A Chicken Is Not Pillage

Worthy Causes

I wasn't going to do this because those whom the message would reach on this website either are already aware of the need, or have a somewhat irrational view of the topic.  Regardless of all that, Orcinus is having a fund drive, and folks ought to be aware of it.

By now, most of my readers probably know that David Neiwert is an author, and free-lance journalist, who has specialized in exposing the most ridiculous, racist and harmful elements of the hate-machinery operating within this country, and especially within the Northwest.  He was a popular voice in discrediting the so-called 'journalism' of Michelle Malkin's book on racially based abuse ... and why we shouldn't follow her cry to do it again.  He has written the definitive work (my opinion) on the militia movement in the northern mountain west.  And now, he's taken to kicking Jonah Goldberg's ass over the Pantload's poor attempt at scholarship.  All of these are worthy efforts, and deserve a bit of monetary payback.

Money's tight for me right now, but I'm trying to scrape together a few bucks to send David's way.  You ought to think about doing the same.

(And David, if you read this, I really don't need a shout-out.  Just keep doin').

Even When He Claims To Be Right, He's Wrong.

Steve levels the "Gotcha" on Jay Stevens.

Jay Stevens of Left in the West thinks that he is vindicated by the Missoulian article about the Justice Department probe of Burns had been "chilled." When I saw the headline, I thought, could it be that I was wrong? But then I read the article and realized that it was the usual low quality of analysis that passes for "professional journalism" these days. The ruling that the article mentions relates to Rep. William Jefferson, D-LA who objected to the taking of documents from his office and home by the FBI. The Appeals Court ruled that under the Speech and Debate clause, those are protected and could not be seized.

And this Steve knew all along because of of his acute sense of law.  Only one problem.  He apparently didn't read the article well enough.

(Burns' Lawyer) Caccia did say that an article Friday in the Washington Post about the end of the Burns investigation summarized Justice's viewpoint on the matter. The article said that unlike others being prosecuted, Burns was not accused of accepting personal gifts from Abramoff.

It also noted that Justice lawyers said two weeks ago that an August decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit could impede remaining aspects of the Abramoff investigation.

It appears the headline (and Steve's delusion of poor analysis) didn't come from Jay, was only reported by the Missoulian, and really came from an article touted by Conrad Burns' own lawyer.  Jay, in asking his hypothetical question, was precisely accurate.  So, completely ignoring the question of exactly what Jay Steven's was supposed to be 'vindicated' of,  it seems that Steve's real disagreement isn't with Jay, or the Missoulian, but with his own reading comprehension.

But then, I think we all knew this was going to happen.

Okay, NOW I'm Pissed

I just went over and read the diary of Nancy Drew.  Oh, wait that was the rumor rag of Carol Minjares.  Either way, she makes a good point, a point I can't ignore.  The point that matters is this:  I got screwed and I want my money.

About three some odd years ago, Matt Singer (*PTHEW*) took a trip to the East.  He desired folks to sub for him on his website, and he promised us that we'd be 'well compensated' for our efforts because he was so 'well connected'.  I was naive, fresh off the bus ... perhaps my shirt was too tight and my shorts were too short.  It probably seemed like I was ripe for the picking.  But I agreed to cover for Matt while he was wined and dined by Communist royalty.  I worked my fingers until the tips bled and my Cheetos ran out.  When Matt returned, I got a thank you, and a wink.  But no call in the morning, and I received no money.

And now, so many years later, I find that Matt has been receiving huge bucks from George Soros!  Matt is, according to at least one Special Olympian, laundering funds for Soros, and I haven't seen a dime.  I feel so used!   He promised me grassroots and all I got was concern for the communities of Montana.  I don't live in the palatial estates  like Singer.  I can't singlehandedly arrange rock concerts for the people I own thrown by their friends (I mean really, Singer must own everybody that his politicians have friends who are Rock Stars.)  I can't start and personally fund organizations three years before they get the big OutOfState bucks.  And I can't personally circumvent and break rules that don't exist.  That takes a special kind of guy.  That takes Matt Singer.

