A Chicken Is Not Pillage

Not Ended

Just questioning.  'Must admit that I'm not surprised both of you self-absorbed fucking dipshits missed the point of that post completely.  After all, it wasn't about *you*.

Update:  Just because I think she's a lying witch, I really have to ask:  Jhwygirl 'claims' that no blogger at 4 and Ego is "paid" to blog, yet other bloggers around the state are.  How does she know?  More to the point, how does any reader know that no blogger at that website isn't blogging on the state dime, yet supposedly obvious others are?  Others blog using 'inside knowledge' of state function obviously only acquirable from someone who garners government pay, yet strangely the 4 & 20 folk just pull what they know from the ether.  So obviously one website is "paid" and the other isn't.  Curious, don't you think?

The Ad Hominems have taken control of the Montana web'o'sphere, and I guarantee you right now, that the worst offenders are the ones who cry most foul that I point this out.

New Blood, And How I Wish It Could Be ...

A rather serious question:  Is it possible to foster new blood in the Montana blog'o'sphere?

My initial response is "No".  Given the appeal of Facilebook and the Twahters, there isn't much reason for people to blog anymore.  The larger political bases are covered, the sentimental self-indulgence has moved to Facebook, and the need to be needed has fostered Twitter.  So, from a purely user-need orientation, there is no point to blogging, for any of us.

From a reader-need perspective, there is little to be offered.  There is no safe place.  Every website is rife with trolls.  Concern trolls like Craig Moore, and Belief beggars like Tokarski.  Every website seems in intellectual competition with others.  The holy writ of 4 & 20 cannot be denied by anyone, and Intelligent Discontent is just pablum for the masses.  Dog forbid anybody should read Left in The West.  It isn't fashionable.  Montana Cowgirl is beneath notice, except maybe to EVERYONE,  and Montana Streetfighter can't be bothered to actually engage with any other blog with a link (or check their moderation queue, apparently.)   Then there are the flood control experts, mostly interested in releasing the Damn/Dam, commenters like Larry Kralj.  There is little point to actually reading blogs anymore.  And from a personal perspective, there's damn little point in writing them.

Still, I spent the afternoon looking for newer Montana blogs to support.  Yes I found a few and think it pointless to offer support.  Blogging probably is dead.  Over the next week, I will be archiving most of what I've written here, and then I will likely leave the Internet as 'we know it'.  After all, I pay for my website, like so very few others.  'Kinda like to have the money back.  I would love to help the newest Montana voices, but they seem to not want it, or my voice would simply feed the ego of those who have no choice but to follow theirs.  Don't get me wrong.  If this website doesn't go away, it will be because of my passion and love for posting about football.  You have no say in it, one way or the other.  (That was posted for concern troll, Craig.  And, yes, Tokarski, your comments will still end up in the spam folder.)

I want to use my free speech rights to give grades to the Montana online.  Here it is.

Treasure state politics:  D-  Nut up, you immature assholes.  You don't allow comments.  You don't allow dissenting voice.  You don't allow anything that establishes your credibility.  You kinda suck.

4 & 20:  Jay, you started this website and it was one of the best.  Turning it over to egos like Lizard?  Bad move.  No matter how many precious kudos this site gets from the Missoula community, it is still just a an inbred horrorshow.  Lizard doesn't seem to care at all about Montana or Montanans.   JC doesn't seem to care about anyone but himself.  Jhwygirl has fled, mores the pity.    Pete is still engaged, and that's the only reason this website deserves  a C.

Montana Streetfighter:  F.  What a hollow use for bandwidth.  You 'break news' that you can't and won't confirm.  You are a rumor mill, nothing more.  Half the comments you get likely come from you, yourself.  Yours is not a website.  It's a propaganda rag of pixels.  You don't engage with anybody in Montana; you don't seem to care about Montana at all.  You really suck.

Montana Cowgirl:  B +.  Despite the spite spewed your way, you do seem to break news important to us all.  I don't care whether it's Cowgirl, Cowgirls, or any random person.  You make news, and this is not a bad thing.

Should anybody wonder I would only give my website a B-.  I know my football, and that is my passion.  If you don't like the grades I've given, too bad.  Argue with me if you can.  I allow comments.  But wouldn't you efforts be better spent supporting the newest Montana websites?  We need new blood.  Go for that.

GOD, GUNS and FUN!

