A Chicken Is Not Pillage

Privilege

When the concluding stanza of your argument for not voting is that things wouldn't have gotten better or worse for you under Hillary Clinton, then you've just made an argument with three conclusions:

1)  Despite the sad challenges you have to face personally, you are privileged by the very system you wish to burn down.  It ultimately is all about you.

2)  You really don't have progressive ideals.  You care about what you get for minimum effort, and that supports the status quo of blaming others for your lack of involvement.

3)  Caterwaul about foreign people in foreign lands is a smoke screen, to convince others that you care about what you've just shown you don't care about.  It ultimately is all about you, and what the rest of us do is judged by you according to that selfish dictate.

Here's the thing Mr. and Ms. I Burned My Ballot.  Your kids are screwed.  While some of us who you think little of were fighting against the idea that the US President should have unlimited war powers, Congress gave it to them with the MCA.  You weep for American citizen terrorists blown up by drone strikes because of that Obummer.  You should.  You should also pull your head out of your butt and realize that Donald Trump now has that same power.  Thanks to you, not me.  Good job.  You can gesticulate, prevaricate, pontificate that Hillary Clinton would have abused the power just as much as Obama.  Enjoy that, because that's all your privileged bullshit leaves you.  The reality of the next four years will likely be much much worse, but you've covered your ass with a fantasy of what would have happened under the corrupt Clinton.  My, what power you have dictating the pain the rest of us will feel because you were too fricking special to cast a ballot.  Trump will open gas, coal and oil leases right here in the US of A.  You could have voted to stop him from doing that, but you relied on the stupid fantasy that Hillary was worse.  So, you doom others and excuse yourself from any responsibility with a dream.  Hey, wake up, jackass.  This is the new reality.  I won't accept it any more than someone in rural America accepts you calling them Sheeple, or racist or stupid.  Rail against the DNC all you want.  Wail against establishment all you want, though you just served the Republican establishment just as they told you to do.  Here's the point, non-voting jerkoff.   You just sucked FAUX New's dick and loved every second of it.  The proof is that you blame me for the assault that will now be done to you, and your children.

Anthropogenic climate change will continue and accelerate.   Wealth distribution upward will continue.  The US remains an empire in decline.  We have well entered stage 4, flailing and grasping for silver bullets to save our stature.  We are one click away from capitulation and resignation.  That would be moral, social, and economic bankruptcy.  You, non-voter, have already capitulated.  So don't even think you have half of my resolute will.  You don't.

 

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.

 

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.

It Ain't That Damned Hard, People

It's just Arithmetic:

Droning On

I felt compelled to create 2 new tags for this post.  It's been a while coming, nonetheless.  This will be mostly an opinion piece.  If you're expecting links or narcissistic mention then you will likely be disappointed.

One has not been able to read the blogs or the Twitters, or FaceofEvilBook for months now without encountering the dire stories of drone strikes, Kill Lists, the maniacal psychopath Obama and his blood lust or tales of innocence destroyed by the Skynet machines ... Drones!  The righteous wrath is coming from the right and the left, though I would be remiss in failing to point out that most of the outrage is coming from the left, and much of the 'America, FUCK YEAH!' is coming from the right.  To many on the left, unmanned drones are the horror that spies on us as we plot a new government, as well as the devices that kill entire wedding parties in WhoGivesAFuckistan.   To many on the right, drones are the crushing fist of Obama that will spy on our crops for the EPA, and force us into the FEMA camps.

~Yawn~

Where the hell have these people been for the last 20 years?  Or more to the point, where have they been for the last century?  For over a hundred years science fiction writers have been scribbling about unmanned war machines.  If one needs to go further than that, then the jewish tale of the Golem is about the good and evil of an inhuman killer controlled by those with agenda.  These dread devices are not a new outrage; they were fricking inevitable.   It was going to happen, people.  The only question was "when".  'Walky-talky' wristwatches?  Inevitable.  Social networks based on world-wide communication?  Yes, actually inevitable.  Unmanned machines that fly through the air?  Yep, you got it.  Inevitable.  These are machines, devices.  They have no moral will.  The question concerning those has never been whether we would have them, but how we would use them.  Based on that alone, I find most of the outrage silly.

