A Chicken Is Not Pillage

The Subtle Dishonesty Of Good Honest (White) Folk

We see it in Facilebook memes.  It's evident in blog comments.  It permeates Faux News, CNN and even on MSNBC.  It's a simple dictum.  If only people would follow the law, they wouldn't be harassed,  profiled or shot.  "Can't we all just get along", a statement coming from a man beaten nearly to death, but mimicked as joke by all who think that following the law is some kind of protection against 'the bad'.  Think on that for half a second.  If only people would follow the law as dictated by the Cop who stops them, they wouldn't be guilty.  If only people who commit minor offenses would act guilty, they wouldn't be choked to death, or beaten into the morgue in a jail cell.  If only people wouldn't be afraid and run from a gun pointed at them, they would be alive.  If only they would be trustworthy, they wouldn't die.  If only ...

I'm not going to belabor the well established point that "they" are almost always black or Hispanic, or with vastly unreported frequency, Indigenous Americans.  They are not us, and they do not follow "our laws".  The implication of this stupid and offensive argument is clear.  They shouldn't misbehave and if they do, they deserve what's coming to them.    Not because of race, oh no.  They deserve it because "they" are them who misbehaved according to us who don't.  That is the fine racist candy shell surrounding the gooey shit center of the "obey the law as us un-racist people judge *you*" argument that they should obey the law and all will be well.  What the living hell is wrong with those who actually think that a good argument?  Walter Scott was shot dead by an asshole  cop because his taillights offended the asshole's sensibilities of working? 

I had an argument last week with a Godly man who thinks the law is the "The Law", and covers all equally.  In the most specious manner possible he is correct.  Words on paper are meant to apply to all as passed by our august legislatures.  Funny word that, "apply".  It doesn't surprise me one bit that a white man with a white god with a white following would hold the idea that the white god is always just in its decree.  But god doesn't have to apply judgment until we're dead, or at least it certainly doesn't appear so.  So our laws are applied by us, by people, and this is what proves the lie about 'following the law'.   It's application is obviously and horrifically different depending on the skin color of those questioned and  at what level we meekly agree that "The Law" gets applied.

Application of law is a process.  Contain and confine, trial by peers, judgment and sentence.   That is the heart of law, and it has been famously said that it is better that 10 guilty men go free than that one innocent man should suffer.   I seem to remember a certain 6th amendment that assures a trial and an 8th that protects against cruel and unusual punishment.  What we are seeing with increasing frequency is Judge Dredd, where cops are allowed to be unconstitutionally all of judge, jury and executioner.  Selling cigarettes becomes a death sentence.  Suspicion of smoking cannabis is cause for being beaten to death in a cell.   I could now go off on a diatribe about Black Lives Matter and all sorts of political complexity.  But that isn't what I'm ranting about here, because that doesn't matter to me half as much as the worshipful and subtle racism we see in defense of our new judicially activated enforcement of what should be law that covers all.

This is the sad union of racial and class bias.  Unless the person is homeless, obviously destitute or suffering the effect of massive drug abuse, cops don't shoot white people in the back for running away.  Cops don't shoot white people at routine traffic stops.  Cops don't beat white women to death for DUI.  They don't tackle white high-schoolers in bikinis and grind them painfully into the turf for disorderly conduct.  They most pointedly do to blacks and Latinos and Indigenous Americans.  That is the racial application of "The Law" that is so offensively defended with the subtle dishonesty of good honest folk.

Don't get me wrong, some of those who are most irritating in this manner are friends and even family.  Every time one points this sad fact out, we are reminded that most cops, MOST, are good people.  That is, even though they seem remarkably incapable or unwilling to do anything about the bad people who are cops.  They take an oath to uphold the Constitution, but when it comes to the authority of their fellows, they fail that oath and are defended by the subtle racist dishonesty that is inherent in the procedure of the application of law.  The great white defenders buy into the myth that a uniform, a badge, a gun, and a 'will to serve' confers the authority of Judge Dredd, if not the discernment.

I buy into what I see every day.   If broken taillights, mis-switched turn signals and/or arguing with cops was a death sentence, I heartily doubt Bozeman's population would last the year.