But he still owes me, dammit.  I want my Soro's bucks.  Not one single left leaning blogger in this state writes without the promise of big moneys.  This is astro-turfing,l dammit, and I'm due my share.  Pay up, Singer.  Pay up now!

(When I get my money, I'm going to buy pumpkin cards, and a blanket ... for when I wait out for the Great Pumpkin.  I heard that he's a supporter of Forward Montana too, so I'm guaranteed some toys on Halloween night ... but they obviously won't be as big as Singer's ...)

Raised From The Dead

First, a personal note to Steve:  Since you never seem to understand the arguments of your opponent (consistently claiming that they don't make sense),  I think we've discovered your root difficulties as a lawyer.  Take that as constructive criticism.  'Just glad I could help.

Now, the intermittent power outages in the Bozone on Saturday morn kilt my computer.   Of course, I had to work much of the weekend, including a meeting yesterday.  I have just now resurrected it from the dead, and I've been able to recover all the files that were 'lost'.  I still have a ways to go, software wise, but I think I'm in the clear.

So, I positively had to comment on the 'cyber-fraud' nonsense that seems to fill others with glee.  Let's be clear:  Matt was right for chiding a campaign for displaying web-wise ignorance.  It's a new world out there, and candidates who forget that are idiots.  Candidates who whine about it are even worse.

There is always opportunity in adversity ... always.  Whoops, sorry if I sound all Republicant in that, but I will repeat:  there is always opportunity in adversity.

1)  Why are candidates relying on .com?  Are politicians a business now?  I highly doubt it ... or maybe I don't.  I know that the most searched-for suffix will be .com, but let's us get a grip.  There is opportunity with .org, .gov or even .biz (if politicos want to be honest.)  The 'loss' of a .com URL is an admission that you aren't for hire, or to buy, but those are the only terms your opponent can think in.  Promote that.

2)  Be first.  The way to absolutely crush a squat on your .com is to have a website that surpasses the opposition in any Google search for your name.  Most of us commoners don't search for BlowmeQCandidate.com.  We search for "Jon Tester", or "Bob Keenen" or "Linda McCulloch".  Make damned sure that your name from your website comes up *first* in such a search, and their possession of your .com doesn't matter for shit.

3)  If you are a Democrat, use the fact that we own the online sphere against your Republicant opponent.  QUIT WHINING about unfair tactics.  The tighty-righties are attacking Kos and MoveOn and Media Matters because they are afraid.  Their bullshit is being exposed online, and they actually think that their brand of lies will carry sway here.  It won't.  They might be able to convince the simple FAUX NEWS viewer that anything said by MoveOn is bad ... but the simple FAUX NEWS viewer won't discern the difference.  Attack 'em where it hurts and use the online community to do that.  You don't need a simple ".com" to be successful in that effort.  You need links, and most of us who will support you will provide the hotlink ... regardless of whether it's a .com or a .cow.  People will find the message if you provide it.  Or you can provide the whining and the righties will make damn certain that folk find that as well.

Let's get it done, people.

A Few Links

Just for the fun of it.

Oliver lays it out simply.  The civility argument so prevalent is not about bettering discourse.  It's about losers trying to feel like winners.   Witness how quickly the whiners turn feral , forsaking their sanctimonious worship of military figures, when it suits their desires.

The "dynasty" argument is a crock of shit, perpetrated by folks who are afraid that we might have an intelligent woman as our next President.  Next thing you know, they'll be equating her with Hitler, or calling her the anti-Christ.  Whoops, these maternal mavens of polite discourse already have ...

Politics is not football, and anyone who knows the game would see that.  Ya' see, unlike football, in politics all the desire and heart in the world won't help you if your gameplan truly sucks.

