A Chicken Is Not Pillage

TSN Really Needs To Get A Grip

I've met Bob Adney.  He really is very committed  (to what, I have no idea).  But, on the heels of his compatriot lying his ass off, Bob is now taking Congress to task for being Congress.

I was reading an article on Fox News this morning that got my blood boiling.

That's kind of FOX's job.  That you don't get that, Bob, does not speak well of you.

It was about Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson, entitled Democratic Lawmaker Likens Health Care Crisis to a ‘Holocaust.‘  Rep. Grayson also said, “Republicans want Americans to “die quickly” if they get sick.”

Yep.  That's what he said.

To further complicate the matter Rep. Grayson has said that he will not apologize for what he said, “Because I said the truth.”

See, this is Bob's problem.  He's not once clarified what Grayson said that was offensive, and should be apologized for.  44,000+ Americans die every year due to lack of health care coverage, and Grayson made that very clear.  A preventable sum of deaths, that we take no action to prevent, is indeed a holocaust.    The Republicans, in charge of Government for 6 years, took no action.    One can only assume that they want this needless death to continue.  Do you have a better argument, Bob?  No?  Didn't think so.

Republicans are calling for him to be punished and a “resolution of disapproval” passed.  This is what was done against Congressman Joe Wilson for his infamous “you lie” comment.

Grayson didn't lie.  Wilson did.

Democrats are saying, that Grayson doesn’t need to be condemned and according to an email from Pelosi, “Members of Congress should focus on the issue at hand: ensuring quality, affordable and accessible health insurance for all Americans.”

Shouldn't they?  Isn't that what Republicans have been calling for, with their lack of any plan even?

This is EXACTLY the kind of crap that makes our Congress such a complete and utter failure.

I'm sorry.  I don't remember your post condemning Republicans for wasting time with condemnation of Joe Wilson.  What's that?  You thought that worth ignoring?  Of course you did.  Congress is only wasting time when you will lose the argument.

Instead of actually working on issues such as, helping taxpayers, cutting burdensome regulations, and restoring personal liberties Congress is arguing like little kids on an elementary school playground.

See the above, Adney.

Honestly, can you imagine if this happening at your place of business?

How old are you?  Who do you work for?  To me, you seem a puppy.  Let's be truthful.  In most places of business, such time wasting is almost casual.  It is expected as part of the power games.  Wasteful?  No shit, Sherlock.  But you pretend that it doesn't happen as if you have any clue.

Democrats and Republicans sit in DC and find little things to blow out of proportion in a pathetic attempt to score a few political points.  This is not a Republican or Democrat problem; it’s a Washington DC problem.

Yes, yes it is, Bob.   It's both their damned problems.  Your argument is little more than sedition.  'We should eradicate DC'.  Can you be more full of shit?  Do you have a better suggestion for governance?  Come forth with it if you do.  But be careful.  The Constitution might find you ... something of a traitor.  You want the parties to agree?  Come up with something they agree on.  You won't do that. i know.  After all, you still think that the Republicans have a health care plan beyond "don't get sick and die quickly if you do."

Every day that goes by I lose more and more of what little confidence and respect I had for the politicians in Washington.

Adney, rephrased:

Every day that goes by I lose more and more  of what little confidence and respect I had for the Constitution.  You don't like the people, vote them out.  What's that?  You can't vote for or against those you can't vote for but others can?  You hate the fact that Democracy doesn't serve your whims?  Tough shit, kitten.  People in New York and Massachusetts vote for people you don't like.  But you're not arguing against the people, Bob.  You're arguing against the institution.  Traitorous words, my friend.

Just Too Perfect

I have been waiting for days to finally watch this, and it was better than I imagined.  While the debate has raged for a week over whether or not the 9/12 TeaBagger Cumtogether was 70.000 people or 2 million, this video begs for a more prescient debate:   How many of those protesters were deeply ignorant manipulated fools?  The numbnuts holding a "Joe Wilson for President" sign who doesn't actually support Joe Wilson for President, nor knows anything about him except that the sign carrier supports Wilson's poor impulse control?  Maybe the people outraged over Czargate?  How 'bout the baby dodos doing exactly as a FOX news producer tells them to during this "grass roots" event?  This is the deeply stupid in action.

