Archive for the 'Blogging' Category

Dear Readers: Every once in a while, I need to vent. 

Today is just such a day.

To anyone that thinks political blogging is easy, try it out for yourself, you will be quickly dissuaded.  I personally put my own opinions, thoughts and analysis out there on a several-times-a-month basis for public consumption.  We political bloggers are just persistant. 

The only way I know some of our elected leaders, is because I made the first contact.  That’s right, I reached out to them.  And frankly, anytime I have any questions, I have to seek them out and remind their assistants who I am.  It is not like I have their home or cell phone numbers or email addresses.

Everyone has heard me yelling at Max lately about the DC vote.  And even though I am a former favorite employee of his law school study buddy and friend, whose son did an internship with Max a couple of summers ago, I still have never talked to the guy.  I have tried, but I get the same standard response that everyone else does when I contact him over an issue. 

Schweitzer?  Well I think he knows who I am, I have run into him a couple of times, but never spoken with him personally.  Bollinger though, I went up to him at the Dem party returns in 2006 and tell him about the voter suppression tactics going on on Montana’s reservations.  He said he would check into it for me.   (Which begs the point, if I think native vote is important, of course I consider DC votes important; but that is a seperate issue.) 

Dennis, again, never met the guy.  Been to one debate he bothered to show up to and talk about issues, probably remotely somewhat at my prompting. 

Jon Tester?  Well I have met him once, and his mother and wife once.  All at debates, but at least they took the time to shake my hand.  My mother ran into him the other day at a local store, and he joked with her about his granddaughter taking her own sweet time.  I really appreciate him, and his follow through on promises made to Montanans.  For example, the independent ethics audit of his office.  Its not about votes, because it is a non-election year for him, it is about being honest and having it confirmed for Montanans.  Thanks Jon. 

The locals?  Well I can’t help that I know the Mayor, I just do.  And I know a lot of Helena’s local representatives in local and state government, from being involved at the local level.  Attend a few local debate meets, and you will know them too.  Some know who I am, and some don’t.  It is all good. 

The point is, to anyone who thinks that “demo” bloggers are somehow special, or singled out for particular attention and favors. . .you are so off base.  We are just average people, out there, in a public way, talking about what matters to us. No, I am not the most well known blogger in Montana.  And arguably, I have been surpassed in the female political blogger department by a couple of friends of mine.  It is all good.  (Frankly, I thank them for taking some of the pressure off).

The bottom line is this.  I don’t get paid one red cent for blogging.  I do this because it is important for me for people to know what I know.  And the truth is, I only know it because I take the time to research it out.  I like going more in depth on an issue than traditional media does.  I like that I have the time and the forum to do so.  It took work to have such a forum.

Just, every once in a while, while you might not agree, take the time to thank a political blogger for all that they do to keep you in the play-by-play with the ground game that is going on, and bringing up great discussion points that get us all involved in our government.

That’s all really; thanks for the venting time.

Very truly yours;  Cece.

There has been discussion going on around the Montana Blogosphere regarding the legality of S. 1257 and H.R. 1905 (same bill, different parts of the Congress).

The posts are great, but the real conversation gets going in the comments, I hope you take the time to read not only the posts, but also the comments to them.

It started with Jay, and I missed the post when it first happened, but wrote my own in March. Jay jumped on board, pointing out that I missed the first post, and Colby thought that I was wrong. On April 15, I posted again, asking Montanans to call Baucus, to urge him to vote for House Representation for the citizens of the District of Columbia. Colby and I started talking again, and I posted my rebuttal. Here we are today, with this post, a response to a conversation I am having with Colby on my last post. Don’t think I am forgetting Wulfy, he listed it as a reason that he is not voting for Baucus this next November.

This whole conversation illustrates perfectly why I love blogs. This was a story given a couple of paragraphs in a local paper, and it is through examination on the blogs that the real issues are coming forward. Many of us, including me, list it as an example of an issue that we disagree with what Congressman Baucus has done in our name. And that some of us consider it a very vital issue, and reason not to vote for him in November, in fact it is my sole reason. There exist many other reasons not to vote for Baucus, but this is the one that gets me going. My vote is my voice, along with my blog.

*******
Colby:

First off, I think I found out where our disagreement lies. I am not talking about trying to pass legislation making D.C. a state. I am talking about passing legislation through Congress to obtain a voting member in the House of Representatives for the residents of D.C. It won’t completely correct an “over 200 year old wrong”, but it is an important step in the right direction.

I am going to go out of order on your arguments, because my rebuttal to your last contention, answers many issues with your other arguments.

U.S. Constitution, Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1:

If D.C. wanted to go for statehood, absolutely, an amendment would be needed, as you pointed out, pursuant to Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State nor can any State be formed by the Junction of two or more states, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as Congress.”

We have already agreed, haven’t we, that the District is not a state. If it were a state, we wouldn’t be discussing these issues. The District is in the jurisdiction of the Congress, pursuant to “The District Clause”.

I don’t see the part of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1

“establishes that new states are not to be made out of already existing American soil.”