 

(For the record, I started writing this a week ago, but have been too busy to finish.  Sue me.)

Why Do Montana Democrats Lose?

That is a terrific question, isn't it?  It's been asked about a billion times, but we never come up with an answer.  Just supposing, but that might be because we are Democrats and thinking about it all wrong.  'We' think that people should favor ideas that favor 'we'.  That's not a bad idea, and actually should be a winner.  So why do Montana Democrats lose?

 

Norma.  People like Norma.  People who think that the 'right' is the same as the popular, and worse, vice versa.  People who think that disagreement is cause for alarm.  Democrats too frightened to tell their 'strong' supporters how full of shit they are when they drive hundreds of others away.  In her first run at state legislator, Norma scored only 3 percentage points behind the President in her very red county, and only 3 points behind the federal Democratic Representative candidate on the ticket.  Her second run, she scored 10 points behind the Democratic Representative candidate, and garnered a whole 18% of the vote in her county.  Yet still, at the Democratic wing website of MT Cowgirl, she is protected, and many others silenced, regardless of how offensive and stupid her comments are.   It seems like it, but I'm not actually blaming Norma.  I'm blaming the Montana Democrats who strangely think that embracing Norma while pushing actual progressives away is a good idea.  No, it's really not.

So you tell me, folks.  Why do Montana Democrats lose?

Musing Class

I've spent so very long digging into the minds of Republicants.  It's only been recently, like maybe the last 12 years, that I've used greater synaptic effort to figure out the minds of the left.  Confession:  I'm no where near done with either effort.  But I do notice things.  For instance, in reading the words of many leftists online, I find traits that show particular class bias.  I'm not writing about party here; so get the word "Democrat" out of your head.  Most of the the folk I notice wouldn't be caught dead being seen as a "Democrat".  This isn't about party and it isn't about voting.  It's about people and the distinctions that define where they stand to judge others.

I've noticed this:  Many good leftists feel an immense sense of accomplishment when they perform menial but complex tasks like carpentry, or electrical or plumbing.  They have challenged and conquered the realm of the low brow and isn't that special.  I don't often see it as such.  It's an accomplishment, no doubt, and worthy of praise.  But that isn't what most of these folk are looking for, praise of accomplishment.  It's rather praise for their superiority over the lesser, those who do such things for a living.  Rather a bold statement:  'I know more, I can do more'.  No they can't, because it's not about what was done but the doer.  The focus should have been what needed to be done.

I know many people of resource, and most of the good ones feel a sense of accomplishment and gratitude when they can get someone of competence to fulfill their needs.  That is actually to be respected, in my view.  I know too many people who have competence and their sense of pride (what a dreadfully not sin) comes from being able to do for those in need.  They have the competence because they have done the necessary when they had to, for money or otherwise.  Yet, here in 'Merica, we have a discourse so unreal, about job creators and the working folk, the middle class.  What is missed is so very basic.  Who fulfills needs and what is the value of doing for ourselves?

This stuff is so obvious, and basic and in your face.  The right knows what they have to lose.  But the left lies to themselves constantly about who is worthy and who isn't.  I could go off on a screed right now about Baby-boomers and their delusions, but I haven't the time or interest.  It's just this, people are who they are and all value should be equal to effort.  You're not a stud because you once used a tape measure or watched a home improvement show.  And you certainly aren't more liberal fighting for minimum wage or against income inequality while looking down on the people who do the very things you're so fricking awesome for doing once.

Dick Cheney Is The Smartest MotherF@#%*r In America

Read this.  Go ahead and read it.  It's the transcript from Meet the Press on Sunday, with *special guest star*, Dick Cheney.  Yes, it's about torture, specifically about the United States of America using torture, or not since "real torture" is talking to your kids before you die horribly (not an outcome guarenteed, except the death part) when you are an American attacked by ... THEM.  Waterboarding?  Not torture. Ramming a tube up somebody's ass, and pumping goo into their colon?  Not torture.  Forced sleep deprevation?  Not torture.  Chained by the wrists such that you can't stand or actually sit in a room at sub-50 degrees and forgotten for days until you die of hypothermia?  Not torture.  According to Cheney, REAL TORTURE is being an American afraid of the other.  Read it.  That is his very message.  In the Home of Brave, real torture is being afraid of those others.

