A Chicken Is Not Pillage

We're Not Even Human To These F**ers Any more

I graduated from Montana State University in 1992 with a BS in Philosophy, Honors Highest Distinction.  This should not be an issue. 

Four times in the last three years I have been called a liar, a phony, because certainly a white trash rural product couldn't be that smart.  Three out of those four are Baby-Boomers, so much more intelligent than the rest of us that they can read the abilities of all around them.  Why not, it was those same people who couldn't understand that a Nigra could become President of these United States.

I'm tired of having my abilities questioned, so here it is.  I graduated college in 1992, the first of my surname to do so.  That's my diploma, and all you doubters can go fuck yourselves.  For four years I worked for a despicable alcoholic to pay for that schooling.  It cost me that respect of family and two wives.  That may not have been the greatest of life choices, but I still did it.  Listening to assholes online tell me I couldn't accomplish such a feat is so very infuriating, not because of anything I've done, but rather because the privileged think that a degree is philosophy is only the domain of their effort. 

I didn't have announcements made, so I can't scan those.  This is the graduation booklet proclaiming the graduating class of 1992.  Notice please right there.  That's my name.  Robert Lynn Kailey.  I have a few symbols after my name.  Here's what they mean:

University Honors, Honors Program highest distinction.  I wore the gold brocade as one of the happiest moments of my life.  When you grow up blue color, told by your father that "Our family doesn't go to college" and realize that you've done something special?  You feel a sense of pride.  You feel that you've done something well.

But no.  A couple of privileged assholes who don't have any idea what struggles you worked through are more than welcome to tell the world how you've lied about that accomplishment, so small and yet so important.  Fine.  I think that's the nature of the Intertubes anymore.  Anything that can be writ will be writ.  Of course it's true because people read it on the Internet.  What shocks me and saddens me the most is how so many 'good' liberal and progressive' folk are willing to attack with class bias such that if you don't agree with them you must be 'low brow', a 'mouth breather', a loser and a liar.  They will happily tell you how much we need to raise the minimum wage such that their waitress makes a living wage, but spew nothing but venom and lie at that waitress should she actually disagree with them on any particular point.  How dare someone of working background actually think themselves a human equal?  There is no competition for intellect.  You either have it or you don't, and neither is a moral failing.  The only fail is to think there is such a standard, a willful stupidity.  And sadly, it's on the left that this most prevalent.

 

A Neccesary Repost

I'd almost forgotten I'd written this.  But given that others have been so recently and terribly concerned about A Post About Rob Kailey, What Rob Kailey Did, How Rob Kailey Did It and Why Rob Kailey Did It,

It seems apropriate to point out that what the conspiracy theorists care about is every bit as deep and significant as what they accuse others of.  Climate denial seems based on the profit scientists can garner.  The killing of Osama Bin Laden seems based on what witnesses can garner.  To some, everybody's got an angle, except themselves.  Uhh, no.

Rob Kailey wrote this.  Rob Kailey stands behind this.  Rob Kailey thinks this the truth, or at least as close as most of us come to such a thing.  Believing in conspiracy theories doesn't make you important, or special.  It makes you the very thing you tend to revile:  human.

Curiousities Of The Modern World

I'm just noodling things out here.

If one is astute enough to figure out that the math of a plane hitting a building doesn't matter as long as you repeat a base understanding of Newton's third law enough times; such that it must have been an unknown energy beam weapon used on 9/11;

If one is so committed to the shallow understanding of Newton's third law of motion that he can clearly detect that the people who design pumpkin cannons fake their videos of a pumpkin blowing the door off a minivan;

If one is so very attuned to reality that he can clearly see that amputees were hired to fake the Boston Marathon bombing, and that Newtown was a black-flag government op;   (For the record, Mark backed off those conspiracies very quickly when he noticed that their rediculous nature actually pissed people off)

If one is so definatively sharp as to have solved the mysteries of every high profile death since the 50s.  If one is so completely enraptured with the concept that power (the Illuminati) control our perceptions and our very lives and deal swiftly with those who know too much;

How can it possibly make sense that a 'bookstore clerk' (his words) could have taken his honor and impugned him so?  In such a fog of reality, wouldn't it make much more sense that the power had manipulated the situation such that he look bad?  Such a person could have chosen any number of powers to be his foe.  But no, he chose a guy who he professes has no power, no wisdom, no intelligence and no character.  Hmmm.  That I have such enormous strength in the face of such drawbacks, disabilities and difficulties makes me feel kind of proud.  I must be something of a stud!