I see the part that says a new state cannot be formed out of a current state (or District) without the consent of the Legislature of the State and Congress’s permission. In fact new States have been created from existing States: Vermont came from New York (ratified in 1791); Kentucky from Virginia (ratified in 1792); Tennessee from North Carolina (ratified in 1793); Maine from Massachusetts (ratified in 1820); and West Virginia from Virginia (ratified in 1863).

D.C. is not a state, yet other states have been formed out of existing states, from the very Article you said was “most convincing”. So the Constitution, should D.C. decide to go for statehood, as it did in 1980 (defeated in the House in 1993), provides for D.C. to go through the amendment and ratification process. It would need the permission of its legislature, of which it has none ( see Home Rule, following this paragraph), it is in the jurisdiction of Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the “District Clause”. It would also need the vote of Congress, which in the past, has voted down such efforts.

In terms of “Home Rule” or a legislature, the District remains under the control of Congress.

”The District has been a unique political entity in America since its conception – not part of any state and controlled exclusively by Congress and the federal government. Congress’ control is so absolute that for 100 years the District had no elected local government and was run by commissioners appointed by the president and answerable to those on Capitol Hill. In fact, District residents have been allowed to elect their own mayor and City Council only for the past 34 years. And Congress still maintains line item control over city finances, not only for federal funds but locally raised revenues as well, which make up the majority of the budget. Congress also has the power to impose or annul any laws passed by the city government.”

from the CQ Researcher, DC Voting Rights: Should Washington Citizens Have a Vote in Congress? April 11, 2008 (PDF 561 kb)

Congress doesn’t have that kind of power over any state, reaffirming that the District is not a State, at the same time reiterating the powers granted to it by the powerful District Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.

Back to your rebuttal:

After Virginia and Maryland gave up lands in 1790 that later because the District of Columbia, Congress let residents keep voting in federal elections in those original states through 1800 – even though, legally, there were no longer residents [of a state].

”This is probably most likely an issue of transition, being that there has never been an interval since when they were voting, it is pretty safe to call this a hold-over, and using it to argue D.C. voting rights now, after 208 years of constant non-voting”

Of course the voting allowed in the District from 1790 to 1800 was a part of a transitional period. In 1801, when the citizens realized that they wouldn’t be represented in the new government, is when the process of trying to gain representation in the new national legislature.

Americans living abroad, not paying taxes, should not be allowed to vote in American elections.

Regardless of how we personally feel about laws, legislation, the constitution, and precedence, we live under them. Until new laws are passed, or precedence set, it is what it is. Personally, if I were living abroad, not paying taxes, but still a US Citizen, I would want to still be able to vote, it is my right as a citizen. Paying taxes is not a qualification to be able to vote.

My commerce argument stands, having no rebuttal.

In terms of law, I think you might have misunderstood diversity jurisdiction. Diversity Jurisdiction allows citizens of the District to bring a case in Federal Court against a citizen or corporation of another state. Say a DC resident, has a case with a credit card company making a false estate claim of against her mother, trying to collect her mother’s debt from her personally. The credit card company has its base in Delaware. Diversity Jurisdiction. allows those D.C. resident to sue the corporation in federal court, and is an example of how Congress has powers under the District Clause to grant DC residents the same standing as a citizen of a state, even though the Constitution doesn’t provide it. The same thing is true for a Montanan. Even though we aren’t citizens of Delaware, we have the right to sue a corporation (or citizen) with their home offices (or residence) in another state.

The reason I brought up examples of the way that Congress, the Supreme Court and the President have treated D.C. as a state, is to show that there is legislative, judicial and executive precedence for Congress to provide a voting member in the House of Representatives.

”Just because we have passed legislation that allows the residents of D.C. to b treated as if they lived in a state does not mean those laws made D.C. a state.”

Agreed.

I never said that D.C. cannot be treated as a state, just that, as far as the Constitution is concerned, it is not a state. There is a difference between someone being a legal adult versus trying them as an adult”.

Agreed again. Although I point, again, to the District Clause.

So we already agree that there are many (some count over 500) laws that treat D.C. as a state for various purposes, and we agree that D.C. is not a state. I hope we agree that this legislation will not make D.C. a state, instead, only allow them a voting member of the House of Representatives.

Hold onto your seat, I am going to agree with you again:

”First off, the largest problem with a legislative solution is that it would not be very permanent; any congress in the future could modify or change the decision.”

Agreed. (Would conceded be better?)

Now I am going to disagree with you:

“Senators and Representatives represent states . . ”

the Senators and Representatives represent the people of the states. How could SCHIP exist without caring for our littlest charges? After all, they can’t vote yet, but their interests are at the forefront of local and federal legislation. Why would we care about how someone on death row dies, without the people, advocating legislation or legal decisions for them. Why would the rights of an unborn fetus be so contested, as opposed to the rights of its mother? The rights of individuals are argued all the time.

Finally, I am going to address this:

“. . . simply put, there is not constitutional authority to give congressional representatives to any body that is not a state”.

Yes there is. I will quote Zach,

”I am going to quote Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, and that ought to be enough:
“To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States”
Key phrase: all Cases whatsoever”

(I’ll skip the “emotional” stuff, and let the fact that it is how we are creating democracies around the world stand as they are, open to interpretation and implication.)

I think the best part of this whole conversation is, that we are closer than we think on the issue.