Republicans, if you have any pretensions of actually serving America, perhaps these idiots shouldn't be your base.  If this was a subtle plan to steer these loud and uninformed masses to the Constitutional party, then I support your efforts.   Please make more.

Tea Baggers Being ... whatever

Deep Thought

The potential laws of the Land of Make Believe are potentially unconstitutional.

Aren't They The Most Darling Little Hypocrites?

Shorter Steve Eschenbacher:

"Disregard anything that stands against my point, but in the broad venue of our political sphere, the  scandalous scalawags who are Democrats are fattened greedy bastards and the Republicans are huggable horny rapscallions.  We should market Republican in a body spray!"

Obvious Irony Update, Update

Nope.  The city commission couldn't even muster the courage to stand fast against spending city money for those protesting government spending.  My dollars get to be spent so that the dickwad  teabaggers can protest my dollars being spent.  Thanks, assholes.  I feel so well represented.  The rights of Free Speech now require that I spend money for others to have their right of Free Speech.  And my rights?  Pay up, loser.  Thank you, Bozeman.  I appreciate your assessment of my value.

The city commission is useless.

UPDATE:

Okay, I'm way too fucking pissed to let this go.  The teabaggers claim that at their last rally they drew a crowd of 700.  I think that's complete bullshit, but I'm ready to accept it for this argument.   Fine, 700.  I know that many were brought by the campus Republicants.  I won't even deal with their projection of 300 to 400.  I'll just suppose that they brought 200.    If half of those don't live in Bozeman, then that means that less than 600 of those who marched on April 15th were Bozeman residents.    Let's guestimate that 400 additional folk who are Bozeman residents show up to teabag one another.   That's 1000 Bozeman taxpayers who are begging the largesse of the city coffers.  There are, minimum, 25,000 Bozeman taxpayers who will pay money for this shit.  I really want to know.  Other than cowardice in the face of opposition, how does the Bozeman city commission justify saying a big "fuck you" to 96% of the Bozeman taxpayers?  How?  I really want to know.

Obvious Irony Update

Proving that the right and the left can sometimes see eye-to-eye, Tammy Hall actually agrees with me about closing Main street for the teabaggers parade on July 4th.  (Bozeman Comical, so no link to her column is possible.)  She thinks it shouldn't be done, as do I. 

Of course, her view is smothered in Wingnut sauce.  She feels that because Independence Day is a celebration of democracy, it would be contrary to the purpose for the marchers to block access to the highest expression of democracy, our downtown businesses.  I'll let the reader suss out the deeply illogical issues with that claim all on their own; but I will point out that most of the downtown business traffic is foot traffic, and the marchers will do every bit as good a job of blocking those businesses on the sidewalk as they would if the street is closed.  Leaving that slightly to the side like, it should be noted that Tammy disagrees with closing Main Street because it would appear to be hypocritical on the part of the protesters.    I accept that it would be too much to expect Tammy to recognize that it actually would be hypocrital, so I'll take what agreement I can get.

This morning, there was another letter to the Comical from a local noted right winger.  His argument was essentially the same as mine.  If government spending is the problem, then requesting more goevrnment spending for the protest is, his analogy, 'cutting a hole in the bottom of a sinking ship'.  Tammy's response, and the letter today, actually give me some hope that the City Commission will do the right thing, and deny the protesters their request to close Main Street. We'll just have to see.

Obvious Irony

It's truly depressing to me that so few recognize irony when it slaps them in the face.

Here's the sitch:  The teabaggers want to hold a protest parade on the 4th of July.  They want to march down Bozeman's Main Street to protest out of control government spending, while displaying their patriotism.  Sounds all good, right?

The city of Bozeman, on the other hand, doesn't want this closure to happen, because they haven't the resources on a holiday weekend to provide for the closure of one of Bozeman's busiest streets ... busy even on a holiday.   Surely, anyone rational can see the irony by now?

It doesn't appear that the organizers of this protest understand irony at all.