The rotund author of Star Trek novels celebrates our victory in Iraq.  After all deaths are down for a month ... if you look at it the right way.  The truly charming part is the comment from exDemo.  Of the 11 points he brings up, the State Department, CIA and Pentagon disagree with ... all eleven of them.  And they even like Bush.

Would any Republican reader care to comment on the GOP's Convention logo?

I am convinced that Jonah Goldberg (Doughbob Loadpants) is having Budge ghost-write his book.  The sad thing is ... that might actually make it readable.

She Gonna Party Like It's Two Zero Zero One!

It's always a treasure when Michelle Malkin celebrates Rudy Ghouliani Day.  Shorter Michelle Malkin:

"I remember so much more betterer than you bitches.  Now is the time on sprockets where we are sad.  ~Don't cry for me, Amarillo~.  Have you bought my books yet?  Be Mad!  Durka durka durka, fatwa, jiHAD! ... on liberals.  I'm so much prettier than Cindy Sheehan.  Don't forget to report your neighbors, and nevar Forgit ... in the ideologically correct manner, of course.  (Jesse, get me another Fresca, you lazy bitch!)"

Sadly, that really is shorter than what Michelle penned.

Dave Neiwert lobs another hand grenade at Michelle's fantasy force field.  Dave, you know I love you, buddy, and I respect the hell out of you for trying to breach Malkin's wall of denial.  But it ain't gonna happen.  This woman wears the Armor of Ignorance, and carries the Shield of Vanity, and the perky little Cap of Hypocrisy.  Keep up the good work, but don't expect reason to ever breach her beautiful (little) mind.

Since I'm poking the fun at the genus Wingnut, I should mention that a funny thing happened on the way to this post.    I stumbled on a new website that should actually have content soon.  This is how the author describes it:

The blog will include writing by myself and other men writing on the state of manhood and masculinity in the 21st Century.

At a time when it's difficult to distinguis the men from the girls at times, us "real" men need a place to vent, scream, beat our chests and share ideas and stories about our manhood.

It would probably be advisable for wives to read the blog for better understanding.

All I can say is if you like sports, guns, action movies, reading the paper in the john and consider french fries a vegetable of its own, you'll love Testosterone HQ.

I'll have more soon on our illustrious contributors.

Untill then: Long live Clint Eastwood!

Yes, the spelling and grammar errors are all his.  He calls the place ... Testosterone HQ, and this ought be a comedy riot.  You wives out there better sharpen your thinking caps and hustle your bustle right to that site if'n you want to know what a real man like you got is thinkerin'.

Any bets on whether or not this poser will link to Michelle Malkin?  (Jesse, get me another beer, you lazy bitch!)

The Injured Reserve

Since I've introduced the Good the Bad and the Ugly of the new Montana wingnut-o-sphere, I've upset at least one of the old guard, who no doubts feel slighted because those others are the new hotness, and he's just the old and busted.  So, just for Steve, I'll take a quick peek (critique) at the aging players of the Montana fantasy-based community.

Before I begin, let's get a few things clear.  I will not write bad things in a generic way about either MTPolitics or the Electric City Weblog.  Both Craig and GeeGuy are thoughtful hard working folk who do not conform to the standard wingnut blueprint.  Neither of these gentlemen are "concern trolls", they offer generalizations but do not personalize them into their mythologies and they aren't dismissive of disagreement.  When I engage them, I have and will continue to do so directly and personally, with the respect that they are due and that they have offered in return.  If you expect to see a slap fight between either of them and myself, this is not the day or the post.  So move along.

Let's begin with the Granddaddy Glibertarian, Mr. Dave Budge.  Though Dave will go long periods without posting, he then gets a bug up his butt and posts a storm.  I still find him to be among the best writers on the web in Montana.  But like many of those who identify to the right, he's beginning to lose it a little.  Rather than deal with people honestly, he's showing a much greater tendency to belittle and revile based on ideas that he finds personally demeaning, and not so much on the merit of the idea.  He's always been contrarian, but he's slipping a little further towards silly in doing so.