*******
Jeff, I haven’t forgotten you, thanks for hanging in.

I already said this:

Comment by Cece • Website • |Edit This

2008-04-24

Also, the 23rd amendment implies DC is not a state and makes an explicit exception for voting for President and VP. Since that appears to be more closely related to the question at hand than any of your other examples and an amendment was the resolution, doesn’t that suggest that Congressional representation requires an amendment? I mean, you’ve listed specific exceptions, which deal with genuine holes in the Constitution on this issue, but the 23rd amendment addresses an almost identical question. Shouldn’t we go by that?

[edited for content]

Briefly, under Article I of the Constitution are the “Leglislative” powers and limits. The District Clause is a part of Article I. In Article II deals with the “Executive” powers and limits. The only power under Article II that Congress has, is the power to chose the day that the electors gather to cast their electoral college votes. That’s it.

Because the powers enumerated in Article I, do not give Congress the power to create legislation regarding the election of Presidents, an amendment to the Constitution was required. See Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970).

You wanted to know what Article 1 power I am “citing for legislation giving D.C. representation”. It is known as the District Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17:

To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States, . . . “

In Loughorough v. Blake , for example, the Supreme Court upheld legislation that imposed direct federal taxes on D.C. residents. Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution stated that “Representative and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several State, which may be included within the Union ”Despite the absence of motion of the District in this clause, the Court held that direct taxation of the District was constitutionally permissible. The Court stated that even if the language in Article I, Section 2 Clause 3 were not read to include the District “[i}f the general language of the constitution should be confined to the States, the [District Clause] gives to Congress the power of exercising “exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever within the district,,” including the power to assess the same in direct tax on the District as it could assess on a state”

from The Authority of Congress to Enact Legislation to Provide the District of Columbia with Voting Representation in the House of Representatives. 

Then, the 14th Amendment said:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States are citizens of the United States . . .”

huh . . .that would include residents of the District now wouldn’t it?

“and residents of the State wherein they reside.”

Well I have already shown that D.C. has been considered repeatedly as a state for legislative, judicial and executive purposes. And the power to do so, lies in that District Clause. More importantly, continuing Amendment 14, Section 1:

”No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of live, liberty or property, without the due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Emphasis mine.

Baucus, in representing us, has an obligation to uphold the Constitution of the United States. And he walked away from that obligation.

Sometimes the Constitution falls in our favor, and when it doesn’t, I am going to quote James Madison from the Federalist 51:

“Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature that such divides should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? . . In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to govern itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government . . .”

Colby and Jeff, you guys are my friends, and I really respect your opinions; but I skunked you on this issue. It might be time to concede. If you want to talk more, bring it on.

*I will link to any missing cites in the morning, but right now I am kaput.

As we were sitting around waiting for things to get rolling at the Mansfield Metcalf dinner, we had a lot of time to talk and chill out. One of the things we talked about, was how we had met one another, and got started in blogging politically.

I was talking about the trip to the Hamilton debate with Jay and Shane, where we met jhwygirl in September of 2006. Which was actually the day I first met them. Jay, Matt, Shane and I had talked quite a bit, but never met. Actually meeting them started when I got a little peevered, back at the end of August of ‘06.

I was thinking today about the surprising lack of women in the political blogging world. And while I was getting patted on the back for having a letter to the editor posed in the Great Falls Tribune (apparently it is hard to get one posted, well for a liberal), I spent a lot of time thinking about the lack of female voices in politics.

Anyway, that the comment I made on Saturday night was, “Shane you are sitting with like 75% of the women political bloggers in the state of Montana”. Admittedly this was hasty and off the cuff math. I decided to research further. I am sure I missed some, but here is what I came up with. Please let me know if I should be adding anyone, no matter what side of the aisle.

Back when I started, there was really only Granny Insanity, posting on a consistent basis, and Granny was way more experienced than I was. Firefly was posting the way I really envisioned it in the beginning, some about me, some about life, some about politics. One on the left, one on the right, and me.

I got hooked in July of 2006; I had been reading blogs, commenting on some, had a site of my own, then I got into the loop on one story, and the rest is history. As Shane, Craig, and I watched the ‘06 returns come in, in Helena, we thought up this blog, and since then, two of us have moved our political blogging here. (one of us has, regretfully, departed).

And I don’t really know what order people joined, or started blogging, other than jhwygirl, because I helped to talk her into it. Knowing how Jay can spot a diamond in the rough, Rebecca told me that he actively recruited her to come post on his site, and we are thankful for it. Both of these ladies are a part of the 5-person crew at 4&20 Blackbirds.

Anna is just getting started on writing a diary over at Left in the West, and is in the same position I was in, of being noticed for comments, before jumping in to posting herself.

On the other side, we have Carol over at Missoulapolis who started up in November June of ‘07. GF Girl at Cataract City who got riled up in December of ‘07 after posting for several months at the Electric City Weblog, and started her own blog. Kate started at Big Sky Cairn in the past couple of months, which enjoys bashing the lefties of us out there. I have never met these women, but I hope to someday.

Not that women bloggers who blog about other things in general, are mute about politics. One of my long time favorites, Patia, recently posted not just one, but two most excellent posts about her weekend in Missoula stewed up in politics.

