scum sucking eels
by problembear
after sturgeon fishing on the columbia one day below bonneville dam, everyone was too tired from staying awake all weekend to properly clean out my brother’s live well in his sled before parking it behind the welding shop and forgetting about it during the hottest part of summer.
about six weeks later, it was time to get ready to do some salmon fishing. while jim backed up the ford to the trailer hitch i noticed a smell and lifted up the live well hatch and found the eels we had used for bait about forty days ago.
that smell was preferable to the one emanating from this scum sucker.
Advertisement
-
Recent Comments
Mark Miwertz on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Mark Miwertz on SCOTUS Hands the Rights to Our… lizard19 on Is UM Discriminating Against F… jhwygirl on SCOTUS Hands the Rights to Our… Mark Miwertz on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Mark Miwertz on SCOTUS Hands the Rights to Our… Ryan Emmett Morton on Smoothing Over Systemic F…
March 31, 2011 at 9:59 pm
now that’s the look of a dude who has “the keys to the fucking Ferrari.”
a Baucus troll and Rahm enforcer? Yeah, sounds like the right douche for the job.
March 31, 2011 at 10:29 pm
Praise the lord an pass the Eels … i like the aroma and the after taste is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much better than voting for Baucus or sniffing his personal inforcer/tool/agent
i’ve noted the DLC has taken down their site and disbanded and that they would come back to fill the air with their foul stench … from Messina to Bill Clinton – same bad taste and same horrid stench.
not a big ‘Nation’ fan but this is a good expose of the Neo-lib gang. Thanks for posting!!!!!!!!
April 1, 2011 at 12:13 am
I know Messina and he cut his teeth on progressive Montana politics: Morrison for governor, Kemmis for mayor, even Craig Sweet for Ward 6 Councilman — these were some of his early campaigns, years ago — then he moved on. He’s a sharp guy and he gets the job done.
But thanks for pointing it out, p-bear. Progressives need to read this. Yes, Obama and his policy and his advisors, like Messina, have let us down. I know Messina still has a few decent bones in his body. He better move on from Baucus politics. I’m sure he learned a lot from Max but that’s a dead end street. It’s time to do the right thing, Jim, for progressive politics.
And it’s also time for a full-court press. Obama (and Messina) need all the progressive support they can get to win in 2012. I still hold out hope that they have a conscience. And I hope these guys, well at least Messina, sees this post and gets a clue.
April 1, 2011 at 5:44 am
his career advancement has happened precisely because of his minimizing/marginalizing progressives, pete. after all the evidence of betrayal after betrayal after betrayal, yet you are still holding out hope that Obama will suddenly start throwing progressives some bones with actual meat on it? there is no way in hell i’m voting for Obama again.
April 1, 2011 at 10:00 am
As my brother has often told me, “Never say Never”. What happens if Palin turns it around and wins the Republican Nomination? You going to vote for her instead of Obama?
All too often, I find myself holding my nose and voting for someone I would really rather not. Politics today seems a really mixed bag and I haven’t really seen someone I can REALLY get behind since Lindeen.
April 1, 2011 at 10:21 am
3rd party from here on out. i’m done with this either/or bullshit. unfortunately it will be people like me that will be blamed when Obama loses instead of the subservient corporate-pandering neoliberals like the scum Obama has surrounded himself with.
April 1, 2011 at 11:33 am
And therein lies the heart of triangulation: blame those that don’t toe the line, instead of those that done drove them away. Force people into playing the lesser of two evil politics. You create a scapegoat at the same time as you appeal to the middle and independents.
Of course, the republicans are now taking the opposite strategy to dem triangulation: embrace your outside wing, and use them to pull the political middle to your side. Feed them as much as you can, if only in words.
It’s like a game of tug-of-war that’s been stacked. The republicans let their tea bagger fringe pull on the end of the rope. Dems are afraid to let the progressive left grab the rope for fear that they’ll look like bullies, and just want to create the appearance good sportsmanship.
“it’s not about winning or losing, it’s about how you play the game.”
And Obama just doesn’t seem to want to win. There’s no fight in him for the things many progressives want–public option, get out of Gitmo, serious bank reform, yada, yada.