Case in point, he's taken to referring to those who disagree as "neo-socialist hand wringing pussies".  If the "pussy" part isn't a projection, I don't know what is.   Just like 'Raaaeeeaaain on your wedding day' Dave takes a post from Matt Singer explaining the challenges faced by the young and under-privileged, a call to use the collective power and compassion of us all to aid us all,  and uses it to promote his fantasy that personal motivation will solve the problem.  In one fell swoop, he places rather unspecified blame on all who don't live to his lofty standards and feels ever so much personally better because he doesn't have to look at his own failings in regard to a very real problem.  He claims that what is desired is a "permanent mindset of victimhood', taking for himself his own forced sense of superiority.  Simply put, Dave uses a fabricated Ad Hominem for self support.  Ironic and handy, isn't it?

This is becoming an ever more prevalent tactic among the wingnut-o-sphere.  It's odd coming from Dave, considering how often he admits his own vagaries of fortune and personal struggles.  Perhaps he's just being egged on by his personal cheerleader, the master of the illusion "I did myself  and the truth is what I say it is", Mr. Mike Harris.  Regardless, Dave Budge is still an interesting and powerful read; just don't engage him in arguments that devolve into the size, shape and texture of gnat nuts.  Being right and correct in the minutia on the Internet ain't that important, except maybe to Dave.  Now if we could only get him over his fascination with DoughBob Pantload.

Along the lines of self-importance, one has to begin to respect Eric Coobs.  He was ever so very proud of having the premier wingnut website in state, and now, he's just a has been.  His claims to fame are still there ... lack of reason, racist commenters and trollish aspirations.  But he's just not any fun.  He posts very irregularly, and when he does, his comments are immediately stolen from him by the trolls that run his website.  It would, no doubts, have been better for him not to delete a years worth of his content (and others more bright than himself), but Eric apparently couldn't stand responsibility that came with speaking freely, and allowing others to do the same.  If Dave is seeking a hand-wringing pussy, he need look no further than Billings.  The laughable part is that Eric claimed his deletion was to protect his other authors, as if their efforts were his own.  And now, bereft of the intelligence they provided, Eric is alone.  Many of the other right wing websites won't even link him.  'Kinda sad, really.

I've next to nothing to say about the Montana Misanthrope, except that you should read him.  He gets it all right.  He's personal, personable, humble and thoughtful.  I seriously hope that he's gonna be around for a long time.  He is a man that I would like to one day call "friend".

Montana Headlines remains erudite, but I think he's starting to lose it.  As things become more desperate for the right wing, the right wingnuts reflect the angst.  So it is with MH.  Over the last several days, MH has been all about Jon Tester and the tainted money of Hsu.  In doing so, he's fallen (and the "he" is just an assumption because MH is one of those brave forthright bloggers) into most of the wingnut pitfalls available for folk to lose themselves in.  He boldly claims what the left was deriding Conrad Burns for (tainted money) completely forgetting the number of us who showed quite clearly what Jack bought from Conrad with that tainted money (rich casino schools, child rape in the Marianas ...)  Talk about moral equivalence!  Supposedly, Jon Tester claimed to be a saint ... only in the fantasy of MH. 

But MH is a clever little weasel.  Just as the Burns campaign tried to tie Jon Tester to Chuck Schumer, MH is trying to tie Tester to Hillary Clinton.  That's pathetically weak logic, though sinister.  Tie Tester to someone not favored by Montanans.  It's also pretty dumb.  If this were Tester's reelection year, it might make sense.  As it is, it's flailing around with a cotton pillow attempting to bruise an issue no one gives a fuck about.  And don't think that MH is above lie and spin.  Check this:

But then, since the donors in question are in New York, Tester may be concerned about offending his New York constituents -- he knows he'll need them again in 2012. (While 7 of the top 10 zip-codes on the Conrad Burns donor list were in Montana, 5 of the top 10 zip-codes for Tester were in New York City.)