I refer back to my comment that started my desire to get women out there involved in political blogging: “If you aren’t willing to have you opinions challenged, twisted or re-thought, then don’t bother to post.”

So when you look at it, I was way off on my math (did you know that 46.7% of statistics are made up on the spot: this is a case and point). The three of us sitting there on Saturday night together were about 33.333% of the women political bloggers in Montana. I am proud to be 11.111%.

The point is, we are out there. Fewer in number than the men, but gaining ground everyday. I find that hopeful.

As long as I am pontificating on women political bloggers, I think I should take the time to acknowledge the men who support us in what we do. You guys deserve a pat on the back as well. I can’t personally count the number of times I have yelled “SHANE, I broke the site again, HELP!” or “Guys, what is the html for this, that, or the other thing?” or “I need this link, and I can’t find it anymore, I am on dialup, save me!”

And you always respond and help out. Personally, they are Shane, Jay and Matt.

Just one more thing:

I finally got my pic taken in the politcal blogger way, with two of my strong women friends.

Well I have been promising these for a couple of days now, so here you go . . . in my trusty notebook,

There have been many a debate, speech, radio show, initiative, and even research on poll tax research I have done since beginning blogging in 2006. Generally, I take it with me anywhere I don’t have access to a computer, and will need to refresh my memory later. Well no such luck this time, I was sitting with jhwygirl, and Rebecca from 4&20, and Shane, with our families. We were there for quite some time, with nothing to do but talk with one another, point out interesting things, snap pictures, and have a sippa.

I figured we could all use a little chuckle.

So here is part two.  If you have any questions about the characteristics of a President that I am referring to, check out my post after the Metcalf-Mansfield Dinner in Butte. 

OBAMA:

1.  CURIOSITY.  One of the things I like most about Barak, is that he listens.  He doesn’t just hear sounds as people talk to him, he engages with others, and really absorbs what they have to say.  I am a little less clear about who his inside circle would be, but last night he mentioned establishing a post for a Native American. 

“It’s very important that there’s somebody in my White House who on an ongoing basis is keeping me informed, keeping me abreast,” said Obama. “It’s the same reason we want an annual summit with tribal leaders in the White House. I want tribal leaders all across the country to feel as if they have direct access to me, that they’re not going through layers of bureaucracy.”

The Illinois senator said he understands the need to make a difference within communities that are typically given few opportunities to be heard. He said he never forgets his ancestry or the unique position he’s in to become president of the United States.

He is in the process of establishing and outreaching to create a circle.  And I like it.  I hope he gets people who are willing to look him in the eye and say “You are wrong”.  The title quote on his webpage is “I am not asking you to believe, not just in my ability to bring about change in Washington . . .I’m asking you to believe in yours.” 

2.  CREATIVE. Lee Iacocca talks about being able to manage change in his definition of creativity.  There is no doubt that both campaigns have grabbed onto the idea that change is what is needed.  Seeing as there is no possibility of Bush back in the White House, I would say change is inevitable.  I’ll bet you $5 there will be a change. 

The difference for me, and it is subtle if you aren’t paying attention, is how Obama talks about change vs. how Clinton talks about it (”I am going to . . ” “I will”).  The best part is, when Obama talks about the change that needs to be created, he uses the word “we”.  I find myself included in Obama’s circle. Figuratively at this point, never having met the guy, but someday I might, and I am willing to bet that same $5 that he will listen to me. 

3.  COMMUNICATE. “Facing reality, and telling the truth.”  There is no doubt that Obama has had his share of attacks.  What I really appreciate is his ability to look us in the eye, and tell the truth.  This is a quality I consider to be absolutely non-negotiable in a President.  Misleading, inflating, and outright lying about facts in order to better position oneself or to obtain a desired outcome has become a common characteristic in politicians, and it disgusts me. 

4.  CHARACTER. Lee says ” . . . knowing the difference between right and wrong and having the guts to do the right thing”.  I have been against the war from the get go.  I don’t really have any cold hard evidence of the fact, but I know many family and friends who would sign affidavits testifying to this fact.  Obama ran for office opposing the war.  And won.  That is no small statement about the content of Obama’s character. 

Now I will be the first to admit that he has skipped out on a key vote in this matter; don’t think I didn’t notice.  But I also truly believe Obama when he talks about ending the war.  I also know that Obama has the guts to stand up for the change he is calling for, and doing the right thing.

5.  COURAGE. I know this is number 5 on this list, but it is the one I saved for last to write about. I think Obama’s courage is summed up best in a speech he wrote from the heart, in order to answer some questions about the people in his life.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough.  Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask?  Why not join another church?  And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way 

But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man.  The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor.  He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In that single speech, Obama hit all 9 C’s of Leadership for me. Talk about COURAGE. 

6.  CONVICTION.  Again, Obama has conviction in spades.  Not only does he have conviction for himself, but he inspires others to their own convictions.  Now that is a leader.

7.  CHARISMA.   No doubt.  I believe that while I might not agree with every single thing Obama says, I know that he will sit down and listen, and take into consideration the opinions of others.  I trust him, in ways I just can’t trust other candidates.

8.  COMPETENT.  Yes. I just like the idea of someone who doesn’t know the system as well, or who owes as many favors, and who is less susceptiable to the dark sides of the system as it exists. 