But sidewalks are “like being confined,” says organizer Henry Kriegel, and now he is ready to go to the City Commission to get Main Street closed off if city manager Chris Kukulski won’t agree to shut it down.

“He’ll make a really (poor) decision if he does not support us on this,” Kriegel said Tuesday.

You must certainly be seeing it by now?  The people who want to protest government spending are begging/threatening the government (the city government) if that body doesn't spend more money to give the 'protesters' what they want.  Spend for me, but not for thee.

This is certainly low hanging fruit, but that doesn't make it any less delicious.  These teabaggers  don't give a damn about *spending!*  They wish a private parade that we all will pay for so that they may protest spending for governance; the governance they now look to so as to give them our support through our tax money.  Though I sincerely doubt our city commission has the courage to vote this way, I would hope that they point out this flaw in the anti-taxer's ideal, and laugh them out of the city offices.

Though there is strong evidence to the contrary, the tea party folk claim an attendance at there last separatist revival at 700 deluded souls.  I know personally that many of those folk didn't and don't live in Bozeman.  Yet the taxpayers of this city, which number vastly more than 700,  are being asked to spend so that those teabagging asshats might have their day on the street.  That's ironic enough to be mildly humorous, but still rather disgusting in its hypocrisy.  I say no.  I hope with little confidence that the city commission has the wisdom to do the same.

Sacred v. Profane

My beloved and I have had many pleasant chats recently fostered by a ludicrous statement a co-worker of hers made:

"I don't believe in recycling."

I'm not interested in arguing recycling.  Even my brother thinks that recycling is more wasteful than throwing shitloads of valuable material into a big ass hole in the ground.  No, it's the phrasing that's oh so telling.

"I don't believe in ..."

I don't believe in ghosts.  I don't believe God favors whatever team wins the Super Bowl.  I don't believe in Hell.  But see, these are matters of faith.  To say that you don't believe in recycling is the same as to say that you don't believe in addition or paying taxes.  Those things are very real.  You can not support the effort which is engaged to accomplish these things, or argue against their efficacy, but to say you don't believe in them is to deny reality.  These things exist, without any force of faith or act of God.  They are truly the mundane of human existence and thereby profane to any who feel that God acts in all things.   They speak not of the will of God but of the will of man ... just like sex which we almost universally find profane should it lead to earthly pleasure and not procreation.  And that is the meaning of the word, profane.  Man wants it, with no sanction or blessing from an almighty power.  Profane.

I write this because I remain unbelievably amused at the arrogance of those who claim God's sanction for their profane pronouncements.  Rarely do I find such wailing more absolutely ridiculous than among those who claim the truly profane as being "sacred" (that of God).

First of all it re-asserts our Second Amendment right to bear arms.  This is a sacred right that the government has trampled on over the past few decades.

I read that bullshit a lot, and I'm certain that you do to.  Somehow or another, what man wants becomes the will of God.  Mostly secular deists decreed that we had a Second Amendment.  Good on them.  But that is honestly speaking 'profane'.  I've never read the passage in the Bible that decrees that we should have a strong militia and thereby we need to pack heat.   The closest I've come to that was the passage from Winchester 30, 06:

And man shall have bullets that they may stand strong against the Dark Master, for his coming shall be with the favor of many and he shall have the support of most.  Let you not give the multitudes what they desire if you can pour lead and reload.  Keep to yourself God's choice of armaments.  For death is the will of your Lord and savior. 

Well that seems pretty clear to me.  What we want is sacred as long as we call it such.

.
.
.

Wasn't the first sin that of Pride?

Rights Positive Or Rights Negative

Apologies to any who care, but I have next to no time to blog recently.

Certain arguments have always mystified me.  I tend to chew on them a while, and then reconcile.  But some just need to be exposed for the bullshit they are.  Take this, for example.  The other day, in a generic links post, Jay offered up a cornucopia of good reads.  What was not among them was any link concerning Gay rights, or so one would think.  What was among them was a link about Colorado legislators thinking that AIDS was cool, and homosexuality is murder.  I would treat with those claims individually, but you'll notice that the tags to this post do not read "The Deeply Stupid".  No, what caught my eye was a response from sydney@alias, lying about the left since 2001.