Seriously, I invite you to follow the link.  Unlike MH, I trust my readers to be able to count and think.  *4* of the the top 10 zip codes for Tester were in New York City, not 5.  3 of the top ten zip codes for Conrad Burns were in Billings alone.  But Billings isn't as big as New York is it?  The millions of online contributers to the success of Jon Tester are logged as one city, and that's what MH wants you to focus on, because MH is lying to you in a spin kinda way.  And, as the website "open secrets" says so not plainly, where the donations came from may not be reflected in where they were registered, or reflective of who gave them.  MH is promoting lies, and thinks you stupid enough to believe it, dressed with candy and all.  Please notice a couple thing:  1)  how much money did Conrad Burns have on hand before the election cycle and, 2) where did that come from?  How willing to swallow crap are you, Montana?

Still, Montana Headlines is a worthy read.  It is very well written, and appears personal.  Just be willing to check up on what you're handed there, before taking a bite.  I understand bullshit doesn't taste so good.

Not Farm Boy Ryan is useless.  He hardly posts, and it's so mundane even the wingnuts won't link him.  Two Helena Handbaskets is even worse on posting.  7 posts  since New Years.  Not a recipe for success, or even a worthwhile endeavor.

Andy Hammond is the wingnuttiest of the wingnuts.  And let me just come out and say that I don't think Andy Hammond is his real name ... duh.  He posts whatever the gun-counter-gomer posted the day before.  Waste of time, and the true enemy of anyone rational.  We should flee these people as lepers were shunned in the middle ages.  They're more toxic, and vastly more barfy to be around.  Hammond makes absolutely every wingnut error possible to be made.  When Stephen Colbert takes the stage and speaks to 'his people' ... it's a vision of Andy Hammond he has so embraced for mockery.

And then there is Steve.  He's more thoughtful than Hammond, and more intelligent, but vastly more lame because he's so entrenched in his Narcissistic Personality Disorder.  He sees himself as a defender of the people, while willfully and angrily wasting the people's resources (he's entitled, don't you know!)  He engages the enemy while shrugging off all responsibility for the enemy being engaged.  (Don't start somethin', it won't be somethin' ... asshole.)   I offer you this, gentle reader:  Read better websites than Steve's.  Captain Ed, the Gun-Counter-Gomer. Michelle fucking Malkin.  Read LaShawn Pinhead Barber before reading Steve.  You will enjoy it more, learn more, and be more hysterically amused.  Steve really offers nothing, save potential amusement at the waste of material.

I guess we're done here.

Turf Toe

Yeah, I got football on the brain.  So what?

Actually, I'd rather be playing Doom than posting, but I kind of felt the need to respond to something that the lads at Intelligent Discontent and Left in the West have been noticing, the growth of right wing blogs in Montana.  I know a little bit about blogging, and just hoped to share a few ideas.

What sparked the interest was the introduction of a blog so purely an GOP astroturf effort it isn't even funny.  That would be the Hardliner blog ... no dissent allowed!  Of course, the GoOPers already in play, and the new baby bloggers, are just loving the fact that all us lefties consider them all to be astroturf efforts ... it makes them feel all big like, I guess.  But they seem to be missing two very obvious points:  Nobody accused them all of being astroturfing, and neither they or their readers appear to know what astroturfing is.  (I think that's just part of being in the Fantasy-based Community, but some of them might figure it out ... someday.)

Simply put, astroturfing is an organized attempt by a central organization to gather popular support through the illusion that the grass roots already support the ideals or the organization in question.  It's marketing; "join our cause, cause the cool people already have ..."