Every new technology faces opposition based on moral value.  Some passed that test, like cel-phones.  Some fail that test,  like Nukes.  Consider how long it took us to get over that fear ... Oh wait, we haven''t yet.  Drones are no different than cel-phones.  We see the bad use they can be turned to, but fail to recognize that these technologies exist, and there isn't a damned thing we can do to stop their use.

But wait!  Obama has a kill list!  Obama wants to spy on farmers!  Obama, blah blah, blah.  Every President since Clinton has had this technology at his disposal.  I grew up in the Bitterroot valley, where the fly over of SR-71s was frequent.  Screw black helicopters.  Anything that needed to be seen could be from those.  It was the technology of the time.  Drones have replaced the SR-71.  Just as we needed to learn how to deal with ultimate spy plane, we need to learn how to deal with the next ultimate spy plane, which doesn't have a human on board.   And it really doesn't matter which man sits in the White House; the technology will be used.  I'm kinda thinken' that we have a job to make certain that the man (or woman) in the White House uses this technology for good.

Drones aren't going away, anymore than nuclear weapons did back when this same argument was being made about them.  They're not going anywhere.  The choice in every election going forward from this has nothing to do with whether this technological clock can be turned back.  It obviously can't.  It's time to buck up and admit.  Who do you want to use it?  Mitt Rmoney?  The future Mitt Rmoney?  It's time to adapt, people.

Here's to a Leftward Moving 2012

2011 probably wasn't the best year for most folks, though there was considerable improvement for many.  Politically speaking, it's been one of the most polarizing years I can think of.  Here's hoping for a better 2012.

We can make that happen.  Many individuals, smart and otherwise, have argued loud and long that America has a two-party problem.  We have a center right party and a far right party.  I'm not going to argue that; I never would or have.  Here's the thing, though.  Our challenge, which should be clear, remains muddied.  How do we get a left party in control of our governance?

If 2010, an awful year, is any indication, then the path would be to kill off the center right party.  How'd that work out?  Not well, obviously.  Since handing the US House back to the Republicans, the 99%ers have been held hostage at least 5 times.  I'm certainly glad we got rid of those Blue-Dog Dems in favor of truly partisan tea-baggers.  After all, partisanship is the problem and getting rid of partisans for more strongly partisan folks is surely the answer.

Or not.  How about this?  If the country has moved to the right because we have a center-right party and a far-right party, maybe the solution in defending the left isn't to attack the anchor in the middle.  Just saying ...  Maybe, just maybe, if we destroy the far right, utterly obliterate them, then maybe we might have vision left to support the left.  Just maybe.  It's easy to see that destroying the far right would leave us with a center right party in control, and doesn't that suck.  Maybe it does, except ...

You've all taken high school math, right?  If you want a function to move in a desired direction, you don't remove a moderating variable.  You remove the extremes.  It is that simple.  Remove the far right and you have a median that resembles more the country in representation.  The center right party already contains those who are of the left.  Destroy the far right, and you can't help but have a policy forwarded that better favors the middle and lower classes.  More to the point, you have a starting position for moving policy and politics towards the left.  This isn't that goddamned difficult.  Remove people like Skees, Burnett and Rehberg and you are left with people who are more pliant to your needs.  Start from the center right, and you're  one helluva lot closer to where you want to go than giving the game away to the far right, as we liberals did in 2010.

Here's to a happy New Year, one in which liberals finally decide to fight back rather than let the right take our apathy as acquiescence.

Messaging The Illusion

Maybe if the obvious is pointed out by someone else, there won't so much angst over it.

Steve Benen, at the Washington Monthly, writes this:

Seven months after raising the specter of Republicans trying to hurt the economy on purpose, I can’t help but notice the “sabotage” question appears to be picking up some steam.

Just this month, some high-profile, mainstream pundits have begun exploring the issue, and just this week, two of Congress’ most powerful Democrats broached the same subject.