Now, Mark and his salad-tossers are theorizing that I coerced an intrusive tax audit against another Montana blogger to silence his voice.  I'm lovin' it.  Hell, if this keeps up,  I'll be remembered for having the power to possess people and control time itself to beniifit my own base desires.  Bwahahaha!

The two things that bother me the most about many online potificants, mostly on the right, are 1)  their insistence that the left is out to get them and at the same time the belief that those of leftward thought are incompetant and stupid.   That's called cognitive dissonance, and seems to fit Mark's review of me to a tee.  See, that's the problem when you begin and explore from defending your own lie.  You end up running into your own contradictions and become humorously averse to being self-aware.    Self awareness is being cognizant of your fantasies, aware and questioning about what effect they actually have in the 'real world' and constantly questioning how they color your perceptions of others.   Most of us call that living, and the point of Buddhism isn't to alleviate the pain of living but to mitigate the damage of self-delusion.  Maybe that's what your family was trying to tell you, Mark.

Number 2)  The absolute certitude that only one path can be the correct path.  Many think they've discovered 'the truth' and hopelessly, helplessly cling to the idea that they've discovered such a thing.  Any threat to that, any at all, is a danger and a horror and those who threaten that certitude are monsters.  The climate can't be changing because it was chilly yesterday.  War on Christmas because a clerk said "Happy Holidays".  The government has lied to us many times so any who don't believe that a space based energy weapon destroyed the WTC are being blind, blind I tell you.  Nothing brings out the vehemence of those so commited (or at least should be) as being noticed when they are obviously in the wrong.

In a fantasy world, I gain strength as those who revile me afford me more power.  I grow strong in my dark will ...

Or, I'm just a guy with a website who notices things.  I will admit, it is fun watching Tokarski flop around like a useless whitefish on a rocky shore.  To me, it's all a curiousity.

A Post About Rob Kailey, What Rob Kailey Did, How Rob Kailey Did It and Why Rob Kailey Did It.

And yet my life goes on ...

I Plagiarized This Post

No, of course I didn't.  It likely wouldn't matter if I had; seems that it would take 12 years and well-financed opposition research to figure it out.  WARNING:  extreme cynicism ahead, and possible forcast of 'bad language' and sarcasm.  If you are looking for proper tone and Strunk and White style spew and proper footnotes, you should defer to reading something submitted to the United States Army War College.  I understand their ability for discernment is impeccable.  And don't take this as a response in defense of Walsh.  I intend to respond to the response, hence the cynicism.

So, Senator/General John Walsh got caught plagiarizing a paper.  If you don't know what I'm talking about, please get out of your cave.  Color me pink with shock and surprise.  (Yes, that would be sarcasm.)  I would love to say that I am surprised, just as I would adore actually being surprised at the reactions I've read to this scandilous horror which undermines our ENTIRE FAITH IN POLITICS!  Being true to myself, I'm going to try and generate some surprise, just to see if I can find any.

When the story broke, the first thing that crossed my mind was this:  how convenient that the NY Times ran the story short days after the release of a poll that showed Daines vulnerable, narrowing the Senate election in Montana to 7 points.  Over on the Tweeters, Montana state Representative Ellie Hill noticed the same thing, with the same dry resolution I feel.  It's dirty politics as usual, plyed by dirty people for dirty reasons.  Which leads me to the first point of curiousity.

Mr. Mark Tokarski, never one to fail at defending the poor 'good' people, argues that they are politically, and often physically, assassinated by the ruling Illuminati who have all dirt against everyone.  He has strangely been silent about the timing of this revelation of horrors.  It's no mystery that Tokarski doesn't like Walsh, certainly doesn't think him a good person; but it is so curious that he doesn't comment on this obvious manipulation of the electorate.  Mark knows all things politics, so what did Walsh do that pissed the oligarchs off enough to conspire such a character assasination?  If our real struggle is against the foul and evil men who coerce our destiny, shouldn't we be supporting Walsh since they have deemed him 'dangerous'?  Every single thing in this paragraph is a logical question based on what Mark has put forth for the last eight years.  He has argued, well, I might add, that the only danger faced by politicians from the shadow government is that politician's ability to tell the truth and upset the order of shadow rule.  He has argued that Democrats are the "real" problem because the somnabulent people will follow Democrats to Republicant policy without question.  Yet, not once has Mark questioned the unbelievably coincidental timing of this 'scandel' which hurts a Democrat.  So I am left with the questions:  does Mark really believe what he spouts?  Does his caterwaul have "integrity"?  I'm certain, gentle reader, that you can understand my confusion.

