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?

When In The Course Of Human Events ...

The lack of trial for Darren Wilson following his homicide of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo. does not surprise me at all.  It does however break my heart just a little bit more.  Before any asshole comes bopping on in here to tell me the obvious, that Wilson is "innocent" of Homicide, no that shithead is not.  He has been exonerated from the legal charge of Homicide, but y'all had best brush up on the language.  Homicide is the deliberate killing of another human being, and that is to the very f'ing letter what Wilson did.  He drew his sidearm and shot an unarmed human to death, then calling for 'backup' with no thought to the human being he had just slaughtered on a street.  That's homicide.  A grand jury has now stated that he will not be held accountable for that shooting, but that does not change the fact that he killed a person, and other persons that he couldn't kill are now dealing with the loss of Michael Brown.  That is heart breaking.

What makes me angry and sick is that Wilson likened Brown to a "demon".  He looked like a DEMON, Wilson claimed.  This from a 'police officer', one who is supposed to protect us from crime, not from his fear fantasies.  A DEMON.  You don't have to be a genius to see that as code for a pissed off black man.  Why on Earth would anybody give a gun to such a chickenshit and charge him with protecting human beings when he has delusions of DEMONS?  Throughout this lengthy 'investigation' process, I have rationally tried to give Wilson the benefit of the doubt.  He was afraid for his well being.  He was threatened and attacked.  There is no doubt left.  Wilson was being a coward, terrifed of his DEMONS, and he shot a young man to death because he was a coward with a gun.  The portion of humanity not terrified of demonic dark skinned folk, or who really don't believe in 'demons' are left distinctly disastisfied with that bullshit ass-covering from a coward.

According to what is obviously the most corrupt 'prosecuting' attorney we know currently serving in the US (he was prosecuting the victim, not the demonologist who shot him), Wilson had "severe contusions" on his face, from the attack by Brown.  Severe.  Right ... Anybody who has a brain cell left can see that Ezra Klein is absolutely correct.  Wilson's story, and McCulloch's support of it, is unbelievable, improbable, utter bullshit.  Peytin Manning gets a worse "contusion" on his forehead from wearing a helmet every week than Wilson got from Brown.  Seriously, and with all temperence, is a fucking pathetic and light bruise a reason to shoot someone to death?  To the Grand Jury in Missouri, apparently so.

So, Ferguson blows up over night.  Rioting, looting, arson ... I would suggest revolting, as in revolution.  Chickenshit backwardsass 2nd amendment cowards who've been talking smack about using their violence against the Negro in the White House are now suddenly all about law and order, happily telling those dark-skinned folk how they *NEED* to accept the Grand Jury's verdict.  No, they really fucking don't.  For reasons that are sooo goddamned obvious, these people should be pissed off.  They've just been told that the country doesn't serve them, it serves white order, where terrified little pasty demon believers get to shoot young black men with impunity and claim that being bitch slapped less than most frat boys have been can be adequately responded to with homicide.

Aaron Flint posted the stupid tweet of the day (if not the decade):

 

#MTPol MT @TheElIIenShow: don't care what side you agreed w/ on Ferguson Trial...No American should act like this. pic.twitter.com/rOFTzjHS9Q

— Aaron Flint (@aaronflint) N

November 25, 2014

That's about the dumbest fricking thing ever written.  No "American" should act like that, except the people who dressed as 'injuns'  and threw tea in a harbor.  Or those who instigated a riot and caused the Boston Massacre.  Or those who have rebelled against oppresive rule since July 4 1776.  Dumbass 'journalists' like Flint don't get to tell the people how to behave.  They will behave as free people will, including burning upside down flags to show that our nation is in serious trouble when cowards are given lordship over us, and military might defends their ability to do so.   We have us a problem, people.  The US is becoming an oppresive police state that favors cowardice and pale skin.  I sympathize with Ferguson, tonight.  My heart is broken for their loss, and all of our own.

 

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.