Yesterday, Michael Tomasky went even further, arguing that Democrats should start “saying openly what has been clear for months or even years now — that as long as economic recovery would work to the political benefit of Barack Obama, the Republicans have been, are, and will be in favor of sabotaging the economy.” Tomasky added this is “obvious.”

The point isn’t to question Republicans’ bizarre priorities or values; the point is to make economic argument clear to the public. Too many bemoan a vague “lack of political will” or “absence of leadership” as the reason so little gets done. Those people are wrong.

The Tomasky article is a must read.  Benen quotes this from Tomasky:

Washington is a city of conspiracies, but far and away the most pernicious one is the fiction, in which one must participate if one wants to be regarded as a “serious” person, that both parties are more or less equally to blame for the present malfunctioning of our democracy. […]

Nonsense. There’s nothing vague about it. It’s crystal clear. We can’t do these things because of the extreme nature of the Republican Party and the right-wing noise machine that enforces such rigid ideological purity. Period and end of story.

Tomasky also gives concrete examples of how the Washington dysfunctions play out as regards concrete policy important to liberals and progressives.  In  almost every case, he shows how Republicans were for many of these policies, until they were offered by Democrats and/or the President.  And as SteveM of NMMNB pointed out in the link from my previous post, they get away with such egregious flip-flopping and obstruction because the accepted narrative is that *both* parties share the blame equally.  That is a fiction, an untruth that SteveM, Steve Benen, Michael Tomasky and myself have pointed out should be obvious.

For whatever reason, there are those who are deeply invested in that illusion.  The Republicans most certainly are; that's the very point behind their campaign of willful destruction.  For some, like Jane Hamsher, maintaining that illusion is a clear path to importance and profit.  The Greens do it because the only way they can gain any relevance at all is to take down the Democrats such that we turn to them when Republicans crush us even more than they have already.  Regardless of why any support that lie (Tomasky suggest that it's misplaced 'courtesy', and recent events convince me that he is in part correct), the illusion, the fairy tail, maintains it's strength on both sides of ideological spectrum.  This is Monster Making, 101.  Notice that this narrative doesn't have the finger pointing at hippies, liberals or progressives.  This illusory accusation of weak will/both parties are equally at fault, contradictory statements held as if both can be true,  is focused squarely at Democrats. 

The consequence of supporting that illusion are clear.  The Republicans regain power, having shown for half a century that they can't govern anything. The recent Montana legislature is clearest proof of that consequence.  Another consequence is a built in feature of the fairy tail itself.  Anyone who points out that it's a fantasy, an illusion, is only supporting the Monster.  That one must be 'in the bag' for Democrats, or angling for a DNC position, or insulting those who have embraced the lie, or crying 'with us or against us', when in fact the one's parroting George Bush are the ones supporting the illusion.  Again, Monster Making 101.

I'm not supporting or defending 'Democrats' as an entity, despite what so many feel a need to accuse me of doing.  I will support individual Democrats, just as I will disagree with them.  But I've spent too many years online exposing the lies of the right, discussing their Monster Making, to simply join in holding Democrats accountable for Republican attempts to hurt the country.  They aren't responsible for it, and that should be obvious.

Whose Side Are You On?

I originally started writing this post as a comment at 4 & 20 Blackbirds.  But the Askimet commenting software they use tends to see a comment with multiple links as spam.  So, if'n none y'all mind, I'll post it here instead.

John Cole notices what I have written about at length.   Glenn Greenwald, progressive icon, asks the question that was mandatory as a patriot oath for the wargarblers several years ago.  Whose side are you on?  I have a better question.  Do you understand what you're doing?

jhwygirl wrote a post remarkably hopeful that the GOP might be willing to move on revenue increases to solve our economic woes in the face of extreme austerity measures.  She even refers to these efforts as "refreshing honesty", though in fairness her quote of honesty refers to a GOoPer no longer in any power.  I doubted it would be believed among the GOoP faithful, and indeed it wasn't, and my response was very direct and also honest.  "Don't believe a word of it."  The Republicants currently in power don't care about the deficit or deficit reduction.  They care about garnering power, and they are willing to destroy this country to get it.  They sure as hell don't want to actually raise revenue, no matter how much ear-play they give it on the talkies.  In the comments responding to my brother, Lizard posits the same tired trope that I only see such because I am a blind partisan who can't see beyond the label divide.

the problem with how “the established left” responds to the fractured right is that the left needs a monochromatic boogeyman as badly as the right does. just look at your brother, moorcat. don’t believe a word of it, he says. he says that because his ideology appears to render him incapable of thoughtfully considering different strains of conservatism.