Not only that, but the fact that Bill Richardson came out in support of Obama over his good friend Clinton, and could be a strong VP (*crosses fingers*) for Obama, and shore him up in areas where Obama might not have “the experience” that so many people cling to. 

9.  COMMON SENSE.  Of course Obama has more common sense than Bush, that is not a hard accomplishment.  I also see more truth, sensibility, and statesmanship from him than I do from any other candidate.  Hands down. 

*******

I just had to say this again, it has been ringing in my head all day, and one of the clearest things I think I have personally said about the issues of gender and race in this election.  And this goes for all of the contenders, and some distant past contenders who have shocked me at their inability to see beyond DNA.  Which is what this issue boils down to in the end. You have some, I have some, and at least 99% of it is the same in every human. 

I note a distinction between generations.  I don’t know exactly what it is, other than what our parents protested for in the 60’s.  Equal rights, man, woman, child, black, white, red, blue, age doesn’t matter, disabilities can be accommodated, everyone is equal.  YOU TAUGHT US THIS.  Why are you fighting the very beliefs you raised us on?  I just don’t understand. 

We are approaching the perfection you envisioned.  I don’t care if the next candidate is a man, a woman, black, white, green, blue or yellow.  I care about the content of their character.  Did I miss something?  I don’t think so.

Probably not the most concise thing I have ever said, but certainly one of the best.

Alright, tomorrow might just bring the promised cartoons, and the trouble making of spending the day with the bloggers.

*******

I almost forgot, I was going to end this post with a scene from a movie coming out on Tuesday for rental.  If you only see one this week, Lions for Lambs should be it.  It asks more questions, provides few answers, and actually involves the audience.

The scenes I am referring to are a discussion between a college professor, and a student.

“Political Science, Doc?  What is scientific about it, outside of the psychology of how much shit voters will swallow before they notice?  The science part is really only about how to win.  Not how to govern, not how to make anybody any better, just how to win . . .”

[snip really good stuff, but I am getting to the essence here] 

“You almost convinced me.  Almost convinced me.”

“What?”

“That you really know what you are talking about.  You’re great with words son.  But you know what would make them even better?  If they had a heartbeat.  If they were rooted in any kind of experience.  If you knocked on doors, licked envelopes, showed up for a damned public rally.  Just put yourself on the line in any meaningful way.”

“Licking envelopes . . . that’s putting myself on the line, huh?”

“Its certianly more than just talking”

*******

P.S. Should my wildest dreams come true, and Robert Redford read that passage in the context I am highlighting it, and should he be so moved as to forward me a copy of his booklet on how to deal with Montana’s that was prepared for filming The Horsewhisperer; well that would be cool, I want it for the cabin. 

Well as usual, I got riled up.  I love these events.  I could spend a good long time talking about all that happened tonight in Butte, (and I am sure I will this week, I have cartoons drawn on scene by bloggers) but right now I want to talk about the ride to and from Butte.

As many of you know, the Firecracker came with me, but also, for the first time I dragged in my “Aunt” and “Uncle”.  A couple of our family’s best friends, that have earned those titles; and that I have known since I was three, living in Lewistown, and watching cattle branding on a ranch in Grassrange. 

Yeah, I was in the car with three, ummmm lets call them: people-who-have-been-on-the-planet-for-more-days-than-I-have, people whom I really respect. These are the people who raised me.  The Firecracker has heard me railing on about Obama for months, but my Aunt and Uncle have only had limited exposure.  Even so, I was riding down in the car with one undecided, and two Clinton supporters.  So on the way down, I decided to read from Where Have All The Leaders Gone” by Lee Iacocca.  (Mind you, this is a book that was published in April 2007, so written at least in January 2007, and a lot has changed since then.)  And while it might be slightly off to publish all this without permission, I think this is exactly the application of thought that Lee was going for in publishing his book.  So I expect to be patted on the back for bringing it to a wider audience.

*******

Lee had a few things to say.  Ok, more than a few things, and most of which I agreeded with.  But he also proposed the 9 C’s of Leadership, on how to chose a candidate.  While most of the initial C’s give a description of the leadership that we are missing, then bash Bush; there is something in the C’s that noone in the car disagreed with.  Here they are, with me paraphrasing the meaning that Lee lays out:

1.   ”A leader has to show CURIOSITY.  He has to listen to people outside of the “Yes, sir” crowd in his inner circle.  He has to read voraciously, because the world is a big, complicated place.”  Ok, Lee did a good job on describing that one

2.  “A leader has to be CREATIVE, go out on a limb, be willing to try something different.”  Okay, good description again.  Lee goes on to say “Leadership is all about managing change - whether you’re leading a company or leading a country.  Tings Change, and you get creative.  You adapt.”

3.  “A leader has to COMMUNICATE.  I am not talking about running off at the mouth or spouting sound bites.  I am talking about facing reality, and telling the truth.” 

4.  “A leader has to be a person of CHARACTER.  That means knowing the difference between right and wrong and having the guts to do the right thing.”

5.  “A leader must have COURAGE.  I am talking about balls.  (That even goes for female leaders.) . . . Courage is commitment to sit down at the negotiating table and talk.”