As goofy as it sounds, that's a powerful message, and a complete fricking lie.  There have been many posts around the Intertubes on them nancy wimp librul sites, dissecting Dick's arguments, rating which are the worst, or attempting to generate horror at the obviously deranged and inhuman sociopath, the Beast that Came from Wyoming.   All of it, for the most part, is quality writing and instills the proper degree of horror.  But what struck me was the obvious:  Dick.don't.care.  He knows he's lying, and he knows that anyone paying attention will know he's lying.  He is reducing the most heinous abuses that can be perpetrated on a human being to just a lie told to an audience.  It's an offering, a taste of impotent superiority.  "I know that Dick is lying", we cry.  "We tortured and that's wrong", people will say.  "His arguments don't make sense", we will ponder and assert.

But I have to ask, why would a guy who is worth more than all readers here and Daily Kos and Pumadog Lake put together put himself in front of a camera to defend torture with obvious lies?  He has his millions, his retirement and he has thrown his 'boss' and compatriots under the bus already.  He has as much as admitted to war crimes, but isn't afraid of that at all (a lesson I fear he learned from Kissinger.)  That might be the very key.  Cheney is being honest with his lies.  Not honest about the US using torture or it's effectiveness, mind you.  He's being honest that we can't do one single thing to stop any of it.  That was his message.  Regardless of whether we are afraid of losing the moral high-ground, regardless of whether we are afraid of the Muslamic Terrists, we need to be afraid of each other because people like him run the show, and they can and will decide who gets tortured and how.

That's actually rather brilliant on his part.  People are distrusting the authority of the banks as they pass their liabilities onto us.  They don't trust the police who murder young black men for no reason other than that they will get away with it.  They certainly don't trust Congress or that 'man' in the White House (pick which side of the prism you wish to view that distortion from.)  We don't trust each other, at all.  Fear is all we have and Cheney is the sysmbol of that fear which doesn't fear us, or much of anything, the sociopath which brings order through obvious lies.  Dick didn't need to go on MTP to defend himself.  He needed to go on the network to prove that we can't do one singl;e thing to stop him, or even slow him and his down.  While defending a practice we find intolerable, he quite clearly made the statement that we will tolerate what 'they' tell us to tolerate and we can't do shit about it.  Admit it, that's kind of brilliant.

Get Out That Vote!

It's clear that tomorrow's election will likely be over before anyone reads this, but I'm a pompous gasbag who will post this anyway.  I'll be honest witchya.  For the first time in a long time, my enthusiasm for an election is next to none.  (Ohsnoes, another disenchanted Demoncrat!)  Don't mistake my intention; I will indeed vote and my wife will as well.  In fact, I expect that turnout will be slightly better than predicted for off year elections.  Nor is my ennui related to whether or not Democrats will win or lose.  Very much as in Football, some unexpected will win and some will lose.  And very little will change at all.

For months now, those of us with a history of voting for Democrats have been innundated with the dire warnings of what a disaster it will be if the Senate falls to the Republicants.  No.  There will be no disaster.  I can't be the only one who's been paying attention here, and if you have, then you know that the Senate has accomplished next to nothing for at least 6 years.  In fact, everything they have accomplished in about 14 years has benefitted only corporations and/or financiers.  Part of that, of course, is the easy out of the filibuster. The Republicants won't pick up 17 seats, and so they will still be able to excuse their do-nothing salaries while caterwauling about the obstuctionist Democrats (hypocrites, the fucking lot of them.)  That is, just as Amanda Curtis will be able to blame obstructionist Republicants if she gets elected.  There will be no disaster.  What, the Senate will not confirm Obama appointees? With a Democratic majority, they've already set a record, that will not be broken anytime soon, for that.   Oooop, they might repeal Obamacare!  Not one chance in hell that will happen.  The Insurance companies, especially those who have become money launderers and income sinks for the large banks, will absolutely never let that happen.  So, I'm begging those smarter than myself to clarify where "the disaster" will occur?