He’s adopted the Clinton tactic of trying to appear as if he’s governing from the center, all the while the right is portraying that as far left radicalism. And the country continues to slide to the right–as Mark T. would say “ratcheting.”
And Messina is at the center of all of this. Ripe…
April 1, 2011 at 6:48 am
Don’t bother hyping ObamanationINC. He will never be president again. i don’t care who might win; He won’t.
April 1, 2011 at 8:35 am
I wouldn’t write him off yet, Darwin, he’s a hell of a campaigner.
April 1, 2011 at 11:42 am
A far better campaigner than a leader.
Maybe if he wins reelection he’ll decide to embrace his progressive values. Maybe… maybe not.
When politics becomes more about pragmatism than about principle, I lose interest fast. It sucks all the wind out of the sails. And it’s why Obama succeeds as a candidate. He talks about vision and passion, and not about leading or governing. Which is why so many people projected their hopes and dreams on him. He was the tabula rosa of presidential candidates: all things to all people (including the birthers and whatnot).
And this is why the next republican nominee is going to have the full support of the tea party. It’s the only way a republican can get any traction after the Bush debacle, which remains a thorn in the craw of every moderate/indy out there. The only wind to be tacked, is that bluster blowing from the far right.
April 1, 2011 at 12:00 pm
More popcorn please.
April 1, 2011 at 12:06 pm
Salt for the wounds.
April 1, 2011 at 3:22 pm
Mr. Fleischmann, I would knock this shit off.
April 1, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Gut check. knock off What shit? You mean the right to my opinion? Or the right to express it?
I am no coward. You come at me you come prepared for battle. Legal or otherwise. Or you don’t come at me at all.
Express yourself more fully if you have the courage.
April 1, 2011 at 5:55 pm
just as i thought. cowardice.
dismissed.
April 1, 2011 at 3:39 pm
sometimes you have to take stands on things you believe are right. that’s what leaders do.
true leaders don’t shift around their principles by always testing the prevailing political winds.
if the failure of democrats means a republican president in 2012, then that’s what this country deserves.
April 1, 2011 at 4:42 pm
“true leaders don’t shift around their principles by always testing the prevailing political winds.”
Does democracy lend itself to the election of true leaders? I think that’s a good philosophical question.
April 1, 2011 at 5:40 pm
Catch 22. Those who don’t get what they want assume that there is another alternative. “Our politicians are bought!” they will say. “Our politicians LIED”, they will offer. “Triangulation” they will sagely whimper. Are any of those claims true? Of course they will offer empirical evidence that always, ALWAYS, boils down to ‘I didn’t get what I want’. That isn’t democracy at all.
Democracy lends itself to the oppression of the majority, and all this caterwauling about “principles” is strictly foolish. In an electoral democracy, those elected would have one principle and one only. That they promote the will of those who elected them. What is “right” is a foolish question when one brings “democracy” into play. Democracy desires the will of the majority, not the will of what is “right”. What is “right” is the domain of authority, and authoritarians.
If one wants to debate this as a philosophical study, I suggest going back to Aristotle’s Nicomachian Ethics, the Politics, and Plato’s Republic. All support the idea of a supremacy, a knowledge held by our betters, that tells us how things should run. Just sayin’ …
April 1, 2011 at 5:41 pm
Catch 22. Those who don’t get what they want when they want assume that there is another alternative. “Our politicians are bought!” they will say. “Our politicians LIED”, they will offer. “Triangulation” they will sagely whimper. Are any of those claims true? Of course they will offer empirical evidence that always, ALWAYS, boils down to ‘I didn’t get what I want’. That isn’t democracy at all.
Democracy lends itself to the oppression of the majority, and all this caterwauling about “principles” is strictly foolish. In an electoral democracy, those elected would have one principle and one only. That they promote the will of those who elected them. What is “right” is a foolish question when one brings “democracy” into play. Democracy desires the will of the majority, not the will of what is “right”. What is “right” is the domain of authority, and authoritarians.