The Hardliner blog really is an effort at astroturfing, with fake comments and everything.  Too bad, it's an unbelievably transparent and weak effort.  It isn't engaging to the reader, it has no personal identity and promotes no relationship between author and audience.  It reads like the GOP ebrief, but less informative and vastly more dry.  They are precisely as Jay Stevens referred to them:  Robo-bloggers.  I'd bet my bottom dollar that as many of us and the left read it and laugh, as those on the right who think it has value as a 'blog'.

However, just because the Hardliner can be dismissed as ineffective, one who pays as much attention to the Montana Blogo-world as I do would be very remiss in similarly shrugging off the rest of the wingnut explosion.  So let's us just take a look at a few of them, shall we?

I can't find much fault with Carol Minjares' effort, save that her blog has the clunkiest name for a website ever.  It's not that it doesn't make sense (that would be my world) it's just that it's completely freaking ugly.  Carol, I offer a constructive criticism:  if you have to post the pronunciation of your website's name, choose something else.

Mizzoolopoless is your fairly standard wingnut fair, because Carol is your fairly standard Republicant.  It's arrogant, dismissive of disagreement, and wastes vastly more time telling the opposition how to behave than actually promoting the conservative ideals.  However, Carol is engaging, personable, local (that's the biggy) and appears to seriously enjoy what she's doing.  It's a good site.  My only other suggestion is this:  if she's gonna waste her seemingly vast amounts of free time posting 6 times a day, she should expand the number of posts that appear on the front page of the blog.  (Strangely, I have the same complaint about Left in the West.)

The other enjoyable new wingnut website is Scoop Montana.  I'd link, but either through laughable error, or a blogwise death-wish, Scoop has made his site "invite only".  Not a good way to reach out and touch someone, bud.  I hope he corrects the issue, because Scoop had all the pluses of Carol, and a great sense of humor.  It was, and hopefully will remain, an enjoyable read.

The other newish conserva-blogs aren't really all that at all.  The Conservative Cowgirls at Ridin' for the Brand have a few problems.  They don't post much, a serious issue for most of the righty websites in Montana, what they do post is fairly simplistic and doesn't attack the enemy nearly enough to draw the rabid Kool-aid drinkers and they just don't get personal.  If you're going to start a blog with a name and persona that screams "personality", you really should include a dose of that in what you write.  They're Girls!  They're Cowgirls!  They're ridin' for the brand,  lazy GOP!  Ehhh, so far, not so much or all that good.

The comedy twins are the newest of the group.  I know that I've given Steve a hard time for being stupid, but at least he writes his pap with an advanced degree of skill.  The 'boys' at Montana Pundit write like poorly schooled 5th graders.  But let me light a candle for them, rather than we should curse their darkness.

Boys?  "Pundit" is what we like to call singular.  There are two of you.  That would be what we refer to as "plural", or "Pundits".  Spell check is your friend.  I don't have the finest spelling skills in the world, to be certain.  But then, I'm not parading myself in front of the world as a consultant or University student with this ugly nightmare:

Hagen- Former lobbiest in Helena and now living in bozeman and is a campaign/direct mail consultant

TJ-  Former inturn for Sen. Conrad Burns, and a curent student at MSU

Seriously, I'm tempted to believe that this is anti-astroturfing from someone desperately wishing to discredit wingnut bloggers  (that is, more than they do so themselves.)  So far, their content is simple restatement of the shallowest misconstructions of the happenings of the day.  Their attempt at audience appeal will meet success only if the audience is 13 years old, drunk or desperately seeking agreement, like Andy Hammond.  I'd hoped that they would offer something worthy of challenging, but this blog is just ... bad.

It is worth noting that Pogie overstates ... but not by much.  All of the conserva-blogs in Montana that have sprung to life recently are anonymously written, with the exception of Carol's (and mad-props to her for being forthright and personal.)  And I don't think it at all untoward that he refers to them as cowardly.  The Hardliner bans commenters that are not Erickson approved.  The Scoop guy had to have tried something to control access, or he wouldn't have his recent issues.  The Pundit boys have a great opportunity to promote themselves in business (consultant) and education, but prefer to remain hidden and obscured ... no doubts dressing for success (LOL).