6.  “To be a leader you’ve got to have CONVICTION - a fire in your belly.  You’ve got to have passion.  You’ve got to really want to get something done.” 

7.  “A leader should have CHARISMA.  I’m not talking about being flashy.  Charisma is the quality that makes people want to follow you.  It’s the ability to inspire.  People follow a leader because they trust him.

8.  “A leader has got to be COMPENTENT.  That seems obvious doesn’t it?  You’ve got to know what you’re doing.  More important than that, you’ve got to know what they’re doing. . . A leader has to be a problem solver, and the bigger problems we face as a nation seem to be on the back burner.”

9.  “You can’t be a leader if you don’t have COMMON SENSE.”  { Cece - someone who knows when someone is pulling the wool over your eyes. Back to Lee, referring to Bush, and his lack of common sense:} “You know - Mr. they’ll welcome-us-as-liberators-no-child-left-behind-heck-of-a-job-Brownie-mission-accomlished Bush.”

Oh yeah.  This is a good book.  That was just snippets of the first 10 pages.  Buy it. The reasoning on how to chose a leader, is but a scratch on the surface of what is in this book. In particular, I love his analysis of the idea of building a 300 mile fence to obtain “homeland security” on our southern border, not to mention his take on other “walls” that have been built.

*******

Again, on the way down to Butte, I read these points from first chapter to my gang.  And we all agreed.  These were things that were qualifications for being the President of the United States, after all, we, as voters, are choosing to give them the job.  We are the employers.

Like I said before, a lot has happened and changed since Lee wrote this book.  I certainly know more about Obama and Clinton, and have spent time reviewing their candidacies, than I did in January of 2007. 

CLINTON:

1.  CURIOSITY.  Yeah, no.  Clinton is nothing if not insider politics.  She is surrounded by a group of people who tell her that she is doing the right thing.  What about listening to those who say, “Nope, I don’t agree.”  She doesn’t have it, and in my consideration, one of her greatest weaknesses.

2.  CREATIVE.  I will give her creativity in her youth, and willingness to go out on a limb; however since gaining office to lead NYers, I could hardly say that she embraced change. Indeed, she has failed to show up for what I consider to be key votes in the direction the US will take in the future.

3.  COMMUNICATE. Not at all in the way that Lee references it. “Facing reality, and telling the truth.”  Time and time again, facts have shown how Hillary has mislead the public about her past.

[I just realized I am going to be up all night writing this, and I have to work at 9:45 am]

4.  CHARACTER.  I am iffy on this one.  I myself, have been in a relationship or two with someone chose to stray.  I chose a hardline position on the issue, after seeking and trying resolutions, and in the end, I am single.  Happier, more content, more myself, and single.  That is not to say that Hillary made the wrong choice.  She made hers. 

At the same time, to choose a low paying job, to fight for justice that previously didn’t exist, I admire the heck out of her for her commitment to others.

5.  COURAGE.  As much as I might disagree with Clinton’s present strategy in the campaign, I have to say she has balls of steel.  No doubt about it.  My issues are with her unwillingness to give in to the will of the people, and her unwillingness to follow the rules (MI and FL).  That bothers the carp out of me, and it should you as well.  I want listening skills, communication, openness to ideas, and the ability to admit that a mistake happened from the next President.

If she would only say “I was mislead, as many of you were, by the word of George Bush.  I trusted him to tell me the truth, and so I voted to give war powers to him.  I made a mistake, I failed to read the intelligence prior to voting.  I am human and fallible.  I was dupped just like many of you in our insecurity after 9/11.  I made a mistake, but that doesn’t change what I know now.  And here is how I see us getting out of this mess . . ”

Be human.  I swear we will accept it.  Look at your husband.  We might not be proud of what happened; but we will be willing to forgive.  Just admit your mistakes.  Seriously.

6.  CONVICTION.  No doubt.  Point to Hillary.

7.  CHARISMA.  Yes.  Hillary is an amazing woman, who has accomplished so much for so many.  I won’t contest that fact. 

I note a distinction between generations.  I don’t know exactly what it is, other than what our parents protested for in the 60’s.  Equal rights, man, woman, child, black, white, red, blue, age doesn’t matter, disabilities can be accommodated, everyone is equal.  YOU TAUGHT US THIS.  Why are you fighting the very beliefs you raised us on?  I just don’t understand. 

We are approaching the perfection you envisioned.  I don’t care if the next candidate is a man, a woman, black, white, green, blue or yellow.  I care about the content of their character.  Did I miss something?  I don’t think so.

8.  COMPETENT.  Yes Hillary is competent, she knows the system.  I just like the idea of someone who doesn’t know the system as well, or who owes as many favors, and who is less susceptiable to the dark sides of the system as it exists.  (YAY TESTER!)

9.  COMMON SENSE.  Yes.  Way better than Bush.  At the same time I have to say No.  Who in their right mind would lie about qualifications that are on video?  Need I say more?

*******

Suffice it to say, the ride back from Butte was interesting.  Most points that the two for Clinton brought up, based on our prior reading of the qualifications we agreed on, I was able to bring facts to light that disproved their decision to vote for Clinton.  A lot of the points I mentioned to you, were the same ones I argued in the car on a Montana freeway, busier than I have ever seen it in my life time.  It was enchanting to watch the stream of cars coming home to Helena from Butte.