And with pompous pontifications such as this, the so called 'reality-based' community jumps the shark.  What Lizard appears clueless about is that this very issue is being played out in the debt ceiling negotiations.  Republicants don't care about the deficit, and they will not accept raising revenue.

The ransom note is delivered.

The president and his party may want a debt limit increase that includes tax hikes, but such a proposal cannot pass the House.

Should one think the Senate more amenable, this is Mitch McConnell:

"So there’s one of two things going on here: Either someone on the other side has forgotten that there’s strong, bipartisan opposition in Congress to raising taxes. Or someone involved is acting in bad faith," McConnell said. “We’ve known from the beginning that tax hikes would be a poison pill to any debt reduction proposal." he said.

SteveM, from NoMoreMrNiceBlog, notes what should be obvious:

I think the walkouts on budget talks by Eric Cantor and Jon Kyl, taken in isolation, make Republicans look intransigent, in a way that generally polls very, very badly. In isolation, it’s a bad political move. Voters, especially swing voters, regularly tell pollsters they want the parties to compromise and negotiate like grown-ups, not act like stubborn children. The problem is, those same voters also think that if Democrats can’t somehow persuade Republicans to negotiate like grown-ups, then they’re equally at fault. So it’s a wash. And Republicans know it’s a wash. So there’s no downside for them in acting like stubborn children. Now, if the mainstream media would even occasionally float the theory that perhaps, just perhaps, the Republican Party is sometimes a tad extreme and irrational, maybe the truth of what’s going on here would have a chance of sinking in with average voters.

I submit that when liberal and/or progressive blogs join that media narrative of how the Democrats should be able to *do* something about the Republicant intransigence, they reinforce the voter idea that 'might makes right'. It's a twist such that Republicants, instead of looking like the saboteurs of the American dream that they are, end up looking like the strong leaders, and Democrats are again punished for not joining in the right-wing pogrom against the common folk. 4 & 20 is certainly not the only website to join in that insane chorus. But insane it is. jhwygirl's post and many comments to it paint the same picture. Republicans said things we like so Democrats should be responsible for "jumping on" this opportunity that is, was and will remain an illusion. And when Republicans do exactly what they've been doing, we can blame the Democrats and the President for not altering the behavior this bunch of tantrum-driven children have exhibited since Ronald Reagan. Lizard says:

both sides of the isle (sic) work behind the smoke screen when it comes to perpetuating this insane downward spiral of austerity, squeezed productivity, stagnant wages, and obscene corporate profit, but Obama groveling before wall street is suppose to be somehow better than the scary looming alternative. what the hell does it matter when the results are the same?

So, if the Democrats capitulate to the Republicans, they lose. Wall Street wants the debt ceiling lifted, so if Democrats attempt to do what needs to be done to get that and fail or win, then they are just serving their plutocratic overlords. There are only three ways to increase revenue and lower the deficit load in any significant fashion. Support terrorism (with an immediate and complete withdrawal of support to Afghanistan, and yes the "support terrorism" part was a sarcastic poke at what will be the public media narrative), raising taxes, and/or passing a stimulus significant enough to fully employ half of those unemployed and underemployed. All of those efforts have enough Republicant opposition that they would fail.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  That is the Republicant agenda.  Many in the progressive community seem to have missed Mitch McConnell saying that very thing a year ago.  They will burn this nation to the ground if it gives them the Senate and the White House back.  The media are helping them do that very thing.  I'm curious as to why so many progressives seem willing to assist that effort.

They don't care about deficit reduction.  They care about keeping voters interested in deficit reduction, where the rhetoric serves them.  They don't care about increasing revenue and will fight that tooth and nail.  They have so many folks twisted in knots that anyone liberal loses either way.  I'm not partisan for pointing that out.  I'm realistic.  I simply wish more progressives were.