Dear Dennis Rehberg,

I thank you for whining about the 'liberal' bias of Internet information in Montana.  It has given us 'libruls' a new playmate in Carol Minjares.  But next time, could you please establish a competence clause before unleashing the rest of these folk upon your thinking constituents?  Thanks in advance.

Love,

Wulfgar.

Myth Bustin'

In order to save Steve from another aneurysm similar to his meltdown the other night, I thought I'd explain a few things.   Since he remains completely in the dark as to what I've been getting at, it's the least I could do for him.  I mean, it should be fairly obvious to anybody.  But when you've thrown enough of your own crap on anything, I guess it gets harder to tell what that thing really is, right Steve?

I get this question a lot:  why do you blog?  The answer is not a mystery.  I've said it about a hundred times.  I blog because I want to.  That answer is almost never good enough for the querier, and so I constantly expect the inevitable follow ups:  What's the point?  What's the purpose?  What are you trying to accomplish?  The answer to those changes about every time I sit down to write, but there really is no deep secret there either.  Sometimes I blog to make myself feel better.  Sometimes I do it because I feel like writing.  There are times I write because I want to share with any to whom it might matter.  And sometimes, every now and again, I blog just to piss *you* off ... merely for the fun of it.

It's this last one that really causes a row.  And I have a question:  haven't you, my good readers, ever  wondered why?  The detractors and the trolls are ever so eager to dismiss me as just a guy bloviating on a blog, and yet they keep coming back and accusing me of all sorts of behaviors with complete disregard for their claim that my ilk and I don't matter at all in their world view.  Rather odd, don't you think?  The answers here are actually as simple as the answers to any other question appearing in this post.  I don't give one salient shit about their expectations, and often find joy in making fun of them.  This is a 'high crime' not to any objective morality, but to their very persons, so let's take a look at why.

Any person past the age of 30 should understand that people embrace mythologies.  They're often simple, but sometimes rather grandiose (in those circumstances, most folk are quick to recommend psychiatric care.)  Regardless of their form, they serve us for a variety of functions.  We mythologize our desires for vicarious thrills while reading People magazine.  We mythologize our tribes, which (if you're rational) should be wearing orange and blue and playing at Invesco Field at Mile High.  One could spend a lifetime charting the taxonomy of human mythologies, which some Humanities and Psychology academics get to do (good work if you can find it.)  But just because we all embrace mythologies doesn't mean that their effects on us are all the same.  Many are harmless, but some are destructive to our abilities to function with others, and can even extend to being destructive to those others.  Please witness the Rapturists (the cult of the killer Jesus), the racists, the gangsta thugs (both real and unreal) and the military fetishists (Amurkin bullets can solve any problem.  Just slay 'em all and let Killer Jeezuz sort 'em out!).  Those mythologies are ... very unpleasant.

 

There often isn't a whole lot anyone can do about the dangerous and destructive mythologies.  We can rail against them on blogs, but blogging is it's own entire phylum of personal mythologies, and changing the world is just another myth ... for now.  But the dangerous mythologies show an unremarkable and interesting overlap with something else:  the stupid mythologies.  Conspiracy theory, distrust of entire groups based on arbitrary biases (the core of Ad Hominem argument, Steve), construction of illusion and tying such to others without ever admitting the personal conceit that fallacy offers (the Straw Man argument), arrogance that the myth holder knows more of the future than the chaotic universe in which that one lives.  These are the mythologies of the stupid.  They aren't really that dangerous, as much as laughable.  But they overlap with the dangerous ones on one certain fundamental level.  They are deeply embraced as personal and necessary to the holder's sense of identity, to their very being.

