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 Tweet Of Purist Stupidity

Austin Knudsen, state representative from Culbertson, West Dakota, posted a tweet so stupid it should be on one of the Buzzfeed listicles.  The Billings Gazette had a fine editorial coming out against guns being allowed on college campuses.  Knudsen's response is nothing short of sweet terrible idiocy:

 

The Gazette gets it wrong again re guns on campus. By their logic, more fire extinguishers will just cause more fires. #mtleg #mtpol

— Austin Knudsen (@RepKnudsen) February 12, 2015

The stupid is akin to fire ants noshing on one's nutsack, it burns so bad.  On the very day that we discover that an asshole killed 3 people over a parking obsession, and another asshole got sentenced to prison for shotgunning to death a person he set up to die, Knudsen argues against himself and thinks that clever.  I don't have enough hands for the facepalm this deserves.

I react so strongly to this twit (tweet) for 2 reasons.  1)  I know that there are dim people out there who will actually think Knudsen's quip makes sense.  Somebody voted this moron into office, yes?  2)  He actually, deep in his ignorant heart, thinks he's using logic.  No.  No he's not.  In order for analogy to work, like things have to be, you know, like.  A fire extinguisher, an object of a particular purpose announced in the very name, has a particular function:  it puts out fires.  Except under the most fantastical circumstances, it can never cause a fire.  Are y'all with me on this?  Good.

Knudsen's stupidity would have it that if a gun causes violence then another gun can stop that violence, like a fire extinguisher stops ... fire extinguishers?  Umm, no.  The purpose of a gun is clear.  Firearms kill.  I don't find that disputable on any level.  Knudsen's logic, the real kind and not his stupid version, is that students, staff, faculty having guns will 'extinguish' others using the same tool.  That's not a terrible bad argument until you accept that if no guns are allowed on campus, then fires won't start except at the rarest of instance when an extinguisher is need.  He makes, himself,  the very best argument for not allowing firearms on campus. 

The Oppression of the White Man

Since I've already received an email about my last post telling me how the European White Folk are in danger of extinction, I thought I'd offer a visual of exactly how that could come to be:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now you got a choice there, White boy.  You can keep believing that the black and the hispanic and the jew are your deepest ememies who've come to oppress your sorry white ass.  Or, you can revile the guys with guns, who actually can oppress your sorry white ass.  They don't recognize race; they see targets.  So you just keep telling me how we all need to bow to police authority, and how the black man is all that they care about and "should be" 'defending us' from ...

When the guys in camo with masks and WMDs come to put you down, asshole, they aren't going to care about the color of your skin.  Do you really think the black man so scary that you worship those guys with guns who don't give one sad fuck about you?

Post Championship Weekend Notes

Congratulations are in order for the Seattle Seahawks and the Denver Broncos, not just for making it to 'The Show', but for being the very best this season.  Frankly, this matchup inspires my nostalgia for football past, when the 'Hawks were part of the AFC West.  Many many memories.  I remember Denver kicking the Seahawks in Denver only to be blown out in the King Dome.  I remember "old" Craig Morton  coming off the bench in the third quarter, Denver trailing by 24 points.  Three minutes later, Denver had three touchdowns, and went on to win the game.   I remember Safety Dennis Smith launching at Steve Largent and planting him but good in Mile High (personal foul, 15 yards.)  Later that season, blocking for an open field run, Largent repayed Smith with a hit that blasted him out of his boots, (no penalty, though.)  Back in the day, no one took San Diego seriously even with 4 division titles and Air Coryell.  The rivalry between Denver and KC was as serious as a heart attack.  The Raiders, well, everyone hated them anyway.  The rivalry between Denver and Seattle was the 'fun rivalry', the one I think we all enjoyed.  I only hope those memories and that spirit carries through the coming Super Bowl.

Folks, please do not buy into the bullshit narratives about Richard Sherman being a "thug".  He is a passionate player with a mouth, an unbelievably intelligent player, likely the best currently at his position.  (He has a ways to go before he overtakes the "Champ"  as the best Cornerback ever.)  The story that's being sold to you is a total bill of of false goods, and has a really ugly undertone.  The only thing I can say for it is this:  the sport's punditry actually got the sides of the ball right.  As commenter Nameless Range well notices, we so often get this tale of Quarterback against Quarterback.  Uh, no.  Sherman really will be going against Peyton Manning; can Manning fit the ball where Demerius Thomas can get it but Sherman can't?  We'll find out.  But the color of skin and 'acceptable demeaner' of either player means absolutely jack-squat.  Sherman's issue appears to be with Michael Crabtree, and Crabtree won't be there on February second in New Jersey.  Please, just let it go.