When Is 'Enough' Enough?

For many years, I have prided myself, perhaps wrongfully, for reading and understanding the right wing websites that many of my leftward brethren have ignored.  But, simply put, the Montana online right is getting to the point that even I can't read them any more.  That's a sad admission coming on a sad afternoon after many such sad afternoons.  It's also very true.  The same old lies, the same old ignorance.  It's kinda pointless.

Regarding Wisconsin:  We have posts concerning the meanie union thugs.  This is the same trope that has existed since the Pinkertons were hired to bust union efforts in Butte, and a street war ensued because workers were tired of being beaten and shot for standing for their rights.  Yup, it was bloody, but the "Unionists" (what a dumbass fucking term that is) never did run around killing grandma the way they were claimed to have done.  If any know the story of Butte's union organizing, then you know that the Pinkertons pretty much got their asses handed to them, after inciting and carrying forward increasing violence.  The lie of the union thug is just that, a lie.  At the end of the day, it's just one more pronouncement that capitalists have the right to defend their claim, and workers have no right to defend their role.  It's a lie.

What's even more sad is the pathetic individual claiming that we should pony up to pay for education vouchers because the unionist teachers are only demanding more!  That's one of the biggest lines of bullshit ever.  The unions didn't start this fight by demanding more.  They have offered concessions regarding their "entitlements".  But Walker is having none of it.  He wants the public employees union gone so that he can give Wisconsin's power provision over to the Koch brothers.  Notice how the facts concerning that are totally and completely absent from any of the bullshit spewed on the rightwing Montana blogs.

And then there is my favorite.  People are saying mean and violent things about Scott Walker on the Twitter.  And this is supposed to matter while people are watching their power to organize and demand fair treatment get deliberately ripped from them by Scott Walker to benefit the billionaire Koch brothers.  Oh for fuck's sake and boo hoo.  When the assistant AG of Indiana twits (appropriate term) that union protesters should be shot, the reaction from the Montana right is ~crickets~.  These dumbasses actually expect the Montana left to condemn what they find heinous, when they completely ignore what is truly horrific.   Here's an open and very direct message to Montana online right:

Fuck you and your expectations, you bunch of hypocrites.  The average person isn't as stupid as you.  Quit expecting us to be.

But wait!  There's more.  Regarding the Montana legislature, the online Montana right has been ... subdued.  They aren't happy with the lack of fiscal constraint.  They appear a little miffed that the legislature hasn't cut back on big gubmint more.  "What about the Constitution?" they weakly wail.  Meanwhile, their representatives, the people they elected into office, have voted to deprive the state of 1.9 BILLION dollars over the next two biennium.    Their people have voted to allow poaching to reach extreme proportions, what with silencers and all, and voted to overturn 100 years of Montana tradition of fishing access.  Their people while they wail to the high heavens about local control have voted to refuse local control to municipalities in Montana.  It's pretty obvious at this point that the Montana GOP doesn't give a flying shit about jobs, or Montana, or even a balanced budget.  And the only thing coming from the Montana "Dextra" is the sad soft whine that these people should be more what they want and less what they don't want.

There are no links in this post, because I'm not going to promote the bullshit that currently comes from the online Montana WRONG.  The reader can find them themselves easily enough.  Just know this.  The next time some right wingnut tells you how the state is, you know that they're lying or ignorant or both.   In the end, it doesn't matter, save how you react to it.

Staring Into The Crystal Ball

I hope that you have a taste for reading, because this is some very toothsome fare.

I'm not seeing much that will avoid the future as it can be seen.  America will collapse.

Despite the aura of omnipotence most empires project, a look at their history should remind us that they are fragile organisms. So delicate is their ecology of power that, when things start to go truly bad, empires regularly unravel with unholy speed: just a year for Portugal, two years for the Soviet Union, eight years for France, 11 years for the Ottomans, 17 years for Great Britain, and, in all likelihood, 22 years for the United States, counting from the crucial year 2003.

...