No, I am not going to give you a treatise on Soren Kierkegaard, or Paul Tillich.  But they were both very correct about a few things, the one central to my point being, that we are defined by our enemies in that they disagree with our deeply held illusions ... our mythologies.  And that, my friends, is why I have a real talent for pissing the righties off.  I can do very little against the dangerous mythologies (often nothing short of life trauma or psychotherapy can), but I really enjoy poking the mythologies of stupidity.  They are easy to expose, and lend themselves readily to the transparency that such phantoms inevitably show.  The human cost is somewhat more severe.  Remember, we're discussing the things that help people know "who they are!!!".  Poking at such things doesn't engender good will.

Which brings us back to Steve.  Steve posted a gloriously self-righteous Ad Hominem attack on John Edwards.  He claimed that Edwards was to be shunned because Edwards was a "trial lawyer" and those are bad.  I probably would have left that alone, if not for the self righteous (and unbelievably pompous) following statement:  Steve is "good" because he has the same profession but works *for* people.  If that isn't an Ad Hominem, and a really myth-based pathetic one at that, then what is it?  This one was an easy one for me, because in my mythology, I don't really like lawyers at all.  They serve a necessary function.  I'm certain that some are good people, and some are James Sokolov.  I know that some are smart and some ... really aren't.  But all in all, they're lawyers.  To me, they are vultures hovering over the tidbits left from human conflict.  That is the nature of their job; that is what they do, regardless of whether they are high priced attorneys using the Chewbacca defense or salaried public defenders.

So, when I witness someone whose mythology declares that his brethren can be separated into 'good' or 'bad', by how they ply the same trade, I know I've hit the mother-load of stupid.  Steve holds tightly to the identity of being the "good" lawyer because he ensures justice for the common folk.  But see, that's his myth, no one else's.  To many of us, public defenders are the guys who broker plea bargains such that sex-offenders get house arrest, instead of just punishment.  Public defenders are the ones who use the "too-stupid-to-have-known-better"
defense in search of leniency.  Public defenders are the functionaries who broker the semblance of efficiency in a muddled and unjust system.  Public defenders are plea-generating cogs in a bloated machine.  I'll be the first to admit that that's not terribly flattering, but neither is any other chosen form of legal representation when shown under the harshest light.  The truly funny part is when Steve started accusing me of being juvenile, and mean and hateful because I was using Ad Hominem arguments to poke fun at his ... Ad Hominem argument.  Yup, you can pretty well guarantee that I laughed at that.

I'm not sorry in saying that I enjoyed poking that mythology with a sharp stick.  I knew Steve was a public defender, and I really expected him to get the point before his head exploded.  Bad for my expectation, I guess.  But he really needs to question why he thinks that he's got it all figured out based on myth.  There are reasons, smart reasons, to not vote for John Edwards.  But falling back on a mythology that stupid needs to be exposed.  And that's what I do.  Those who want to know what my blog is all about?  Well that's part of it.  I really enjoy poking the stupid with a stick.  Steve and others can rant all they want, but they still miss the point:  don't write stupid shit, and I won't make fun of the stupid shit you write.  And don't, for the love of God, don't expect me to respect you for writing stupid shit.  Your mythology doesn't serve you well, at that point.  Rethink it.

And, a personal note to Steve:  I really wasn't being at all facetious in warning you against personalizing your online activity.  I'm not even one tenth the monster you expect us 'horrid juvenile sadistic libruls' to be.  But those monsters do exist, and we call them "trolls"  (witness Max Bucks).  They don't care about your mythology any more than I do, and they take much greater pleasure in exploiting the personal information you post online.  So take the advice I gave, and fucking quit it, capiche?  And, since I know that you'll never admit that a 'lib' might know something you don't, I'll just bypass the weird part and say "You're welcome".

Really Important Content

Apparently, we're boring Dave.  So, I figured I'd offer some amazing *must see* content.  I give you ...

Christopher Walken cooking a chicken.