The good folks at 4 & 20 Blackbirds will clarify that we are an Empire and killing innocents all over the world.  Of course, they mostly blame Democrats for that anyway, and actually have a point to make.  Mark T will chime in with agreement, and not a one of them have any solution beyond "don't vote".  Fine.  Steve Kelly, Democratic candidate extrordinaire betrayed by his own sympathetic sheeple voters, clarified that voting is useless at the MT. Cowgirl's site.  Of course, his complaint was to insult readers and clarify how 'parties' are to blame.  Foolishness.  He desires that we not cooperate with "Big Money".  Again, fair enough.  My response:

An effective non-cooperation effort could go viral in short order IMO,

And only your opinion it remains. Please do tell, exactly *how* a non-cooperation effort could ever be effective? Since you’ve shown a history of confusing such things, Steve, please notice that I’m not asking how it could “go viral”, but rather how it could be “effective”. Given context, the only possibility of your “non-cooperation” is in voting. Fair enough, save this. If you’ve read this website for any length of time (or are you just slumming while Mark is on vacation?) then you would now that one of those awful parties is working overtime to prohibit people from voting. That would be the same party that has won every off term election in Montana for about 30 years. Now, even ignoring the party aspect, it seems that ‘Power’ (call them corporatists, or the shadow government or the MIC, or the illuminati, whatever you wish) doesn’t want people to vote. They work very hard to convince people voting is the only power we have left, knowing that power is ‘illusory’, but attempt to hand pick our candidates and gerrymander districts and character assassinate those candidates the Power doesn’t trust . That doesn’t actually make sense, does it? Unless, the Power fears people voting ‘the wrong way’. That’s my opinion, that they know one of the very few powers they have left the people with, by necessity, is the vote. They simply seek to ‘fix’ that, something I’m certain you would agree with. But the question still remains: why would someone, anyone, spend so much money and effort to ‘fix’ something they knew was in the bag?

Here you are, telling us all to not cooperate with the vote, to give up the illusion that voting matters, when obviously it does to those who are our enemies. I’m not going too far at all out on a limb to suggest that your opinion about ‘non-cooperation’ serves the power far more than it does the people. It gives them an easy road to nullifying something they find dangerous, the people actually having a power, a power you want us to give up to show our displeasure at how they have taken the power you want us to give up willingly. They makes no sense, Steve, not a lick of it. We are a nation of laws, not voters. If we don’t vote, then those who do (suckered in as they are by power) will set the laws, and we lose even more ground to those in control. Your plaintive plea for ‘non-cooperation’ isn’t organizing against the enemy. It’s serving their purpose.

Big money knows that voting matters, but strangely enough the very people who argue against serving big money are the ones serving "Big Money", by promoting the idea that voting doesn't matter.  If there was nothing broken in my electoral spirit before that exchange, than it most certainly occured then.  That's truly the tricky part of the whole damned shabang.   America is not a nice country because it's ruled by moneyed Oligarchs who are violent and we shouldn't stand against them by voting, which is the only right they seem fearful about removing in entirety ... excuse me, why now?  Other than to send the message that they have me by the balls, why shouldn't I vote?  Because Libya?  Because the environment and the Keystone XL?  Because ISIS and the Ukraine and good guys half way around the world are fighting the Oligarchs and I need to give up my life for those brave enough to pick up a rifle who hate American Empire by not going to the fairgrounds and blackening ovals on the right day?  Because it's a bad country with bad leadership, and the only fear I can instill in these assholes is to vote against them?  Tell me, tell me do, how does that make sense?