But have no doubt: when Washington's global dominion finally ends, there will be painful daily reminders of what such a loss of power means for Americans in every walk of life. As a half-dozen European nations have discovered, imperial decline tends to have a remarkably demoralizing impact on a society, regularly bringing at least a generation of economic privation. As the economy cools, political temperatures rise, often sparking serious domestic unrest.

America's end as THE world power?  Why that's unthinkable!  No, it's really not, and in fact is the very message that the right is promoting this very fricking moment.   I don't joke when I suggest that the right is employing a "scorched Earth" policy.  That is exactly what they are doing, and they are finding large support for such.

The problem that blew a hole in health care reform and the Obama Agenda this year wasn't "death panels": it was that there are millions of Americans who are stupid enough to believe that wingnut fictions like "death panels" are real.

The problem with President Barack Obama is not that he is a socialist or a communist or a secret radical or a Muslim or Kenyan Usurper: it is that there are millions of Americans who are racist enough to swallow this bilge and ask for seconds.

The problem with Fox and Hate Radio and Regnery Press and all the think tanks and all the websites is not that they churn out utterly toxic lies 24 hours a day: it is that there are millions of Americans who are too weak and too cowardly to stop listening to their Siren's song

And the problem with America is not that we have these vast numbers of stupid, frightened and racist people scattered in our midst: the problem with America is that -- at great expense -- they have all been methodically gathered into the same political party, and they are pointed like a gun at our heads.

I love and adore driftglass's parable.  I've used his tactic of failure to achieve many times.  So has anyone who's worked in technology for any length.  I refer to it as parenting.  I knew a young man once who kept breaking his glasses (cars, whatever) who was parented by shame.  Every loss was met by lesser gift.  He now refers to the glases he was forced to wear as "birth control spectacles".  Funny.  He couldn't break those.   Still, we have a broken Presidency, and we have a President that we haven't broken. 

Barack Obama is the most hated man in America. He has a wife and two young daughters, and death threats against him are reportedly 400% greater than those faced by his predecessor. If it's all theater and he's just faking it, isn't there an easier, less punishing, less threatening way for him to do that? Couldn't he simply stop arguing for policies that stir up hate in the heartland? Couldn't he become more like Ben Nelson or Harold Ford? Wouldn't that be easier -- and safer -- while leading to similar results?

The argument is that he's the political equivalent of the Washington Generals -- the team that exists solely to lose to the Harlem Globetrotters, while maintaining the illusion that the Trotters have an opponent. But when was the last time you heard of a Washington Generals player being viciously fouled? How much punishment do the Globetrotters dish out to the Generals? How angry does play get? That's theater disguised as competition. If Obama vs. the GOP is all Kabuki, why isn't it like that?

Oh, crap.  We haven't forced the issue.  Let's disregard that we might not know the issue.   Let's just primary this asshole and then things will be better:

♦  Forcing Obama to move to the Left will cause Republicans to lose heart, support Pelosi, abandon the filibuster and resolutely embrace single-payer Medicare-for-All.

...

Join the “Get Some Unhinged Jackwagon/Human Sacrifice to Primary Obama” (GSUJ/HSPO) bandwagon, today! It’s the New Age Dance Craze that’s sweeping the nation…here, here and here. Plus, if Dick Morris says it’s likely, you know it’s money in the bank!

~sigh~  There are definately times that your friends are not your friends.

It started off with a few oh-so-hilarious references to “Chocolate Carter” and “Mr. Presnint.” It moved on to “Dayum, I thought Obama was gonna be a gangster!” and “we elected a brother so he could bust some caps in whitey’s ass, not sell out to the man.” Now, the left is wholeheartedly embracing right-wing Rovian/Fox News race-baiting tactics:

There may be no point to the continuing struggle.  We may have already lost before Obama ever stepped up. But for fuck's sake, people.  If you have a suggestion for forward movement then make it.  Make it, now!  Don't just bitch about what you want.  State what you want and tell us how to get there?  Some asshole I know keeps talking smack abourt "organizing".  How, when, where?  This is the end game, folks.  We don't get do overs, from this point on.  The right has taken their blood and flesh.  We have nothing left to give.  There isn't a future for 'Murka.  What do you propose that we have left in the tank for the future of America?