I have to say just one more thing.  It takes a lot of guts to run for office, to open oneself to such scruntinay and examinations; not only from some one as time pressed as I am, but to people who are paid to do the job.  I admire people who take that chance.  It is not to be undervalued, their desire to serve the public.  But when the desire appears to be overwhelmed with personal ambition, I hope we are all smart enough to take a step back, and examine their motives. 

This is long, and I promise to do the same for Obama tomorrow or Monday.

What a crazy couple of weeks!  As many of you know, I have been accepted to the University of Idaho’s College of Law, class of 2011.  I have been spending a lot of time talking with family and friends, and processing what this opportunity will mean for my life, and the lives of others.  I am so looking forward to getting the tools and education to help others as an attorney.  And I thank all of you so much for your support, and well wishes through all of this.

Well a friend of mine took care of me, and scored tickets to the Obama/Clinton fiesta in Butte in April.  I was so busy with things yesterday that I didn’t find out this surprise until this morning.  Thank you!  The Firecracker and I will be attending.  I can’t decide if I will be able to get a laptop prior to the event, or if I will be scribbling frantically in my notebook as usual, then busting ass to get back to Helena to get it up on the net, probably the latter. 

My family started a laptop savings account for me a couple of years ago, in recognition of my work on blogs, and I have been saving the money to buy one for law school.  It has been hard to put off the instant gratification of being able to blog live from an event, but one that I think has been worth it.  Fortunately, the U of I lets you have either a Mac or (uhhh) PC type laptop.  I am leaning towards a Mac.  Any suggestions?

I have moved Wrong Dog’s Life Chest to Wrongdog.net. Please update your bookmarks and blogrolls accordingly. You can get the RSS feed at http://wrongdog.net/blog/feed.xml.

I wrote the software that powers the blog and this is its first deployment, so be aware that it will likely still be a bit buggy for a while. Please come and visit me over there.

PJFinn has started a new blog called The Evening Pest. Humor and snark are the order of the day, so go and check it out.

After a request from Mike and several commenters, I have removed the post on Obama’s religion. Mike took someone’s word as truth when it clearly was not. That just goes to show how important it is to check our sources and not believe everything that we read or hear.

It has been a while since I visited either the Montana GOP or Montana Democrat websites.  The last time I checked the GOP site, it was a horrible mess, with most of the content crammed at the bottom.

It looks like they have a new format, and I have to say it really looks nice.  They even have the obligatory red,white, and blue in the main banner; someone forgot to send the Dems that must-have-colors-prominently-displayed memo.   The Dem’s site doesn’t look nearly as nice, in my opinion.

Again, I have no clue how long these sites have been updated, but if you are like me, and have been avoiding them, now might be the time to check them out.  As 2008 approaches, both will probably be filled with new information all the time.

Several years back I read a fascinating book called ‘The Cathedral & The Bazaar’ by Eric S. Raymond. Anyone who knows of both ESR and me might guess that I have love/hate relationship with the man and that should be considered while reading this post. What is most important to understand is that ESR’s book helped to define my approach to life, politics, technology, policy and blogging. The part that I want to talk about tonight comes from the thesis Homesteading The Noosphere, and you can read the whole piece here.

A couple of things before I start off though. While ESR’s piece uses the open source model as the basis for discussion, I have found that it is applicable to almost all arenas of life. In this case, I want to apply it to blogs. For the uninitiated, Wikipedia has a good primer on what open source is:

Open source is a set of principles and practices that promote access to the design and production of goods and knowledge. The term is most commonly applied to the source code of software that is available to the general public with relaxed or non-existent intellectual property restrictions. This allows users to create software content through incremental individual effort or through collaboration.
-
The open source model of operation can be extended to open source culture in decision making, which allows concurrent input of different agendas, approaches and priorities, in contrast with more centralized models of development such as those typically used in commercial companies. Open source culture is one where collective decisions or fixations are shared during development and made generally available to all, as done in Wikipedia. This collective approach moderates ethical concerns over a “conflict of roles” or conflict of interest. Participants in such a culture are able to modify the collective outcomes and share them with the community. Some consider open source as one of various possible design approaches, while others consider it a critical strategic element of their operations.

Certainly, blogs are collaborative by their very nature. Otherwise, why have a comments section at all? Forums might be a more apt example of the Bazaar, but neither are a Cathedral. While I have worked on many open source projects and many open endeavours, this is the one I am working on now.

The first area of interest in ESR’s thesis concerns ownership rights and motivations of the open source participant. What is the motivation to expend so much time and effort? He creates an analogy of early settlers on the frontier, wherein they ‘homestead’ yet unclaimed land. Title to ownership is earned through the upkeep and sound stewardship of the land. The Noosphere, on the other hand, is ‘the territory of ideas, the space of all possible ideas.’ By the creation and transference of knowledge we are staking out our place in the Noosphere, improving it and claiming ownership.

This application of ownership theory is problematic to me though and this might be a good place to point out some differences in the way authors approach ownership of their blogs. Mike Harris states in his logo “It Is My Blog, But You Can Read It”. Craig is very straight forward about ownership:

-I pay for the bandwidth and hosting, which makes this blog my property.
-You don’t have a “right” to comment.