I've made it no mystery that I adore the so-called "gun-control" debate.  That's not because it's a debate.  It's hardly anything of the sort.  I adore it because it exposes deep feelings, harsh realities of life and lunacies  To myself, it's the 'debate' that is of interest.  Both camps, armed as they are with pseudo-facts and pride and bullets and hubris, claim the moral high ground and wail almost incessantly about the lack of respect that they so obviously deserve, when very few on either side have earned any sympathy or empathy at all.  Both sides, because there seem to be only two, call for Reason while offering every dodge, hustle, intimidating threat and stupid factoid available.  There is little reason to be had, and I adore that for the simple amusement of it all.

I work with a man whom I respect a great deal who believes very simply that we should only be allowed manual action rifles and shotguns for hunting and defense of stock.  There is no debate with him, no defense of holy rights or talk of 'efficiency' in putting holes in crap, or any political action to defend his view.  Simply put, if he were dictator for a day, he would establish law that we not have the best means to kill ourselves and others.  I respect his view because it's reasonable, if unrealistic.  He doesn't have to defend his view because it makes perfect sense, even in the modern world.  That it won't happen is beside the point.  He is reasonable about what would work to protect humans from themselves and others.

I haven't a doubt that some gun advocates reading this will be all butt-puckered about what I just wrote.  "You can't have that, and you don't have the right and TYRANNY!" they would scream.  ~sigh~  That doesn't make their side of the debate any more reasonable, just more shrill.  It isn't reasonable at all.  We aren't having a 'reasonable discussion', and likely won't.  Both sides want what they want, and will engage in any amount of intimidation, manipulation and silliness to get it.

Trust a self-described "comedy website" to be reasonable about this shouting match. 

5 Mind-Blowing Facts Nobody Told You About Guns

The points are simple:

1)  People who profit manipulate your sorry ass.

2)  No one really knows why nuts let loose with firearm destruction, and some have an interest in keeping it that way.

3)  Gun control would help solve a whole big bunch of gun deaths.

4)  Too many people on both sides talk shit about what they don't understand, and

5)  Guns are toys, not tools.  Outragasms don't address anything other than fear.  Stop that bullshit.

 

This isn't rocket surgery.  It's a cultural problem, not a gun problem.  There are things we could do, like background checks.  But the arguments against those are always handy ... TYRANNY!!!!  As long as this 'debate' exists, I will continue to enjoy the silliness.  Hey, it's what I do.  But I sincerely hope that we come out of it a better country, and a better species.

Still Fresh In That Awful Hurts Like Hell Kinda Way

Lizard's family has lost a friend, a companion, a beautiful child.  Though Lizard and I are a far cry from what anyone would consider 'friends' I've shed some tears on his behalf over the last 24.  Losing a dog (that sounds so tawdry, "a dog") is a thing I wish on absolutely no one.  Not even Dubya Bush.    I dread encountering posts or news on the Intertubes concerning the loss of a dog.  I know those people are in pain, and there is nothing that can be done save to share the pain, and wish it were not so.  Regardless of any religious belief, I find it the cruelest thing in the Universe that humans live so very many years, and dogs live so few.

I grew up with stock. some of whom I loved as pets.  The only animals I had as true companions were cats.  Our dogs were always Aussies, and they tend to be single person canines.  I was never that person and I was fine with that.  Over a quarter of a century ago, dogs came into my life that were 'mine', two little Shetland Sheep Dogs named Sheena and Fenris.   Brother and sister.  They were 'vocal' and messy and I couldn't have loved them more.  But, at the request of my human companion at the time, I gave them up because we were moving into married student housing.  I cried for 4 full hours, doubling over in agony, and have frequently told people since that day was one of the most painful in my entire life.  When Chris and I first got a dog together, I told my beloved that I will never give up a canine companion again.  I love Chris for so many reasons, not the least of which is that she so completely understands and agrees.

A little over 3 years ago, we had Mara put to sleep.  I really kinda thought I was over that.  Yet every time I hear or read of someone losing a dog, I simply can't help crying.  Silly people have called orgasm 'the little death'.  No.  Just No.  Losing a companion that loves so completely and so very honestly, that is a little death.  A part of you just goes away.  I don't believe in Rainbow Bridges or happy reunions at the Dog Park in the sky.  These beings whose love is among the best to be had are just gone, taking a part of who you are with them.  That's a wound that never heals.  It will always be fresh, in that awful 'Hurts like hell' kinda way.

Yet we go on, and indeed we should.  We stupidly fall in love with even more dogs, knowing that another part of our hearts will get 'removed' someday in the future.  And that truly is okay, because each one adds so much to what we experience when we are alive, and they are alive to add to it.  They do what few other humans can do.  They see us as the best of what we can be.  They don't question, or demand agreement.  They don't sit in judgement.  They don't care if our farts smell or we yell at them in frustration or that we act like they are somehow lesser beings or that we got the raise at work or that we like a manicured backyard more than their playful antics.  They just think we are all that and then some.

