A Chicken Is Not Pillage

Denise Juneau and the U of M

I receive at least 2 emails a day begging, shaming and cajoling me into signing a petition for this that or the other cause against one offense or many.  Support Standing Rock, by pushing buttons on my keyboard.  Tell Trump that White Supremacy is bad, by pushing buttons on my keyboard.  Tell Obama to do this, and Trump to do that, and Tester to do this other thing, while pushing buttons on my keyboard.  Petitions have no effect.  None whatsoever.

The latest one that floods my Inbox is to tell the Board of Regents for the state of Montana to hire Denise Juneau as the President of the University of Montana.  I have a few questions here: 1) Has the job been listed for application?  (No, it hasn't).  2)  Has Juneau applied?  (No, she hasn't).  3)  Does Denise Juneau even want the job?  I have no idea.  Nor does anyone else begging me to sign the petition.  Listen up, folks.  I'm more than passingly familiar with how things work in the process of state hiring.  Your online petition is crap.  The Board of Regents is not elected, so you have no say in what they do.  The Governor proposes membership to this august body.  Your petition is a lie, and obligates another person who may not even want what you keep cluttering my email with.  Your petition means nothing, save this:  you want what you want and seem to think that I want the same without discussion or reason.  Put frankly, I don't see that as any different than what has come from Trump voters.

Don't get me wrong.  I think she'd be awesome, in her first year.  But the challenges that face the U of M are custom made  for failure at the Presidency level.  Students are flocking to the hard science University.  Missoula city and county governments have never been in any way agreeable.  And no one knows the real vagaries of the Board of Regents.  Despite the 700% pay raise, I wouldn't want that damned job.  Okay, maybe I would.  But has anyone asked Denise?  That's the part that bugs me the most about online petitions and voter arrogance in our pseudo-democracy.  No little petition is going to force behavior on the part of another, not the regents, and not Juneau.

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?

Stupid Is As Stupid Does

I am much happier, now.  Here, have a picture of a puppy:

  Throughout my hiatus, there was one thing I really did miss, and that's railing against assholes who really really deserve it.  Not because 'they believe the wrong things'.  If I did that, I'd be writing at Cowgirl.  No, the ones who usually most deserve it are those who believe that only they and theirs believe the right things, and to them, everyone else commits bad think, and is an an asshole to be shunned, vilified and silenced.

There's a lot of folk out there who have believed for years that I am a 'good Democrat', often with derision, of course.   Certainly I'm thought of as a good democrat by the people who send me two to three emails a day, (often more) in support of cause X or petition Y, always with a request for money.  In truth, I am a good democrat, it's just that so many others keep using that word.  I don't think it means what they think it means. 

Way way on back, I spent a couple of weekends gathering signatures for the ERA.  (For any younguns reading this, that was a proposed Equal Rights Amendment which actually would have codified in our Constitution that all people are deserving of the same legal rights.  That right there should indicate to you that no, that wasn't in the Constitution, and still isn't today ...)    Over the years, I've thought a lot about that experience, pondering what I'd learned, or if there was anything from it to learn.  The message that came through the loudest is that people, Montana people at least,  don't like being told how to think.  That seems simple enough on the surface, that no one likes being told what they should think, but that isn't how I phrased it, or consider it to this day.  The simple (and erroneous) idea that offering competing ideas to people isn't problematic is probably correct.  Where the push-back starts is when you begin telling them how to think about something to arrive at the conclusion you want.  The mere threat that you want to change someone's thinking, not their conclusions but the very way they embrace their conclusions, sparks anger.  It is a threat to identity, it is a threat to basic authority over one's own reason.

Certainly most folk don't come to the right conclusions.  That's why we blog, right?  ~wink~  But when we step back and take a look, we find that they are coming to the right conclusions, for them.  They have reason, or at least what passes for it in the human animal.  They have experiences, biases, myopia and blind spots; we all do.   But we don't all consider them in the same ways.  Except at the basest electromechanical level, we don't all think alike.  We have different, sometimes wildly different, data sets which we call experiences and memories.  Some folk inspire imagination and connections between disparate ideas by reading fiction, others not.  Some read fact after fact after fact and draw rock solid conclusions (given there are no facts that they have failed to consider.) Some people just plain like having conclusions handed to them so they can process the minutia of the day.

Not one bit of this is new, obscure or revolutionary information.  And to me, that fact is what makes assholes really assholes.  The one conclusion that is wrong 100% of the time is that there is a right way to think and that others are doing it wrong, monstrously wrong.  I wrote the post "Monsters" 10 and half years ago.  I wrote  at the end of it  "If I can work up the give-a-shit, I'll write more on this later."  Now THAT, my friends is epic procrastination.  A lot has changed in those 10 years.  I'd love to say it's for the better, but that would be a bit of a lie, wouldn't it?  I certainly won't repeat the litany of everything that has gone wrong, but you won't have trouble finding that listicle if wish.  Others repeat it almost daily.  Still here's some things that should be on that list and aren't:  More Americans are disenchanted with our politics, though how in the hell that happened transitioning from a Bush Presidency to Obama should give everyone a bit of pause.  I suggest there is some wisdom to be found there. More Americans are convinced that the government is our enemy, whether by purchase of corporation or from a liberal Kenyon gay-agenda takeover.  There's empirical evidence for those opinions, but here's one that just seems a broad observation related to those.  In our social media connected information overload world, people seem far more concerned with identifying wrong thinkers and pointing out how monstrous they *really* are.

