makes it very very difficult for men to get involved in the ideal and cause of feminism, or be accepted if we already are. There are apparently some unwritten rules which we aren't even allowed to ask about. (that isn't typical of most women who espouse feminism, but very typical of RAPC Duffy.)
If I were Jeffrey Welborn, I would publicize this comment from Norma Duffy widely across Beaverhead County. I'm certain every voter who believes in gender equality would love to know that, as a legislator, Norma would reserve to herself the right to decide what you are allowed to think and questioning what she thinks is merely 'sexism', if you are prone to testosterone accidents, of course.
I honestly think I have encountered the funniest comment ever online. Norma Duffy, famous for her electoral battle cry of "fuck off and get a life", thinks she has grant of right over online comments. Her dictate:
1) Left In The West lives. No, I'm not the one posting, nor should that influence participation. It might be at least polite to say hello to Carla Augustad.
2) I have a fantasy football league that will be hella fun. The general scoring is set to be prolific. I've altered the scoring to punish bad play, and have included a whole lot of defensive aptitude. We're lookng for about 3 more 'team owners'. If you have an interest just for fun's sake, let me know. My email addy is easy to find.
3) The most viewed post I've exposed to the wild in the last 3 years is the post where Stoya has an orgasm. It's funny to me how many lefty folk claim that ignoring me is wise, and yet their IP addresses seem to have viewed that post. ~heh~.
I felt compelled to create 2 new tags for this post. It's been a while coming, nonetheless. This will be mostly an opinion piece. If you're expecting links or narcissistic mention then you will likely be disappointed.
One has not been able to read the blogs or the Twitters, or FaceofEvilBook for months now without encountering the dire stories of drone strikes, Kill Lists, the maniacal psychopath Obama and his blood lust or tales of innocence destroyed by the Skynet machines ... Drones! The righteous wrath is coming from the right and the left, though I would be remiss in failing to point out that most of the outrage is coming from the left, and much of the 'America, FUCK YEAH!' is coming from the right. To many on the left, unmanned drones are the horror that spies on us as we plot a new government, as well as the devices that kill entire wedding parties in WhoGivesAFuckistan. To many on the right, drones are the crushing fist of Obama that will spy on our crops for the EPA, and force us into the FEMA camps.
Where the hell have these people been for the last 20 years? Or more to the point, where have they been for the last century? For over a hundred years science fiction writers have been scribbling about unmanned war machines. If one needs to go further than that, then the jewish tale of the Golem is about the good and evil of an inhuman killer controlled by those with agenda. These dread devices are not a new outrage; they were fricking inevitable. It was going to happen, people. The only question was "when". 'Walky-talky' wristwatches? Inevitable. Social networks based on world-wide communication? Yes, actually inevitable. Unmanned machines that fly through the air? Yep, you got it. Inevitable. These are machines, devices. They have no moral will. The question concerning those has never been whether we would have them, but how we would use them. Based on that alone, I find most of the outrage silly.
Every new technology faces opposition based on moral value. Some passed that test, like cel-phones. Some fail that test, like Nukes. Consider how long it took us to get over that fear ... Oh wait, we haven''t yet. Drones are no different than cel-phones. We see the bad use they can be turned to, but fail to recognize that these technologies exist, and there isn't a damned thing we can do to stop their use.
But wait! Obama has a kill list! Obama wants to spy on farmers! Obama, blah blah, blah. Every President since Clinton has had this technology at his disposal. I grew up in the Bitterroot valley, where the fly over of SR-71s was frequent. Screw black helicopters. Anything that needed to be seen could be from those. It was the technology of the time. Drones have replaced the SR-71. Just as we needed to learn how to deal with ultimate spy plane, we need to learn how to deal with the next ultimate spy plane, which doesn't have a human on board. And it really doesn't matter which man sits in the White House; the technology will be used. I'm kinda thinken' that we have a job to make certain that the man (or woman) in the White House uses this technology for good.
Drones aren't going away, anymore than nuclear weapons did back when this same argument was being made about them. They're not going anywhere. The choice in every election going forward from this has nothing to do with whether this technological clock can be turned back. It obviously can't. It's time to buck up and admit. Who do you want to use it? Mitt Rmoney? The future Mitt Rmoney? It's time to adapt, people.
I've posted comments at least a dozen times that the left has abandoned labor to it's own detriment. I've been vocal that that schism has affected communities in Montana harshly, most notably Missoula. As Union labor found itself increasingly silenced, and unemployed, workers have flocked to the false "your own bootstraps" philosophy of the right. People who were raised to believe in gainful employment have found themselves cast aside in political will in favor of Reagan's treasured 'welfare queens', or the habitat of the lop-eared spotted jackalope. And those people got pissed off. Meanwhile, the Left, now deep believers in Gaia mysticism, social safety nets for those who agreed with 'the agenda', freedom and safety for the folks in Whogivesafuckistan and the evils of the rapacious corporations who used to employ union labor, have lost sight of the political will that actually scared their enemies. They have no governor on self-desire, and then wonder why they find themselves alone amidst a sea of people who really don't like their agenda much.
Almost every time I've written such blasphemy (the Left can do no wrong, you know), I have been dismissed, poo-pooed, told I'm not worth responding to. Of course I'm wrong. The left loves them some labor ... except they don't. They haven't for some time. I've meant to write more on this but really haven't cared enough to do so. The Left is welcome to it's fantasies, but will rarely understand political will. My sympathies are with people who want better lives, not ideologues. Fortunately, others write about what I haven't, like Mark Ames at naked capitalism:
Aryeh Neier, founder of Human Rights Watch and its executive director for 12 years, doesn’t hide his contempt for the idea of economic equality as one of the key human rights. Neier is so opposed to the idea of economic equality that he even equates the very idea of economic equality and justice with oppression—economic rights to him are a violation of human rights, rather than essential human rights, thereby completely inverting traditional left thinking.
And that brings me to the ACLU today—the most depressing part of this story. I had an inkling that the ACLU had abandoned labor before my simple exercise check of their website. Mike Elk has shared with me some of his research into this subject. And it’s well known that the ACLU vigorously supported the disastrous Citizens United decision; the ACLU also took $20 million dollars from the Koch brothers, whose libertarian outfits have played a major role in making Citizens United a reality. Supposedly that money was meant to “fight the Patriot Act”—which is odd, considering that the director of the Koch brothers’ Center for Constitutional Studies at Cato and Vice President for Legal Affairs at Cato, Roger Pilon, explicitly supported the Patriot Act from 2002 through 2008, and that the Kochs’ Cato Institute hired John Yoo to serve on their editorial advisory board for the Cato Supreme Court Review. One should be skeptical when it comes to Koch “donations” sold to the public as charity work in the service of human rights.
By all means, read the whole thing.
At no point whatsoever am I arguing or advocating for support of the right. Yet many on the left are, because they don't understand what being 'the left' really means. It doesn't mean wailing about climate change while helping those who profit from climate change get elected. Being "Left" doesn't give one an insight into the secret life of trees that some brute will cut down for a paycheck. The LEFT won't get anything if they don't have the will of those who work behind them. The 'left' should be all about labor, but strangely thinks that Lynx habitat is more important than clean drinking water. The left really should consider that the ACA might be a good thing, if one could support the good without insulting those who actually have the political will to make it happen.
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.
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.
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.
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.