If one wants to debate this as a philosophical study, I suggest going back to Aristotle’s Nicomachian Ethics, the Politics, and Plato’s Republic. All support the idea of a supremacy, a knowledge held by our betters, that tells us how things should run. Just sayin’ …
April 1, 2011 at 8:14 pm
it’s very condescending not to mention erroneous for you to state that it “boils down to ‘I didn’t get what I want’.
that’s what you wish it all boiled down to, because then it opens up the opportunity for you to attack the person instead of the criticism.
i don’t really know what the hell you’re saying here, except “principles” and what is “right” are foolish. there’s a lot of abstract crap in that quote. i need a translation.
here’s something simple rob: i believe torturing human beings is wrong. do you agree or disagree? for someone who thinks it’s simply the right thing to do, to NOT torture someone, that’s a principle they might not be willing to compromise.
closing GITMO in a year was Obama’s first broken promise. torturing Bradley Manning as i write this is another huge betrayal. those two things alone ensure there’s no way in hell i’m voting for Obama.
if you want to try and spin that as boiling down to me “not getting what i want” then go right ahead, but that’s NOT what this is about. it’s about human rights, rob. what’s “right” in this situation is to abstain from torturing people.
and if Obama can’t see that torturing is wrong, then he needs to be kept from retaining the position of power he is abusing.
April 1, 2011 at 10:40 pm
ObamanationINC represents nothing i will cast a vote for. He’s the complete Neoliberal. And that is sooooooo much more insidious than a Neocon or repug.
It’s not necessary to vote for some other monster to send a message to the self serving Neolibs. Die mf die. Nothing could be worse than a Neolib.
i was glad to be in the demonstration/rally at the capitol today. i don’t think there’s anything we did/said that will change the mind of any narcissistic authoritarian.
But what was REAL Clear is, Schweitzer better get his VETO brand out… and show us which side he is Really on.
April 2, 2011 at 12:40 pm
I’m sorry to say this Lizard, but no one can ever be elected president and also close Gitmo. The prisoners can’t be released here and many can’t be sent back to their countries, and thanks to leaky negotiations it’s getting increasingly difficult to release them in a third country, too. Real progress has been made, but until something changes in Yemen it seems highly unlikely that any president will be able to close Gitmo except maybe by sending prisoners to far worse circumstances in their home countries.
I think Pete is right. If the economy doesn’t improve before 2012, we may well have a national legislature resembling the state one this year. If that’s the case, we’re going to want an imperfect Democrat (like we have now for the state) to veto some of the madness.
April 2, 2011 at 12:48 pm
electing a president capable of fixing anything in this country is impossible when it takes half a billion to a full billion dollars to run a presidential campaign. both candidates are then beholden to the Big Money that puts them in office.
April 2, 2011 at 1:18 pm
So until we fix that, what would you suggest we do?
Mind – the Supreme Court has basically said we can’t fix that.
And the Supreme Court justices are appointed by the same billion dollar presidents.
It seems this may be something we have to get used to and make the best of.
Or just be spiteful and make sure Republicans keep winning, pretending that there’s no difference and that our principled stand is worth the rights of LGBTQ people, of Indians, of whatever mystery country we choose to unilaterally invade next, of medical marijuana patients, of minimum-wage earners, of Pell-grant receiving students, of military families, of immigrants, of union workers, holders of US currency, etc.
April 2, 2011 at 3:53 pm
you go ahead and get use to perpetual corruption; that’s not a system i’m interested giving my stamp of approval with a vote.
what do i suggest we do? fight locally, like when a giant evil entity called Carlyle wants to snatch up our water.
this isn’t being spiteful, it’s being practical. if enough people think republicans can fix anything after all the evidence to the contrary, then we’ll just have to prepare for things getting worse faster. things are going to get worse anyway no matter what party holds the executive office.
April 2, 2011 at 5:11 pm
That’s right, Liz. You don’t. But that didn’t stop you from hypocritically “attacking the person instead of the criticism”, as you would have it. Or is that only allowed for you? I did no such thing. I posited that:
Something for which your only response is that I’m “condescending”. You make no attempt at all to show that I’m wrong. You simply dismiss it, in a personalizing (and Ad Hominem) manner. There was no attack in that statement. It was an assertion; one you appear incapable of actually grappling with.
Panmateusz asked a fine question. Let me refresh your memory:
My response was “no”. It doesn’t. Democracy was never meant to promote “true leaders” because it carries the denial of that in it’s very definition. Democracy is the will of the majority, and that is the principle it follows. You’re welcome to get all defensive if it makes you feel better, but that doesn’t deal with the point I raised at all. If you want ‘principled leaders’, then democracy is not the way to get them.