Maybe when I get older and even more of a curmudgeon, I'll be able to say a hearty ~pshaw~ when someone I know loses a good friend.  That isn't this day. Lizard, I really do share your pain, and understand the depth of love it took to generate.  My sympathy.  All my sympathy.

Things I Have Learned This Week

This is what the Internets have taught me this week:

One cannot trust anything on TV or pointless YouTube videos, but don't dare question anyone else's lying eyes.

Don't dare question anyone else's lying eyes with such paltry falsehoods like math.

Newtonian physics works the way we want it to work, because using math would be a lie.

Distrust of evidence is more 'truthy' than examining it.  Skepticism has been turned on it's head.

Photoshop can do ANYTHING!  Go Adobe!

Playing one's harmonica can bring joy (that's actually true.)

Requiring the acquisition of information is more nutty than letting people choose to get publicly beaten.

The Constitution is the best defense against what will never happen, unless it's the Constitutional mandate for a US postal service.

The Constitution is only "worth defending" to be followed if it makes the US money.

People died to give us the Second Amendment, but apparently not because of it.

Video Games are violent, evil and inflame our youth.  There is no point in consulting the Constitution on that question ...

I could go on for hours.  I won't.  You can thank me later.

Rambo Moms and Beastly Bulging Men

Confession time:  I've spent an enormous amount of time paying attention to the current round of firearm legislation debates.  It's not because I'm committed to one side or the other.  It's because I'm fascinated with the arguments themselves, which are so very often completely and laughably stupid.  It's like watching mental train wrecks in real time.

I've made it no mystery that I have great sympathy for the rational firearm control arguments.  It's not because I agree with them, but more because they aren't, for the most part, completely insane.  They tend to be more factual, less personal and they often focus more clearly on the goal most all of us share.  Frankly, it's hard to have sympathy for arguments that are sensationalistic, fantastic and fearful, like those foisted by Gayle Trotter:

Uhhm, what?  Gun control regulation disfavors women because AR-15s are scary against the 3,4,5 hardened criminals invading your home, and the wimmens need something light and easy to shoot?  That is what she just argued, right?  So let's set the stage:

Molly homemaker with her brood of precocious but not at all misbehaved children is simultaneously cooking dinner, vacuuming the floor, planning her next pregnancy and doing dishes, when suddenly, the MENS break in!  There have to be at least 3,4,5 of them, beastly bulging hardened criminals, no doubts with prison tattoos and an agenda of rape, carnage and cannibalism!  If only Molly's husband were home (or not passed out on the couch watching BassMasters) he could engage these ruffians in hand-to-hand struggle, given his superior physical prowess, all 3,4,5 of them.  But no, Molly is left only to her whits and her trusty assault rifle.  She deftly unslings the weapon, and with terrible accuracy she fires into the chest of the first Brute.  Of course, the .223 is kind of a poodle-shooter so she requires 15 more rounds from her 100 round drum to drop the monster in his tracks.  The other 2,3,4 beasts, seeing how scary her Bushmaster looks, flee in terror of Molly.  The day is saved, and ... Scene!

If you can read that without at least cracking a smile, then you are either at least as much of a fantasist as Gayle, or you know nothing about firearms and the concept of initiative.  Here's some of what I'm getting at:  1)  The best weapon for home defense is small, light and easy to use effectively under pressure.  I suggest bird-shot in a pistol or a small caliber shotgun.  2)  Home invasions happen far more rarely than mass or accidental shootings.  3)  When home invasions do occur, it is rare that the invader is of a right mind to be rational, and if they are, they are rarely unarmed.  Here in Bozeman, just this past week, a 'home invader' was repelled by being swatted at with a broom-stick.  Not very rational, and most certainly not a "hardened dangerous criminal".  4)  A gun's effectiveness is absolutely proportional to its proximity to a ready shooter.  If these fragile and vulnerable wimmens that Trotter speaks of aren't packing a *rifle* at all times, then it likely won't do them much good as a defense.  5)  I've written it a hundred times and been proven right a hundred times.  The best defense against a home invasion is a large breed dog.

Trotter's little fear-fantasy fails to be persuasive because of it's obvious absurdity.  But it truly and ultimately fails because it relies on an assumption that underlies almost every stupid argument from the pro-gun crowd.  Trotter thinks that someone is going to take her gun away.  Uhh, no.  Not going to happen.  Simply put, that's why I don't fear this debate or feel all that emotionally attached to either side of it.  I don't fear that someone will take my guns.  I don't fear registration or control of sale.  I don't fear an "assault weapons ban" because prohibition has always proven useless.  If I want an AR-15, (and I do) I'll get one eventually.  But the second I start to argue that I "need" one, or that I'm a victim because someone else doesn't think I "need" one when I think I 'really do', then folks, please point and laugh at me.  Just like I'm pointing and laughing at Gayle Trotter, and you should be too.

