It’s always possible that what informed people take as lies are really just the uninformed rantings of political sheep. Jay Stevens finds himself between a rock and a hard place: he is either a liar or he just has no clue what he is talking about. Supposing he was a liar, of course, would be crediting him with being able to see through the cloud of B.S. that Montana Democrats lay down and he doesn’t have a very strong track record with that.
What’s leading me to think that maybe Jay Stevens may not be lying and may be merely demonstrating his clueless constitution instead?
Acquaintances say that young Tyler Cannon was never quite the same. There was just something about his strut that had the confidence of Curly secure in the knowledge: “I crap bigger than you.”
Here’s some unconstructive input I’ve recently learned from our friends on the left.
* The University of Colorado asserts that racism is about white privalege and therefore a racial minority cannot be racist.
* Mark T postulates that all right-thinking people are racist.
There’s this episode of Star Trek where Captain Kirk defeats a robot computer machine called Nomad by feeding it a logical paradox. I wonder what will happen when the Left sees this…
There was a little snow on the ground in the hills around Missoula this morning. Nothing like 14 inches though.
I tried to see down into the city to determine if there was snow everywhere, but I couldn’t see anything past the cloud of smoke coming from the University area. Ah, yes. 420. Good luck finding a bag of Cheetos here for the next few days.
Seventh-string candidate Jim Hunt is earning his billing as an underdog. Lately, he’s been going after Republican Chairman and Rehberg Chief of Staff Erik Iverson.
But Hunt on Tuesday went on the offensive and Iverson was in his sights. Iverson, Rehberg’s chief of staff, came under fire when he was elected chairman of the Montana Republican Party. Hunt said Tuesday he saw no reason for Iverson to be based in Montana when there was a pile of work to be done in Washington, D.C.
I’ve already covered Iverson v. Hunt, Round 1 where Iverson set the record straight on Children’s Health Insurance. Hunt is outmatched against Iverson, let alone Rehberg. But the attack above is baffling.
Is Hunt actually going after Rehberg and Iverson for being based in Montana as opposed to Washington, DC? We know that Rehberg doesn’t even rent an apartment in DC (he sleeps on the couch in his Congressional Office). The fact that his Chief of Staff is based in Montana is a good thing. How better to represent the people of Montana than to live among them? Somehow for Hunt, proximity to the constituents that Rehberg represents is a bad?
Maybe Hunt is learning the wrong lessons from Senator Max Baucus who sold his house in Montana to move out to Washington, DC and doesn’t even own in Montana (unless you count the bedroom he owns in his mom’s house).
Jim Hunt has been in the race for 2 months and he’s already Gone Washington.
Issue 002 is out the gate. I’ve integrated the “Send a Letter to the Editor” aspect that I’ve also built into this blog. Hopefully someone will be inspired.
If you’re still not a subscriber, you’d best sign up to make sure you don’t miss the next one. And while you’re at it, why not get a friend or two to join up as well. They’ll thank you.
A dramatic reenactment of a blog conversation between Doug Craig and jhwygirl for your enjoyment. The subject has been changed to project the incoherent.
Back before Big Sky Cairn was even a twinkle in my eye, when the “Dextrasphere” was still new and growing, conservative blogs in Montana faced a bout of dishonesty amongst their own. A blog called Montana Pundit was correctly accused of plagiarism by Shane Mason. They way conservatives bloggers responded when it became clear that they were being lied to by Hagen was one of the reasons I eventually decided to throw myself in with their lot. The infant Dextrasphere responded by removing the site from their Dextra feed and disavowing the author - even though he was “one of their own.” Integrity, for them, rose above partisan loyalty. The Dextra policed its own and Montana Pundit is now an internet ghost town.
I want to pose a question for the left-leaning blogs in Montana: What role do you believe that integrity plays in blogging and what measures are you willing to take to preserve it? Are you willing to castigate one of your own for lying?
The subject I’m about to breech has already been discussed by Missoulapolis, Rabid Sanity and Electric City Weblog but I’m interested in what, if any, response this situation invokes from the left-leaning blogs. How dearly do you hold the integrity of your associations?
I’m glad that Colby credited Big Sky Cairn with his decision to return to the world of keyboard jockey, although I’d be even more excited if we could convince Baucus to drop out of the race. I kid, I kid. Truthfully, his comments were welcome.
In a tremendously polarized political climate, it’s heartening to find someone who disagrees with us but is willing to actually discuss the differences without resorting to name calling. Wulfgar, I’m talking to you.
When I was in college, I remember long discussions with my liberal friends about politics when both interlocutors were willing to take the risk of putting their beliefs on the line if sufficient evidence was provided to warrant doing so. I changed my mind on some things, and they did too.
It’s been a long time since I’ve had that kind of discussion - sadly some of those same friends I used to talk openly with have since told me that they think I’m a bad person because I’m conservative. I was beginning to think that the right and the left in this country were lacking in common ground; that ideas took a back seat to partisanship.
Someone else had something to say about this - and it’s worth a second look.
As an aside, I didn’t even know that a cairn was a dog until I was using the Google to find a picture of a cairn to use for the banner image. It would seem, Colby, that even with no common ground on the meaning of the word “cairn”, we were able forge a mutual understanding after all!
MtPolitics found this. It’s disturbing - especially since these are the enlightened scholars that the Left would love to put in charge of our public and social policy. One of their main points seems to be that only people afflicted with some sort of disease called Whiteness can be racist - which makes me wonder. Exactly how much whiteness does one have to possess before they cross that threshold. Say someone’s 1/16 white - are they safe? What about 1/8? What’s the threshold here? And if we’re really interested in stamping out racism, wouldn’t it make sense to register anyone over that threshold? We can put them in sensitivity camps starting with Fort Missoula (it’s worked before!) - although my guess is for the sake of eliminating racism we’ll just have to kill them.
Anyway, Craig also found this interesting combo:
*38. Racism — A system of privilege based on race**.
**34. Race — An ever evolving [sic] social, legal and political construct that has no basis in biological fact.***
***You can’t make this [sic] up.
So racism is thus defined as
“A system of privilege based on an ever evolving [sic] social, legal and political construct that has no basis in biological fact.”
Our scholarly friends at the very same tax-funded institution that gave us Ward Churchill have effectively defined as racism:
a progressive tax system
welfare
anti-smoking laws
medicare
unemployment benefits
discounted tickets to Disneyland for residents of California
any VIP access to any event or activity
pro-bono legal advice
government classified information
…
This list is a bit like the energizer bunny - it could keep going and going and going…
With racism this prevalent, maybe it’s a good thing that Global Warming is going to do all the work of wiping it out via Mass Human Extinction!