I don't give a salient shit about the doings half a world away. I care about what I can control, without having to march on a capital with a pitchfork.  Ezra Klein tells me how my goals will not be achieved, even though the majority of my fellow country-persons agree with me.  I respect Klein a great deal, and he's right, about *HOW* this election will likely happen.  But that isn't enough any more.  I wanna know why.  It isn't because Americans are stupid, or sheeple.  Americans know what they want, but they will turn out for the people they don't want in numbers certain to harm themselves.  How is not a question worth answering; it's boring, mundane and known.  Why is the actual question and no, the media and money is not the answer.  What makes people hurt themselves given the only power that the Oligarchs have left us with, by neccessity.  This is not an easy question to answer; it's quite complex.  But it's also worth looking into without the certitude of conspiracy.  Here's a conspiracy for you:  Mark T agrees with me that the worst thing that the US citizenry could have done was elect the former head of the CIA to the Presidency.  But he spares no effort in telling people how stupid they are for struggling mightily against a covert Navy Seal officer running for the House.  That makes no sense, and it really shouldn't, because he can't make anything of this complexity any more than others can.  These choices, these complexities, are all we face on tomorrow, when we do the ritual and vote.

I like that ritual, and none of these mentioned folk have any good reason why I shouldn't.  If anything, they offer me greater evidence why I should enjoy it.  In truth, they offer *you* greater evidence why you should get your ass to the polls and vote.  It's all we have left, unless we are willing to pick up rifle and hand-gun and pitchfork and stand against the oppressors.  I may not be enthusiastic about voting in this current political climate.  But I owe it to you, to me and my wife and those who think it useless to do so anyway.

So go vote.

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.

A Tale Of Trust and Humanity

Alternate title:  Joe O'Brien, a football life.  Yes, I know, I can hear the caterwahl right now that 'Wulfgar is just posting about football, AGAIN!'  Not really.  The story that Paul Kix wrote is a true story of trust, betrayal, suspicion and redemption.  Read this:

Breaking Good

That was a very tumultuous time to be paying attention to Bobcat football, or be a denizen of the MSU community.  The head coach in 2002-2003 was Mike Kramer, the man who put the 'ass' in asshole.  I was not the only person thinking/wishing/hoping that Joe O'Brien would soon be Head Coach.  And then Joe got arrested.  The stories flew hot and heavy about how Joe was selling meth outside of a school in Townsend and we simply must THINK OF THE CHILDRENS!  When the facts of the case came out, they were remarkably underreported.  I was one of the many who were completely pissed off that this meth-head had so shamed the University and its athletics program.   It took a homicide a couple of years later to put things in a bit of perspective.

A couple of years ago, the MSU Bookstore's general book manager had the foresight to book Joe O'Brien to a signing of his book, Busted Bronco, From Addiction To Redemption.  That was the first and only time I ever got to meet Joe O'Brien.  I was struck by the fact that he defied every stereotype of the broken felon.  He seemed willing, almost eager, to face the harm he had done on the very home ground of those he had 'betrayed'.  I had the chance to ask him if he thought he would ever coach again, a task he was extremely good at, methed up or not.  His response was simple, direct and polite.  "No."  A short couple of days after that book signing, we received direct word that some of the powerful on campus were none too happy with us for hosting such a loathsome human who betrayed us all by making MSU look bad; guilt by association and some such.

I've thought about that from time to time, and here's a few things I don't get and have rarely ever gotten.  Societally, we expect convicts to be broken people, worthy of our disdain because they are broken.  This is not a mystery.  What is curious to me, though, is that we seem to need them to be broken such that 'us good folk' can continue to thrive.  We as a society seem to have conceded the moral ground that bad guys can be good guys unless they get caught.  Then they can never be forgiven.  Why?  Not because they are bad guys or good guys but because they got caught.  Isn't that actually celebrating the success of poor decision and  punishing a crime not for the offense but rather for what the offense means to us when it is exposed?  The choices people make have context.  O'Brien made bad life choices that affected many many people.  But on the gridiron, his choices were exemplary.  Yet we are a vindictive culture.  His meth addiction did not color his coaching abilities, and he is proving that his coaching abilities are well above average without the meth.  But still there are those small minded folk who think only in terms of danger and fear.

Though I likely won't have the opportunity to do it, I want to go see a Simms Tigers football game.  I encourage any denizen of Great Falls to do so.  8 man football is awesome, and O'Brien is a helluva coach.

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.

Journalists Gone WILD!

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:  ???????????

Our media really stinks.