Championship Playoffs - 2013

Dis.a.POINT.Ed!  And that's really all it is.   I am as shocked as anybody that I took this Bronco's loss with a bit of detachment.   They did not play a great game, or in some respects even a good game.  I would rather this, than that they would have defrauded their way into the Super Bowl.  If one wants to dissect that game, I suggest that much better than I have already done so.   I would simply like to point out a few of the Broncos who did play championship level football, which hasn't been written of ad nauseum.   Wesley Woodyard did a terrific job.  He contained Pitta for most of the afternoon.  He was always involved in run support.  This kid, much as Rod Smith quietly became a premiere receiver, is quickly and quietly becoming a premiere linebacker.  Sadly, the second excelling Bronco was the punter, Britton Colquitt.   With a bit of help from great special teams play, Colquitt had a terrific day pinning Jacoby Jones for minimal return yardage.   And finally, the shortest man in the NFL set one of its biggest records.  Trindon Holliday ran a punt and a kickoff back for a touchdown.  No one, until now, has done that in the playoffs.

Still, I was 3-1 in last weeks picks, again.  Though my heart isn't nearly as into it as before, the Championship games are set.

NFC

San Francisco 49ers (2) at Atlanta Falcons (1)

During the first half last week, Atlanta looked like a team that should share the best record in the NFL with the Broncs, in part due to Seattle mistakes.  Then the wheels came off, and the Seahawks almost stole the upset.  What should have been a blowout became a squeaker for the Falcons.  They look vulnerable in the secondary, not a pretty circumstance to bring against the 'Niners.  For San Francisco, the Divisional round was the Colin Kaepernick show.  He had 180+ yards on the ground, and when Green Bay did put a spotter on him later in the game, he threw the ball with great authority.  This kid is a serious weapon, and could likely make all the difference in the Georgia Dome.  Though Kaepernick won't likely put up nearly the gaudy rushing numbers from last week, repeating the two rushing touchdowns is not at all out of reach.

The geographic advantage lies of course with Atlanta.  They still have the relative advantage in the passing game.  Tony Gonzalez, and the immanent threat of his possible retirement, offers the Falcons an emotional boost.  But, the Falcons will have to be able to control the line of scrimmage on offense, and that's something of an *if*.  Though my wife thinks I may be 'jinxing her boys',  I think the 49ers have this in a close contest.

San Francisco - 34, Atlanta - 31

AFC

Baltim0re Ravens (4) at New England Patriots (2)

I've written before that I don't think anyone can beat the Patriots in Foxboro.   Well, maybe.  The loss of Rob Gronkowski means that the Ravens will have a small edge in the pass rush, and can focus more on Hernandez and the tailbacks coming out of the back field.  Vereen and Ridley have been impressive on the ground and as receivers.  And Brady is still the best at the quick game, all of which usually amounts a to 35+ points even against good defenses.

The Patriots defense has proven very capable against the run, and if they can neutralize Arian Foster, they can certainly stuff Ray Rice.  But the Ravens have one of the more frightening groups of receivers in the league with Anquan Boldin, Torrey Smith and Jacoby Jones.  The Raven's offense boils down to Flacco, whether he has a good day or a bad day.  I don't think anyone is used to him having two good playoff days in a row, so maybe he's due.  The emotional edge will certainly be with the Ravens, after beating Denver last week.

Watching this game will be difficult for me.  It's one of those where I won't root for the team I think can, should or will win.  I want them both to lose, the question is which I want to lose more.  I still want Ray Lewis retired and gone.  I want the legacy of Art Modell gone.  And I've written too many times already about my disdain for Belichick and the Patriots.  Strangely, I will likely be rooting for the Ravens  But that doesn't mean I think they can or will win.

Baltimore - 28, New England -38

Common Ground

In response to my last post, Craig Moore attempted, poorly, to catch me up in some kind of hypocrisy and he missed my point completely.   That's not very surprising.  He has an agenda and I was being deliberately obscure, though using terrific music in the effort.  So, for those few who might want to know what I was thinking, I just figured I'd explain it.