While Scoop Montana reports of himself, Budge, Steve and Carol

All of us value independence. You won’t see team blogging from this group, at least not yet. None of us are willing to give up the satisfaction and experience of running our own show, and the authenticity of being ourselves and reflecting our own unadulterated ideas.

On the other hand, take a look at Left In The West, 4 & 20 Blackbirds, Intelligent Discontent and right here at Montana Netroots. All are collaborative blogs at some level, many approaching the bazaar on the outside, none a cathedral. I am not here today to claim that one is better than the other, I am only here to explain the model I know and understand. Colby pointed out many of these differences in his excellent post The Psychology of Left & Right: Montana Netroots Failure and how they spill over into our general policy beliefs. While I there are fundamental differences in the ownership principals we follow, I will show why I believe that the motivations for homesteading the blogosphere are ultimately the same.

Raymond addresses the problem of applying the traditional model of ownership to the open source model by noting that the application assumes some sort of return on investment of time. What are the general results of an investment in blogging? People call you names, try to make you looks stupid and take some sort of sadistic pleasure when they succeed. There isn’t money in blogging since there isn’t a scarcity. Look at the blogroll, we come a dime a dozen.

There is one way that open-source activity can help people become wealthier, however—a way that provides a valuable clue to what actually motivates it. Occasionally, the reputation one gains in the hacker culture can spill over into the real world in economically significant ways. It can get you a better job offer, or a consulting contract, or a book deal.

This kind of side effect, however, is at best rare and marginal for most hackers; far too much so to make it convincing as a sole explanation, even if we ignore the repeated protestations by hackers that they’re doing what they do not for money but out of idealism or love.

I agree with Raymond here, I don’t think that is any kind of explanation at all. Almost none of us political bloggers have political aspirations. If we did, blogging is the wrong way to go about it. Additionally, blogging is not a particularly good vehicle of coercion either. People who would rather not be coerced simply can (and do) choose to not participate. There can only be one real answer: we do it to gain reputation in a gift culture.

Raymond points out that we generally live in an exchange culture, where goods and services are given in exchange for money. Essentially, it’s all about advantageous trade. We try to get jobs from employers who will give us the most money and benefits in exchange for our labor and we try to get as much good and services as possible in exchange for our money. The core of our economic system centers around the stock market whose broker’s mantra is the essence of advantageous exchange ‘buy low, sell high’. In that culture, wealth is determined by control of the commodities and exchange.

This is not the culture that blogs and the open source model exists in. I can not exchange my blog posts for money, there is no market for them. Even if you enjoy my writing, you would generally choose to make a more advantageous exchange (read another blog for free). Without scarcity, there is no economic incentive. Additionally, having many blogs with many posts does not increase my status in our culture, no more so than the ability to read many blogs with many posts. We do have a culture though:

Gift cultures are adaptations not to scarcity but to abundance. They arise in populations that do not have significant material-scarcity problems with survival goods. We can observe gift cultures in action among aboriginal cultures living in ecozones with mild climates and abundant food. We can also observe them in certain strata of our own society, especially in show business and among the very wealthy.

Abundance makes command relationships difficult to sustain and exchange relationships an almost pointless game. In gift cultures, social status is determined not by what you control but by what you give away.

I would say that equating the blogosphere to a gift culture is generally apt. Some offer information, some offer unique insights and analysis, some offer philosophical waxing, while others offer common sense advise. The one thing that each and every one of us offers, regardless of how we view the ownership and construction, is our time and energy. If there is any one thing that we offer it in exchange for, it is an increased reputation.

Now, we can’t just apply that to blog authors though. The commenters and readers have a very large place too. In the bazaar model, we each work out of out own (often competing) interests in order to create on common item. A blog. Without the readers there would be no reason to write in the first place, while the commenters fit right into the open source model by fullfilling the role of the dual consumer/producer. At first they are a simple consumers of your gift, but as soon as they comment they are producers of materials that increase the value of your gift. Not only do they add to the discussion, they often serve a Q&A role by challenging the information that you have given. More often than not, I find the content of the comments more compelling than the original piece. In the way that I see it, it is a collective and community effort.

Look for ‘Homesteading The Spheres [1]’ coming up, where I will discuss the Cathedral modal and the Bazaar model in the blogosphere.

In case you haven’t updated your links to include Bob Garner’s Waves and Particles, do so now. I will wait…

Done?

OK. Carry on then.

In case you have a hard time staying up on which of the presidential hopefuls most closely resembles you when it comes to politics, or if tend to be concerned about a given candidates level of political involvement, the good folks at Beliefnet have the perfect tool for you; the God-o-meter.  This tool uses a top secret algorithm to deliver a 1-10 indication of how religious candidates currently are.  From the meter’s page:

The God-o-Meter (pronounced Gah-DOM-meter) scientifically measures factors such as rate of God-talk, effectiveness—saying God wants a capital gains tax cut doesn’t guarantee a high rating—and other top-secret criteria. Click a candidate’s head to get his or her latest God-o-Meter reading and blog post. And check back often. With so much happening on the campaign trail, God-o-Meter is constantly recalibrating!

Currently Fred Thompson is just a 5; clearly not the true conservative many were hoping for.