The Horrors of the World Are All About *YOU*

 

From this Metafilter thread, mostly about the Grandaddy of Using Conspiracy for Profit, there is a link to a righteous rant by the blogger MightyGodKing.  He, like myself, has lost all patience with the false-flagger conspiracy loons who blame all criminal malfeasance on subtle and unknowable government evil.  He points out what I have as well many times, and quite frankly does it much better than I ever have.  The 'Conspiracy Theorists' who scream "False Flag" over any and all tragic events are trying desperately to have an important place in the consequences of the horror.  MGK writes:

"because yelling “false flag” doesn’t really have anything to do with the plausibility of a conspiracy theory, but instead relies on the desperate need of people – and, let’s be honest, generally white dudes, because it is white dudes who comprise the overwhelming majority of conspiracy theorists – to feel victimized when something bad had absolutely nothing to do with them."

That is the long and short of it.  The point of engaging conspiracies has nothing to do with engagement at all.  It is appropriating pain for personal self-importance.  Frankly it is no different than the companies widely reviled who use tragic events to market their products.  That's not engagement, but rather manipulation and as MGK notes, it's awfully assholish.

"falseflaggers don’t care because their theories aren’t about logic or reason or anything at all. Their theories are about making tragedies that happen to other people about them. It’s a fundamentally narcissistic response to tragedy – to not only ask “how does this affect me” but to twist the facts of the event to create a narrative so that you are more likely to be affected. It’s an asshole move, plain and simple, and falseflaggers deserve to be treated like assholes, because they’re assholes."

One of the most profound comments to the post is this, from The Unstoppable Gravy Express:

When government decides to do shady unethical stuff, typically the last thing they want to do is, y’know, call attention to it.

“I’ve drafted a new bill to give us complete control of all milk production in the country. But first, let’s blow up a few thousand cows so everyone’s attention will be firmly on the dairy industry. THEN we’ll sneak it by them. Heh, heh heh.”

More to the only point I would add to what MightyGodKing writes is what another commenter in his thread suggests:

Believing in conspiracies makes you smart. Any time you get an online discussion of this kind of thing, someone will announced that while the official story may fool the sheeple couch potatoes who accept whatever lies the mainstream media spoonfeed them, smart people look behind the lies and uncover the truth! As CS Lewis once observed, this is an awfully seductive delusion.

The idea that one is smarter than 'everyone else' is seductive, but also instructive.  It clarifies to any rational person that False Flaggers don't want to engage but rather seek desperately to hide from any engagement.  It is circular reasoning that shows disagreement is evidence of 'lesser thinking', and so should (must) not be taken seriously.  The false flagger knows more, cares more, has more importance to reality and existence than the person who points out that they might be wrong.  Of course they're not wrong; every breath or word of question and/or disagreement proves how right they are.  It's a particular invulnerability to the truth, based solely on the need to be important.

Seriously, there are enough real conspiracies in the world to occupy our time.  Cops acting illegally and hiding behind the 'thin blue line', Wall Street in general, the Republicant's desire to drown government in a bathtub and many Democrats desiring to help them, Obama's flawed "Grand Bargain", 'the Left's' betrayal of labor, the LDS Church opposition to the icky 'gays' being people, ALEC, the NRA, the Patriot Acts, the 'War On Drugs'.  These things are not hidden; they're in your face every fricken day.  BUT, they don't afford one a sense of being a superhero who sees what's *really* going on, and latching oneself like a remora to tragedy in order to feel important  while being disengaged.  Those common place conspiracies are just life that we all deal with in this 'bestest country EVAR!'

So, next time you encounter someone talking smack about 'free energy beam weapons', 'actors hired to play amputees' and people disappearing mysteriously from a tragedy, nod sagely and walk away (never losing eye contact until at a safe distance.)  You won't convince them of the crazy they spout, and they won't help you in covering anything that is a real concern.  They're in it for themselves, may they find their place in Heaven or build to good Karma.  But it isn't about you, and never will be.  It is about, to them, how the horrors of the world are theirs to own.

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.