If you want to play little ethical quiz games, then I hope you understand that you’re doing so without me. I haven’t the time or interest.
April 2, 2011 at 5:27 pm
yes, i have a difficult time unpacking what is you’re saying.
did you misspeak when you stated that:
and what other than principles or values do candidates articulate when they are campaigning? for there to be an honest accounting between the will of the majority and the stated principles of the candidate who is suppose to represent them, it’s necessary for candidates to speak honestly about their intentions.
but politicians are rarely honest about their intentions, because they represent funding sources, not citizens, and their stated principles are nothing more than vacuous abstract talking points that never seem to materialize.
but i guess, according to you, democracy isn’t intended to produce principled leaders, because it’s intended to serve the will of the majority. i get that.
you bring up some interesting points. thanks.
April 2, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Where do you get this idea that ‘democracy is intended’ for anything? It truly is what it is. It is a tool of governance, maybe not a great one. But it comes prior to ‘intent’. If the problem is lack of principle in governance, then maybe democracy is the wrong tool. That’s all I’ve been trying to say.
When one hails “Democracy” as a source of principle, that one is actually buying into a certain vision of superior identity through the people’s will. When in contrast to the idea that the people are disagreeable from a moral standpoint, the bringing up democracy as some kind of support for principle is, indeed, foolish. That’s all the quote you choose was saying.
April 2, 2011 at 8:15 pm
this is deep. i might need like a month to sort out what you’re saying.
the problem is the corrupting influence of money, which is power. principles are fungible.
over my head, rob. you may need to dumb it down for me.
i would respond if i knew what you were talking about, but i don’t.
April 2, 2011 at 1:21 am
Once again, a paean to the lesser of two evils philosophy of politic’n.
Sorry Rob, but your ‘I didn’t get what I want’ strawman doesn’t hold water here. You’ve created a contradiction here, lambasting those whom you decry for not getting what they want, yet a mere 20 words or so later you declare: “In an electoral democracy, those elected would have one principle and one only. That they promote the will of those who elected them.”
I leave it up to others to dissect the logical fallacy of your argument. It is glaringly apparent to me.
April 2, 2011 at 9:59 am
Sadly, there is no logical fallacy of his argument – you simply don’t understand the argument. I won’t attempt to explain it as I would butcher it – philosophy was not my bent in college, it was Rob’s. I was a science geek and I tend to stick with what I know.
I have read Plato’s republic, though and I do understand where he is going.
Right and Wrong have no “value” in a representative democracy. A democracy follows what the majority wants (even if it is “wrong”). What I think Rob was getting at, is that if you want someone to be making moral judgements (what is right or wrong), an authorative government is far better positioned to do so. Worse, an authoritive government will make their decisions based on what THEY think is right and wrong. The current Montana Legislature is an example. The Repubs have a solid majority so they don’t have to worry about “representing their constituants”. Instead, they can pursue an agenda of moral “rights and wrongs” – as they see it – in an authoritative fashion, regardless of whether you see their actions as right or wrong.
I will stop here before I butcher his argument any worse but I do see where he was trying to go and it certainly isn’t a logical fallacy.
April 2, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Moorcat is right. There is no logical fallacy there. For one, a democracy does not involve elected “leaders”. It involves the majority electing those who will do the will of those who elected them. That isn’t leadership. That’s doing what you’re told to do by the majority.
Two, ‘those who don’t get what they want looking for alternatives’ in a democracy isn’t a Straw Man just because you claim it is, and apparently want it to be. Show different, if you can.
April 1, 2011 at 4:01 pm
More blasphemy !
You must trust the appointees of The Great Leader !
April 1, 2011 at 6:01 pm
We live in sin around these parts, Eric.
April 1, 2011 at 6:12 pm
Democrats never agree on anything, that’s why they’re Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they would be Republicans. – will rogers
of course, i am an independent so that means i rarely even agree with myself- problembear
April 2, 2011 at 9:07 am
I know that jhwygirl – the posters on this blog are certainly not Obamamaniacs.
April 2, 2011 at 6:49 am
if the failure of democrats means a republican president in 2012, then that’s what this country deserves.