Sheena Rice, on the Facilebook, wrote this:

On the latest political "scandal" this is all I have to say. While I was an undergrad TA at Montana State I graded many many papers, and the number of papers that included wrongly cited sources and/or outright plagiarized paragraphs were the majority. Maybe I'm jaded to it, but I honestly don't give a shit. Can we get back to talking about real issues that matter now? Like income inequality, the prison industrial complex, discrimination, global unrest, and the economy? Please? This so called "news" does absolutely nothing to get people interested in the political process and just provides opportunities for negative campaigning to those playing inside baseball.

 I could not agree with her more.  I spent two years working as a TA in Philosophy, and have spent 18 since working with students in the technological age.  I would likely be retired now if I had charged good money to every person who has asked for or intimated that they would like a place to download papers to fulfill school work.  (Hint:  that would be plagiarism.)  Like Sheena, I'm jaded to it.  I do not consider plagiarism to be a high crime deserving casting of ash, woeful wail, and demand for public flogging.  In truth, I consider it the very least of crimes that a sitting Congress-person could have committed.  More than half the bills these assholes take credit for are submitted by other entities.  All one has to do is follow the Tweeters and one will see more plagiarism in a day than Walsh has committed in his lifetime.  I defy anyone reading this post to claim that they have never taken credit for another's thoughts, efforts or ideas.  (If anyone does respond to that challenge, I will call them a liar, and the burden of proof lies with them.)  The over-reaction to this scurrilous behavior is comedic, yet I find myself not laughing very much.

The over-reaction that does have me laughing comes from Bob Brigham.  The camps have set their tents, and the lines have been drawn.  Pogie is just a 'Walsh Denialist/Defender' and the good folk at 4 & 20 are rationally slamming Walsh as a pretender.  But Brigham ... he is tearing up the Tweeters with the claim that anyone who sees Walsh as anything other than scum shares in that man's corruption; they have no "integrity".  He has used the hashtag "cultureofcorruption" so many times that it is becoming meaningless.    I like Bob Brigham; I've defended him at several websites.  But let's be clear.  He is bought and payed for.  For him to be judging the "integrity" of anyone is a joke.  The 'Culture of Corruption' refers to moneyed powers buying the democratic process, just like Bob is bought and payed for.  He's being a fucking hypocrite.  Not once has he bothered to question how the New York Times got the information they published.  (Did they get it from him?)  Not once has he bothered to publically question the timing of the release of this information.  Nope, Bob is acting like a good little soldier for the candidate he was payed to support, and ignoring the fact that the 'culture of corruption' is really about hidden powers buying elections.  Daines has more money than the God who he believes created the world 6,000 years ago (as long as it is politically expedient.)  Much of that money comes from the "culture of corruption", but you won't find Bob bitching about that.  He focuses on the candidate that beat the guy he was payed to get elected, and tells us all that if we do not turn that horrific moral pariah into the wilderness, than we are as corrupt as the Judas Walsh.  Tell me that isn't funny.

The Copper Kids (no intention of linking) are all about how TERRIBLE a crime Walsh committed.  Lizard (again, no intention of linking) has stated his peace that Walsh's crime is horrific but it's hard to pay attention to that given that we all must be concerned about what's happening in the Gaza.  DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT WHAT"S REALLY IMPORTANT, YOU ASSHOLES!!!  (I told you I was going to be sarcastic, so sue me.)  JC's comments are the familiar flavor of 'This is how it affects me and you should think so too."  The most rational and forthright post on the topic I've read so far is, of course, from James Conner at the Flathead Memo.  He is patient and considerate. I encourage you to read this brief post and consider your own response before camping with any of the partisans, left, extremist left, disenchanted Democrat, right or extreme right.

 

Not Happy

My beloved and I have lived in this house for 17 years.  But we live across from the Bozeman Brewing Company, an establishment that has been here maybe a decade (I don't clearly remember.)  It's a bar.  No bullshit.  It's a bar.  I have come to some resolution that dumbass bar patrons will be rude to my life.  But I still have a problem when bar patrons block the driveway.  Imagine yourself in that sad position.  When my wife ghets home and finds the driveway blocked, she will unleash hell on the bar and its patrons.  I don't blame her.  Yet still, when I call the cops on those who act foolishly, I am somehow the bad guy.