Common Ground

In response to my last post, Craig Moore attempted, poorly, to catch me up in some kind of hypocrisy and he missed my point completely.   That's not very surprising.  He has an agenda and I was being deliberately obscure, though using terrific music in the effort.  So, for those few who might want to know what I was thinking, I just figured I'd explain it.

Back in 2004, the 'Brady Bill' assault weapons ban on sale was set to expire.  Both Presidential candidates in debate waffled about their support for such a thing, politically blaming Congress for what at the time, amounted to inaction concerning a 'hot button' issue in the great culture war between right and left.  A few things have happened since then.  An asshole with two handguns and a lot of loaded clips became the most prolific mass shooter in American history at Virginia Tech.  An asshole who looks like Sideshow Bob dressed in combat gear shot 70 people in a theater, killing 12.  And an asshole walked into a school and killed 20 six and seven year old children, as well as 6 adults trying to save those lives.  As Craig pointed out, in 2004 I called the gun control debate trivial.  It isn't trivial anymore.  Things do change.  For one, the NRA has convinced a remarkable amount of America that gun control means gun confiscation.  For two, we've elected a black President, a President that many including the NRA have worked to convince people wants to take your guns to spur racial fear.  (It should be noted that Obama is the first President elected twice by a majority of the popular vote since Dwight Eisenhower.)  And three, oh yes, assholes are mass killing our children.

Here we are in 2013 having the gun control debate again.  The political will has shifted, but it seems the arguments never do.  That fascinates me more than any policy change.  Policy follows the wind of culture, but culture follows the desires of those who make it.  Since the St. Reagan endorsed 'Brady Bill' passed, FAUX News has become the dominant source of TV misinformation.  The Tea Peeps have risen.  The NRA has shifted focus from promoting gun safety and responsible ownership to lobby support for gun manufacturers and universal ownership of their product, regardless of qualification.  The SCOTUS has decreed a right to keep arms, though still refuses to address the qualifying clause.  We have the Bush doctrine of foreign policy which says 'get them before they get you'.  And our culture, politics and policy has become increasingly divided, antagonistic and extreme.   Yet the arguments concerning gun control really haven't changed that much, save in decibels.

Since the Newtown shootings, I've had several arguments with my brother concerning efforts of gun control.  These haven't been policy arguments.  On policy, we probably are fairly much in agreement, though I think he would favor a more extreme interpretation of such.  No, our arguments have been about 'the opposition'.  He recently posted a Facebook update about the ill-use of his good reason at the hands of "liberals".  His reasoning was okay, for what it was, but he is doing the same as those awful "liberals" are doing.  He is striving in all righteous victim-hood against those most extreme who influence policy the very least.  He paints all gun control advocates with the very same brush.  They are going 'take his guns'.  Of course, they are arguing against gun-nuts, gun addicts,  redneck shooters, holding my brother to a standard of wacko that isn't even remotely applicable, which is exactly the same mistake as he makes with them.  That's the part of the argument that fascinates me.

The progression of the argument is lamentably historic:  You can't talk about this tragedy because it's still raw and people are emotional.  But people do and they should.  Of course, removed from the tragedy, people are still emotional, both sides attempting the high moral ground.  Both sides hold that the very worst of the other is the norm.  Gun Grabbers!  Gun Addicts!  Shortly after the Newtown shootings, I posted on Twitter that anyone who brings up 'penis' isn't really interested in discussing gun control.  They are interested in demeaning gun owners.   I attempted, gently, to point out to others that those who are concerned about gun crime will never, ever, come to take your guns away.  EVER.  But that is where the argument has gone and will continue to go, nonetheless.   ~sigh~

Which brings me back to the previous post and my point in posting it.  Common ground.  This should be the point of discussion but I have no confidence it will be.  'Gungrabbers' want to protect their children, their families, their property and their society.  'Gun-nuts' want to protect their children, their families, their property and their society.  It doesn't matter if you use a Broadsword or an AR-15 or legislation.  You want the same things, people.  Get a fricking grip.