Back in 2004, the 'Brady Bill' assault weapons ban on sale was set to expire.  Both Presidential candidates in debate waffled about their support for such a thing, politically blaming Congress for what at the time, amounted to inaction concerning a 'hot button' issue in the great culture war between right and left.  A few things have happened since then.  An asshole with two handguns and a lot of loaded clips became the most prolific mass shooter in American history at Virginia Tech.  An asshole who looks like Sideshow Bob dressed in combat gear shot 70 people in a theater, killing 12.  And an asshole walked into a school and killed 20 six and seven year old children, as well as 6 adults trying to save those lives.  As Craig pointed out, in 2004 I called the gun control debate trivial.  It isn't trivial anymore.  Things do change.  For one, the NRA has convinced a remarkable amount of America that gun control means gun confiscation.  For two, we've elected a black President, a President that many including the NRA have worked to convince people wants to take your guns to spur racial fear.  (It should be noted that Obama is the first President elected twice by a majority of the popular vote since Dwight Eisenhower.)  And three, oh yes, assholes are mass killing our children.

Here we are in 2013 having the gun control debate again.  The political will has shifted, but it seems the arguments never do.  That fascinates me more than any policy change.  Policy follows the wind of culture, but culture follows the desires of those who make it.  Since the St. Reagan endorsed 'Brady Bill' passed, FAUX News has become the dominant source of TV misinformation.  The Tea Peeps have risen.  The NRA has shifted focus from promoting gun safety and responsible ownership to lobby support for gun manufacturers and universal ownership of their product, regardless of qualification.  The SCOTUS has decreed a right to keep arms, though still refuses to address the qualifying clause.  We have the Bush doctrine of foreign policy which says 'get them before they get you'.  And our culture, politics and policy has become increasingly divided, antagonistic and extreme.   Yet the arguments concerning gun control really haven't changed that much, save in decibels.

Since the Newtown shootings, I've had several arguments with my brother concerning efforts of gun control.  These haven't been policy arguments.  On policy, we probably are fairly much in agreement, though I think he would favor a more extreme interpretation of such.  No, our arguments have been about 'the opposition'.  He recently posted a Facebook update about the ill-use of his good reason at the hands of "liberals".  His reasoning was okay, for what it was, but he is doing the same as those awful "liberals" are doing.  He is striving in all righteous victim-hood against those most extreme who influence policy the very least.  He paints all gun control advocates with the very same brush.  They are going 'take his guns'.  Of course, they are arguing against gun-nuts, gun addicts,  redneck shooters, holding my brother to a standard of wacko that isn't even remotely applicable, which is exactly the same mistake as he makes with them.  That's the part of the argument that fascinates me.

The progression of the argument is lamentably historic:  You can't talk about this tragedy because it's still raw and people are emotional.  But people do and they should.  Of course, removed from the tragedy, people are still emotional, both sides attempting the high moral ground.  Both sides hold that the very worst of the other is the norm.  Gun Grabbers!  Gun Addicts!  Shortly after the Newtown shootings, I posted on Twitter that anyone who brings up 'penis' isn't really interested in discussing gun control.  They are interested in demeaning gun owners.   I attempted, gently, to point out to others that those who are concerned about gun crime will never, ever, come to take your guns away.  EVER.  But that is where the argument has gone and will continue to go, nonetheless.   ~sigh~

Which brings me back to the previous post and my point in posting it.  Common ground.  This should be the point of discussion but I have no confidence it will be.  'Gungrabbers' want to protect their children, their families, their property and their society.  'Gun-nuts' want to protect their children, their families, their property and their society.  It doesn't matter if you use a Broadsword or an AR-15 or legislation.  You want the same things, people.  Get a fricking grip.

Death Comes In Many Ways

To those who think I have no sympathy for the anti-gun-control argument, you'd best revisit the rhythms I worship.

 

Bang Bang!

Apparently, the Intertubes are not rightly focused on football, AS THEY SHOULD BE, but rather focused on things like 'gun control'.  The arguments are fierce and angry, and pretty much all over the map.  We should arm kindergartners.  We should arm janitors!  We should make all our actions so dangerous that no, NO ONE, would dare make a dangerous move. We should take away anything dangerous.  We should protect minds from the concept of doing anything dangerous.  We should protect people from the very concept of danger!  Right ...

USian thought is what it is.  We've known this for a while, at least if we would take time to breath and think about it.  We are a violent culture, and somehow must come up with rules for living with one another without resorting to violence.  If you don't believe that this has been on the minds of folk for a while, then let's step back to 1986, 24 years ago.

Modern Day Cowboy

I would embed the video, but every company is owed their pound of flesh.   We, the people, are allowed no ounce of enjoyment without paying for it to an overlord.  I wonder, could that be what makes us so angry?  So willing to commit violence?  That every thought, every creation, every fear has a price tag?  Just consider it.

Regardless, enjoy some '80's metal.  It's a really good video.