Most problems are resolved without any conflict.  I went to the bartenders, when it is not their job to keep people from being stupid, and it seemed to help.  I'm done.  When someone does the stupid, I act the role of calling the cops and take pictures of their car.  Mostly, that works to get them moving their ass.  Lately it hasn't.  Most times anymore, neither effort has worked.  The priveleged get to do whatever they want and fuck the area ... BEER!   So, I call the cops.

When folk are from out-of-town, I am willing to cut them some slack.  But the last several folk are from Bozeman, and they don't care ... until the police show up.  Suddenly, they are apologetic and willing to admit thier wrong doing.  I don't buy a word of it.  All they've done is put my life at odds with the bar, the bar patrons.  I hope that they have a moral center, but I'm pessimistic that my tires are safe or that my beloved's car won't be fussed with.

I really really hate living across from a bar.

Leading Us From Darkness By The Light Of His Brilliant Shadow

It must be 'sweeps-week' at Mark T.'s house of unenlightened tomfoolery.  'Cause he's certainly begging for hits.

Who Should Get Schweitzer's Seat?

Don't fret.  You read that correctly.  Max Baucus is retiring from the US Senate, and the seat was Brian Schweitzer's to take.  He declined.  If all of this is a mystery to you, then please don't read this, and get the hell out of that cave you've been living in.

Many have been supposing, theorizing, stategerizing, crowing, lamenting, accusing and wondering who ever might Montana send to the US Senate to replace Max. Cowgirl and her commenters have opinions.  James Conner has opinions.  The good folk at Intelligent Discontent have opinions.  And, of course, Liz and the gang have opinions that generally involve telling everyone else how they are WRONG, and being mean!  Whatever.  These are my opinions.  Despite the strong urge of others, they do not represent a party worship, current polling trends, or anything other than an informed view of Montana, its history and it's politics.

The Republicants:  Racicot will not run.  He will never live down the shroud of destruction draped over his role in the death of Montana Power.  He is still popular in Montana, and polls well.  Yeah, that is until he is confronted with the obvious skeleton in his closet.  I've met the guy a couple of times, and he is most obviously not stupid.  Montana Power would kill him, and I think (hope) he's smart enough to know it.  Like Freddy Thomas, he may hold to the hope that Montanans will have forgotten his betrayal, but in the age of dark money they won't forget for long.  Steve Daines, on the other hand, is a powerful candidate.  Those who liken him to Dennis Rehburg are ignoring that Daines is likable, not a complete idiot, safely pure and doesn't have a porn-'stache.  Daines hasn't voted any way that Rehberg wouldn't have, but unless someone can righteously hammer him on the farm bill, he really hasn't done much to hurt himself.  He currently has the inside track.  I won't say much about Edmunds other that he is a hideous human with a hideous soul.  Stapleton is probably the most acceptable of the Republicants.  But he has to convince the libertarian voters and garner big money donors.  I'm not convinced he can do that.  Bob Brown?  We'll see.

Republicant Women:  don't make me laugh.  This is the party of old white men.

Democratic Women:  Monica Lindeen has already bowed out.  I think that's justified.  She had little to no chance of victory.  Maybe another round for the House when Daines steps up?  Denise Juneau is an unbelievably attractive pick.  She is strong willed, decisive, morally centered as evidenced by her votes against coal mining.  But there is a huge chasm between Secretary of Public Instruction and US  Senator.  I would like to see her become Governor.   I just think the gulf she has to bridge at this time is far too large.  Franke Wilmer?   Oh yes.  She definitely stands a chance, especially if running against Racicot.   Against Daines?  Not so much.  Kim Gillan might stand a shot, but only with lots of 'dark money'.  If, and I mean if, any one can convince Nancy Keenan to run, then that might be our best shot at a female Senator, and for defeating Daines.

Democratic Men:  There isn't very much hope here at all.  Jent, Van Valkenburg, McDonald.  They've all pretty much shot themselves in the ... foot.  However, there is still some hope for up-and-comers, if IF if they are willing to run.  Kendall Van Dyke?  Jim Peterson?  The hope here is slim, even though the future of progressive values in Montana lays with Montana men standing up for women and minorities and unions.  Jon Tester was a dark horse in 2006.  Maybe someone  can rise these next two years as well.

I don't maintain hope that Montana will hold this Senate seat for Democrats.  But a lot can happen in a year.

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.

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.