Pursuant to the post down here, some false-flaggers are now showing how insane their theories are. Those who claim a 'free energy beam weapon' was involved in 9/11 will invariably point out that a large storm system was headed for New York City shortly before the events of that day. But something, ~wink wink~, something steered that storm out to sea. Hmmmm...
Enter Alex Jones, again. The Government surely has some energy weapon that can control weather, and maybe used it against the hapless citizens of Moore, Oklahoma. How else can one explain tornadoes, in Oklahoma?
From this Metafilter thread, mostly about the Grandaddy of Using Conspiracy for Profit, there is a link to a righteous rant by the blogger MightyGodKing. He, like myself, has lost all patience with the false-flagger conspiracy loons who blame all criminal malfeasance on subtle and unknowable government evil. He points out what I have as well many times, and quite frankly does it much better than I ever have. The 'Conspiracy Theorists' who scream "False Flag" over any and all tragic events are trying desperately to have an important place in the consequences of the horror. MGK writes:
"because yelling “false flag” doesn’t really have anything to do with the
plausibility of a conspiracy theory, but instead relies on the
desperate need of people – and, let’s be honest, generally white dudes,
because it is white dudes who comprise the overwhelming majority of
conspiracy theorists – to feel victimized when something bad had absolutely nothing to do with them."
That is the long and short of it. The point of engaging conspiracies has nothing to do with engagement at all. It is appropriating pain for personal self-importance. Frankly it is no different than the companies widely reviled who use tragic events to market their products. That's not engagement, but rather manipulation and as MGK notes, it's awfully assholish.
"falseflaggers don’t care because their theories aren’t about logic or
reason or anything at all. Their theories are about making tragedies
that happen to other people about them. It’s a fundamentally
narcissistic response to tragedy – to not only ask “how does this affect
me” but to twist the facts of the event to create a narrative so that
you are more likely to be affected. It’s an asshole move, plain and
simple, and falseflaggers deserve to be treated like assholes, because
they’re assholes."
When government decides to do shady unethical stuff, typically the last thing they want to do is, y’know, call attention to it.
“I’ve drafted a new bill to give us complete control of all milk
production in the country. But first, let’s blow up a few thousand cows
so everyone’s attention will be firmly on the dairy industry. THEN
we’ll sneak it by them. Heh, heh heh.”
More to the only point I would add to what MightyGodKing writes is what another commenter in his thread suggests:
Believing in conspiracies makes you smart. Any time you get an online
discussion of this kind of thing, someone will announced that while the
official story may fool the sheeple couch potatoes who accept whatever
lies the mainstream media spoonfeed them, smart people look behind the
lies and uncover the truth! As CS Lewis once observed, this is an
awfully seductive delusion.
The idea that one is smarter than 'everyone else' is seductive, but also instructive. It clarifies to any rational person that False Flaggers don't want to engage but rather seek desperately to hide from any engagement. It is circular reasoning that shows disagreement is evidence of 'lesser thinking', and so should (must) not be taken seriously. The false flagger knows more, cares more, has more importance to reality and existence than the person who points out that they might be wrong. Of course they're not wrong; every breath or word of question and/or disagreement proves how right they are. It's a particular invulnerability to the truth, based solely on the need to be important.
Seriously, there are enough real conspiracies in the world to occupy our time. Cops acting illegally and hiding behind the 'thin blue line', Wall Street in general, the Republicant's desire to drown government in a bathtub and many Democrats desiring to help them, Obama's flawed "Grand Bargain", 'the Left's' betrayal of labor, the LDS Church opposition to the icky 'gays' being people, ALEC, the NRA, the Patriot Acts, the 'War On Drugs'. These things are not hidden; they're in your face every fricken day. BUT, they don't afford one a sense of being a superhero who sees what's *really* going on, and latching oneself like a remora to tragedy in order to feel important while being disengaged. Those common place conspiracies are just life that we all deal with in this 'bestest country EVAR!'
So, next time you encounter someone talking smack about 'free energy beam weapons', 'actors hired to play amputees' and people disappearing mysteriously from a tragedy, nod sagely and walk away (never losing eye contact until at a safe distance.) You won't convince them of the crazy they spout, and they won't help you in covering anything that is a real concern. They're in it for themselves, may they find their place in Heaven or build to good Karma. But it isn't about you, and never will be. It is about, to them, how the horrors of the world are theirs to own.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Though there might be a few of Montana's fine reporters who would disagree, I'm certainly not as harsh on the Montana media as some of my blogging contemporaries are. Or at least, not as consistently harsh. In truth, it's because the Montana media has given me no reason whatsoever to care about them. I don't take them seriously beyond the joke most media outlets have become. Examples:
Colter Nuanez, a UofM graduate, quickly became one of the absolute best sports writers the Bozeman Comical had ever hired. His work was tireless and exceptional. Showing no hint whatsoever of a Grizzly bias, he was 'the truth' concerning all things Bobcat. Unfortunately, he also had a penchant for talking truth about the state of journalism at the Bozeman Chronicle. On the Bobcat Nation forum, Nuanez wrote this:
“But you must understand that we are all handcuffed by money-hungry
corporate f***ks who want to run newspapers as a business rather than an
essential part to maintaining a free-flowing democracy.”
Yes, that got him fired. But it needed to be said. The firing didn't go over well, nor has his replacement, as the comments that City Desk editor Becker received can attest. My questions for editor Becker are a bit more direct. I wrote a letter to the editor chiding the Chronicle for firing Nuanez, and I know damned well that I am not the only one. To date, not a single one of those letters have been published. Why ever not? ass-coverer in chief Stephanie Pressly swoops in to tell us all that Colter was fired because he was "violating company policies". Translated from the businessese, that means that Nuanez was fired for pissing off "money-hungry greedy corporate fucks".
The short version of what I'm getting at is this: Nuanez wasn't a reporter covering the rich and powerful who upset some politician or powerful figure from a shadow control. The only ones he upset were those who expected him to be a mouthpiece for their will to profit, based on journalism. Sports journalism no less. Seriously people, if a sports reporter, an extremely good one, can get fired for the 'policy violation' of telling the truth of his employment what credibility does any journalism have left? Can I get a resounding "NONE"?
Fast forward to today. The Helena Incompetent Record had to "discipline" a copy editor for changing an AP story. The story of PRESIDENT Barack Obama's trip to Asia was changed from "Obama was born in Hawaii" to read "Obama was allegedly born in Hawaii". Did anyone at the Incompetent Record notice? Of course not. Tom Laceky, a retired Associated Press staffer sure as hell noticed, and pointed out that something needs to be done about this egregious lack of journalistic effort. So, an unnamed copy editor will be 'disciplined'. My faith in journalism is restored.
So here's the score: Tell the truth: -1 job. Tell a blatant and offensive lie: ???????????
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.
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.