As individuals, what we get in the voting booth is really a binary choice: Republicans or not. Make whatever choice you want, but don’t be a baby about it. And don’t expect sympathy or empathy from people who made the other choice when you decry the wreckage.
(That’s not to say that people shouldn’t be putting their money, time, and energy into issue advocacy groups, rather than politicians and campaigns.)
April 2, 2011 at 8:25 am
and as i’ve said, i’m done with the binary choice. what has it produced in the last 3 years?
more war, continued torture, sell outs on health and financial reform, subservience to extractive industries, nuclear cheerleading despite a global catastrophe, continuation of our domestic police state by extending the patriot act, the list goes on.
as Obama starts raising money (his target is a billion dollars) tell me, why should i believe one word that comes out of his mouth?
April 2, 2011 at 10:02 am
As a counter argument, what is voting for a third party candidate going to accomplish? I was asked the same thing when I wrote in Lindeen last year for Montana Representative instead of voting for McDonald or Rehberg and frankly, I still don’t have an answer beyond “It made me feel better”.
April 2, 2011 at 12:54 pm
i don’t have an answer either, other than my conscience won’t allow me to darken the bubble for Obama.
April 2, 2011 at 1:07 pm
What’s wrong with feeling good about your vote?
April 2, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Nothing, actually but it doesn’t solve anything. Rehberg went back to Washington and did even more damage, the economy is still a mess and it doesn’t appear the powers that be are even interested in fixing it in a rational manner.
In short, my vote didn’t count. I minimized myself to no purpose other than the “feel good” moment of writing in a candidate I believed in.
April 2, 2011 at 6:45 pm
i will, like the rest of america in 2012 be supporting and voting democratic candidates after being treated to the mean-spirited, hate inspired and ignorant politics of the GOP.
i dislike democrats too, but for different reasons. mostly because of the arrogant and exclusionary behavior of it’s political insiders like messina.
barring the second coming of FDR as an independent candidate, i will be supporting and voting for obama and for democrats to regain control of congress. this should be no surprise to anyone here.
but i certainly don’t have to like it.
April 2, 2011 at 7:38 pm
I probably will be too but even if the Democrats do pull a rabbit out of their backside and win a majority again, don’t expect a lot in return. When the Dems had the majority, instead of fixing the problems they were elected to fix, they decided to waste their time politicing fringe issues. Even their “triumph” (HCR) was little better than an unsustainable insurance company handout that will likely be overturned. I will give credit where credit is due – they did end DADT but even that was almost accidental and it was certainly – in part – due to the Feds losing a court case.
The odds are seriously against the Dems winning the Senate. They have 28 seats (if you count the independants caucusing with the Dems) up for grabs and the Repubs only have 10. The Dem majority in the Senate is slim as it is (3 seats). While I expect there to be a backlash against the Repubs (both from the rational people upset by the bat shit crazy and the Tea Party koolaid drinkers upset that the Repubs didn’t punish the country more for electing them), the dems are not setting any records for popularity either. A lot of independants will be holding their noses and voting – regardless of party they vote for. The true tell will be seeing how the voter turnout will be. If either party energizes the voters, they will win. Voter turnout will decide next year’s elections almost certainly since neither party has the popularity Reagan or even Clinton did. It is a crap shoot now.
Case in point, the straw polls for President have gone back and forth the last few months. Sometimes, a Republican Candidate wins (interesting since not a single candidate has even declared) and sometimes Obama wins. The last one held yesterday gave the win to Huckabee.
It is still very much in the air and it won’t start solidifying for quite a while. I am certainly not going to say who I will support at this point.
April 2, 2011 at 7:44 pm
maybe we need some candidates for an alternative to the tea party?
http://problembear.wordpress.com/2010/09/11/what-this-country-needs-is-a-good-strong-beer-party/
April 2, 2011 at 10:11 pm
I believe that there will be a movement following the Tea Party (in part, in answer to the bat shit craziness of the tea party). Where do I sign up?
April 3, 2011 at 11:51 am
Reflecting on the shallow dreams of political insiders “being handed the keys to the maserrati” while working poor struggle in MT……
To inspire others one must deserve respect. Fear and power demands servitude and invites contempt.