We've entered a great Ad Hominem phase of democracy, if you can even call it that anymore.  Here's what I've noticed about Democrats in Montana.  With ever more frequency, they apply the right-think test to people, and have lost ground in the legislature since I wrote Monsters 10 years ago.  A lot of ground.  I tried to point that out at another blog a number of years ago and was told I wasn't thinking right because Democrats held all five major positions in state government, the state Supreme Court (in a thoroughly non-partisan way, of course), and both Senate seats.  I'm stating the same here, and to any who wish to defend the stratagems and right thinking of Montana Democrats with the same argument?  Well come at me, bro'.  Tim Fox is our Attorney General.  Our legislature falls increasingly under the control of the worst elements of bat-crap crazy.  And about those Senate seats ...  Here's the real takeaway that tends to send me over the edge.  For ten years the argument has been made that people will tire of the Republican Monsters and then Utopia.  To those so thoroughly convinced that if we just boycott, silence and vilify anyone who doesn't think the right way, how's that plan working out for you?  Another website tried their level best to turn Art Wittich into a monster.  Yes, he's an awful human being and represents the worst of governance.  He also almost single handedly blocked the best job creation infrastructure bill the Montana leg has seen in quite some time.  The monster punked us all

I am a democrat because I am convinced that the only way we can have a functioning society that works for all is if all voices are heard and represented, even the wrong-thinking ones.  (Irony alert!)  Please don't think I'm putting on holy airs, here.  I'll argue til the cows go to slaughter, and I don't always observe social niceties.  It is fun to misbehave.  But I try very very hard to let people think for themselves, even if I think they are idiots.  You can't have a democracy where certain ideas themselves become an evil, and getting along becomes a greater goal than social justice and rule of law.

How *NOT* To Do Comment Moderation

MT Intemperance  is completely fucking out of control.  Off the reservation.  A fucking loon.

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. 

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.

 

Update

A quick update to let any who care know that I'm still alive.

1)  I'm still alive.

2)  If any y'all haven't voted yet, the day is tomorrow, SO VOTE!

3)  If you are voting the Democratic primary, I urge you to vote for Dirk Adams for Senate.  Yes, I know that's an unfortunatly cartoonish name.  Yes, I am quite well aware that I should have spent the last month campaigning for him and sharing his policy posts on Facilebook.  Still, what do you expect when I post here for the first time in months just to let people know that I'm still around, Hummm?  Yes, I am aware that some of the dim think that he is a 'fake' Democrat.  Bullocks, pun intended.

I got to meet Adams less than 2 months ago in Dillon.  He struck me as angry, and I was disappointed that he didn't have more to say about policy, and instead focused on what's wrong wth his establishment opponent.  You know what's funny about his anger though?  He's pissed over the same things that piss me off, the dark influence of money in political choice, the weak desperation of the Montana Democratic establishment, the political inaction that has led us to the edge of ruin, and the lack of concern for an entire gender that permeates our 'policy'.  It's easy to be fed up with posturing anger in our so-called leadership.  But think on this:  If we elect representatives to be our voice, and we're all pissed off about the above listed things, who better to represent us than a person who shares that anger, chosen to give voice where we have little?  I haven't had the time to share these noodlins' online, but that's where I'm coming from.  I will vote for Dirk Adams, and I hope you will (have) too.

4)  It looks like the city of Bozeman is doing the right thing, recognizing equal protection under the law to all folks.   Please forgive me if I sound pompous, but I knew this was coming.  Time can't heal all wounds, but it does correct injustice given enough understanding that we are really all in this together.

5)  I have spent the last several months correcting a few bad habits.  One is this: never engage in online conversation where Larry Kralj has commented more than three times.  The second, never engage in any online conversation where Mark Tokarski has been responded to even once.  The third is to click immediately away from any thread in which JC shares a self-indulgent anectdote.  The result of doing any of those is illfated, cursed ... or put less dramatically, a colossal waste of time.  Not a one of them has anything fresh to say, or anything helpful to offer.  Just like too many of those they rail against, they haven't accepted the fact that we are all in this together.  So it's no use dealing with what they've polluted.  I have and will continue to read the blogs, but the comments are a waste anymore.  (Food for thought, Pogie.)

In case I don't post again until Football season begins (chorus of angels providing background vocals), y'all have yourself a terrific Summer.

Tim Fox Hates Your Internet

No that isn't a joke.  Attorney General Tim Fox wants your Internet under his thumb ... fer the childrens, o' course.  Read this.  I'm serious, read it.  Don't wait for the executive summery.  Just.Read.The.Damned.Article already.  I'll wait.

 

Are you done?  Good.  Here is that summery.  47 state Attorney Generals have a sent a strongly worded letter to Congress begging that free-speech protections on the Internet be gutted and discarded because the Internet hates children and innocence.  Here's the letter.  In short, it says that bad things happen to children and local law enforcement can't stop that because states don't have control over anyone who might possibly be accountable for communicating the intention for bad things to happen in the entire world.    Please, Congress, give states the ability to regulate what gets posted on the Internet by holding anyone in our jurisdiction accountable as we see fit, because, ya know, children!.

Do you think what I've written is hyperbole?  If so, then you didn't read the article, did you?  If not, go read it now.  I'm not making this up.  That is exactly the power the 47 state AGs have just requested, the power to let local legislation and enforcement decide who is guilty when bad things happen based on a method of communication, of supposedly free speech.

I don't know whether John Bullock would have signed such a letter.  I do know that Tim Fox did.  Such a short time into his tenure, and Tim Fox wants to control your comments, your website, your web host.  Tim Fox hates your free speech, and hates your Internet.

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.