(A side note.  Seriously sydney, consider how much time your brethren call 'the left' out for 'lies' .  You claim that you have been - Keeping the Left honest since 2001 .  Doesn't that mean that you really suck at your job?  You should be fired.  Hell, I'd fire you for incompetence.)

Sydney says:

Gays already have equal rights.

Notice, that's a complete non-sequiter, but it is telling about the right's view of rights.  Hence, this post.

I don't think one need go too far out to say that syd was claiming that gays have all the rights that straights do.  They can own guns, speak freely without government control, not be required to house troops in their homes, get married ... whoops.  No they can't.

Now, I'm certain that syd would argue that gays can get married as long as a gay man marries a woman or that a lesbian marry a man.  In plain simple speak, gays have the right to do what they have no desire to do.  That is a rather simplistic and stupid 'rights negative' view.  Our rights are meant to protect us from doing what we don't want to do.  Obviously, many of our enumerated rights are that very thing.  We cannot be forced to give up our weapons, or be forced to quarter soldiers.  In similar vien, we cannot be forced to marry someone we don't want to marry.  That is all well and good.

Our positive rights are enumerated as well.  We have the right to keep and bear arms.  We have the right to a speedy exposition of justice, we have the right to representation under the law.  We had all the rights of Habeus Corpus, but a particularly dick-headed President didn't think that gave him enough power, so we'll see what happens.  These are positive rights, things we are owed, things we deserve without qualification and things that cannot survive challenge against them.  These are things that add benefit to our lives as Americans, and the courts have supported these things positively as Americans.  Among these is an unquestioned right to get married to whom you choose ... unless you're gay.

There's a bit of a conflict here, don't you think?  A positive right that cancels a negative right is of no consequence at all.  It is not a right at that point, but a tautology.  You are allowed to get married to whom you choose (positive), but you are protected from marrying whom you don't choose to marry (negative).  The negative really has no meaning because you've already been given the right to supersede it.  That's fine, unless whom you choose to marry you are prohibited from marrying.  Defining a right such that it negates the positive is often a source of outrage.  Being forced to marry whom you don't wish?  A HORROR!  And well it should be.  Being given a right to do what you don't want is a dismissal of the positive, if the positive is negated by that thing, and tells you that you don't have that right at all.  Telling people they are welcome to quarter troops in their home negates the right not to quarter troops in their homes, if it also says they have no right not to quarter troops.   Being able to marry only the one you don't want to marry negates the right to marry whom you do if that law or statute says that you can't. 

So lets bring this back to syd, and her lack of honesty.  Yes, gays have the right to marry as they don't want.  But they have no right to marry as they wish.  Straight people do not suffer from this negation of a positive right.  Syd is quite clearly wrong.  Gay people do not have equal rights because gay people do not have the positive right to marry who they wish.

I can't be the only one (and I'm certainly not) to have noticed that miscegenation laws failed for the very same reasons.  prohibiting people from accepted positive rights is just bullshit.  Hiding behind the negation of accepting negative rights is just masquerade.  Gay people do not have equal rights.

The Evolution Of Moon Cheese

Okay.  First, the theory was that an obviously racist letter wasn't racist because the Missoulian really is biased towards a particular race.  Then, the problem became that the Missoulian is biased because it doesn't report enough about other races and issues, and that is somehow offensive to the person making the claim, but should be offensive to everybody because of that person's claim of what should be the role of a product producer, the Missoulian.  Somehow, reporting about Indians takes away from reporting about business and culture that Rob cares about.  Now, the desperate problem of the ages is that we are beyond bias in that the Missoulian isn't critical enough of the very product it produces.  There was a story that didn't effect enough of us, so the Missoulian should have been more critical of the story such that *we* would want to read it.  And it really really really isn't about race, even though that was exactly where Dr. Rob started from.

Ya know.  I'm totally looking forward to Sunday breakfast.  'Cause these waffles from Dr. Bob just aren't satisfying.  Not enough Moon Cheese, I guess.