Death Comes In Many Ways

To those who think I have no sympathy for the anti-gun-control argument, you'd best revisit the rhythms I worship.

 

Programming Notes

1)  Left In The West lives.  No, I'm not the one posting, nor should that influence participation.  It might be at least polite to say hello to Carla Augustad.

2)  I have a fantasy football league that will be hella fun.  The general scoring is set to be prolific.  I've altered the scoring to punish bad play, and have included a whole lot of defensive aptitude.  We're lookng for about 3 more 'team owners'.  If you have an interest just for fun's sake, let me know.  My email addy is easy to find.

3)  The most viewed post I've exposed to the wild in the last 3 years is the post where Stoya has an orgasm.   It's funny to me how many lefty folk claim that ignoring me is wise, and yet their IP addresses seem to have viewed that post.  ~heh~.

Labor and the Left

I've posted comments at least a dozen times that the left has abandoned labor to it's own detriment.  I've been vocal that that schism has affected communities in Montana harshly, most notably Missoula.  As Union labor found itself increasingly silenced, and unemployed,  workers have flocked to the false "your own bootstraps" philosophy of the right.  People who were raised to believe in gainful employment have found themselves cast aside in political will in favor of Reagan's treasured 'welfare queens', or the habitat of the lop-eared spotted jackalope.  And those people got pissed off.  Meanwhile, the Left, now deep believers in Gaia mysticism, social safety nets for those who agreed with 'the agenda', freedom and safety for the folks in Whogivesafuckistan and the evils of the rapacious corporations who used to employ union labor, have lost sight of the political will that actually scared their enemies.  They have no governor on self-desire, and then wonder why they find themselves alone amidst a sea of people who really don't like their agenda much.

Almost every time I've written such blasphemy (the Left can do no wrong, you know), I have been dismissed, poo-pooed, told I'm not worth responding to.  Of course I'm wrong.  The left loves them some labor ... except they don't.  They haven't for some time.  I've meant to write more on this but really haven't cared enough to do so.  The Left is welcome to it's fantasies, but will rarely understand political will.  My sympathies are with people who want better lives, not ideologues.  Fortunately, others write about what I haven't, like Mark Ames at naked capitalism:

Aryeh Neier, founder of Human Rights Watch and its executive director for 12 years, doesn’t hide his contempt for the idea of economic equality as one of the key human rights. Neier is so opposed to the idea of economic equality that he even equates the very idea of economic equality and justice with oppression—economic rights to him are a violation of human rights, rather than essential human rights, thereby completely inverting traditional left thinking.

...

And that brings me to the ACLU today—the most depressing part of this story. I had an inkling that the ACLU had abandoned labor before my simple exercise check of their website. Mike Elk has shared with me some of his research into this subject. And it’s well known that the ACLU vigorously supported the disastrous Citizens United decision; the ACLU also took $20 million dollars from the Koch brothers, whose libertarian outfits have played a major role in making Citizens United a reality. Supposedly that money was meant to “fight the Patriot Act”—which is odd, considering that the director of the Koch brothers’ Center for Constitutional Studies at Cato and Vice President for Legal Affairs at Cato, Roger Pilon, explicitly supported the Patriot Act from 2002 through 2008, and that the Kochs’ Cato Institute hired John Yoo to serve on their editorial advisory board for the Cato Supreme Court Review. One should be skeptical when it comes to Koch “donations” sold to the public as charity work in the service of human rights.

By all means, read the whole thing.

At no point whatsoever am I arguing or advocating for support of the right.  Yet many on the left are, because they don't understand what being 'the left' really means.  It doesn't mean wailing about climate change while helping those who profit from climate change get elected.  Being "Left" doesn't give one an insight into the secret life of trees that some brute will cut down for a paycheck.  The LEFT won't get anything if they don't have the will of those who work behind them.  The 'left' should be all about labor, but strangely thinks that Lynx habitat is more important than clean drinking water.  The left really should consider that the ACA might be a good thing, if one could support the good without insulting those who actually have the political will to make it happen.