Apparently, 'the league' is considering getting rid of extra point kicks.   Some think this an excellent idea; I strongly don't.  'But they are almost automatic' is the hue and cry.  Only 2% ever get missed.  That's 2% of excitement, and actually much more.  Work the math.  Football is a game of multiples of threes and sevens.  Anyone who watched the AFC Championship game knows the importance of the 2 point conversion.  It's a gut clenching challenge to the math of the game, and horribly exciting because of it.  Making multiples of 2 a regular feature reduces the excitement to a mere mundanity.  Yes, it is harder to make a two point conversion than a simple kick.  But if everyone has to try, then you end up with games that can more easily be tied, games that conversions won't matter in because of even numbers, and a complete disrespect for the history of the League.    The PA(s)T is one tradition that should not be messed with.

Goodell, not happy with just challenging tradition, has decided that personal fouls should probably be reviewable.  How absolutely gracious of him.  When one player hits another, a camera should decide if it was *really* a bad hit.  Again I use the vulgarity bullshit.  There are three kinds of rules in the NFL.  There are the basic rules of scrimmage:  eleven men on either side, no one crosses the line until the ball is in play, offensive players can't hold, 4 plays to get ten yards.   There are the rules that define and enhance the competition:  both feet in bounds and control, no one can impede progress to the ball, stiff-arming allowed and no grounding if out-of-pocket and the toss is beyond the line.  Then there are the rules for player safety, and these things should be absolute, sacrosanct  and unreviewable.  You don't launch with your helmet, you don't hit quarterbacks in the head or below the knees (the Brady rule), you don't hit the plant leg of kickers (I'm looking at you Steratore!) and you don't hit defenseless receivers when the ball isn't in play.  These things are not currently open to review and they damned well shouldn't be.  These rules are to protect players, and reviewing whether they were 'egregious enough' is a flat out stupid idea.  Goodell needs his head examined.  If you want to change review rules, let coaches call challenges at any time, even within the two minutes to end of half.   Let coaches challenge on any potential turnover.  Those things actually matter.  Keeping the peace with coaches who don't think their savage back delivered a savage hit is just moronic.

Speaking of hits, which would you find to be more embarrassing:  That Belickick thinks Welker deliberately took out Talib?  Or that Aqib Talib has to admit to being taken out by a 5'10" receiver weighing 180 pounds on a good day, who hit him cleanly from the front when that defender saw him coming?  Yes, there likely should have been a flag on that play.  But considering h0w well the Broncos were moving the ball, I doubt it really would have mattered.   The funny part to me is this, if Thomas would have caught that pass, we'd be talking about whether or not Welker's hit was early.  Instead, we're looking at whether a defensive back got taken out by a midget receiver on purpose.  If I were Talib, I would not be happy that my coach just told the world that I got blasted out of the biggest game I've played by a dwarf.  ~heh~

There is always more to write, but I've typed enough for now.  Please look forward to what could be an epic Sooper Dooper Bowl.

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.

Regulation Is Killing Montana!

Since 2009, it has been a frequent refrain from the TEApeeps in this fine state that Montana is losing jobs and opportunity to our neighbors.  "We are over-taxed", they warn.  "We are over-regulated!" they shout.  "WE ARE OVERBURDENED" is their lament.  "We are rhetorical over-wrought" would be the only true thing they could say, and never will.

Being a denizen of Bozeman, it's been remarkably difficult for me to take such caterwaul at all seriously.  As it happens, one shouldn't take the TEApeep's prognostications seriously.  Not one bit.

Montana is first in the nation for entrepreneurial start ups.   Not Wyoming, not NoDak, not Idaho.  We were 17th in 2011.  That's quite a jump in a year.  If eight years of Schweitzer's bullying and regulatory madness (!) didn't kill opportunity in this state, then it appears we are going to be just fine.

A Butterfly Flaps Its Wings In China and ...

Pursuant to the post down here,  some false-flaggers are now showing how insane their theories are.  Those who claim a 'free energy beam weapon' was involved in 9/11 will invariably point out that a large storm system was headed for New York City shortly before the events of that day.  But something, ~wink wink~, something steered that storm out to sea.  Hmmmm...

Enter Alex Jones, again.  The Government surely has some energy weapon that can control weather, and maybe used it against the hapless citizens of Moore, Oklahoma.  How else can one explain tornadoes, in Oklahoma?

 

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.

Not Ended

Just questioning.  'Must admit that I'm not surprised both of you self-absorbed fucking dipshits missed the point of that post completely.  After all, it wasn't about *you*.

Update:  Just because I think she's a lying witch, I really have to ask:  Jhwygirl 'claims' that no blogger at 4 and Ego is "paid" to blog, yet other bloggers around the state are.  How does she know?  More to the point, how does any reader know that no blogger at that website isn't blogging on the state dime, yet supposedly obvious others are?  Others blog using 'inside knowledge' of state function obviously only acquirable from someone who garners government pay, yet strangely the 4 & 20 folk just pull what they know from the ether.  So obviously one website is "paid" and the other isn't.  Curious, don't you think?

The Ad Hominems have taken control of the Montana web'o'sphere, and I guarantee you right now, that the worst offenders are the ones who cry most foul that I point this out.