Archive for the 'Equality' Category

As “Super Tuesday” draws ever closer, in the back of my mind I have been wondering about the possibilities, as I am sure many people are who are considering Republican candidates for President. As many (hopefully) know, the Republican party will be holding a caucus on February 5th here in Montana, to decide the candidate that Montana’s 25 Republican delegate votes will go to. The democrats get 16 delegate votes in their convention, but who they support will not be decided until Montana’s traditional primary in June.

Right now, the pledged delegate votes stand like this for the Republican candidates:

John McCain has 93 delegate votes
Mitt Romney has 59 delegate votes
Mike Huckabee has 40 delegate votes
Ron Paul has 4 delegate votes
Fred Thompson has 5 delegate votes
Rudy Giuliani has 1 delegate vote
Duncan Hunter has 1 delegate vote

A total of 1,191 delegate votes are needed to obtain the Republican party nomination. Given that the last three of those have dropped out of the race, that means that 7 of those delegate votes might be back up for grabs. On Super Tuesday, there are a total of 1,038 delegate votes up for grabs, so no candidate can take the nomination. (AL 45, AK 26, AZ 53, AR 31, CA 170, CO 43, CT 27, DE 18, GA 72, IL 57, MA 43, MN 38, MO 58, MT 25, NJ 52, NY 101, ND 26, OK 38, TN 52, UT 36, WV 27).

A couple of quotes from the Montana Republican party website, in which Iverson answers John Adam’s questions regarding the caucus.

Q: Who is eligible to vote in the caucus?

Iverson:About 2,800 people are eligible to vote, and that’s if we fill all 1,700 precinct positions. All of the voting members of the Montana Republican Party State Executive Committee have a vote. Elected officers from each county central committee have a vote. Each precinct person has a vote. All incumbent Republican members of the Montana Legislature, Public Service Commission and incumbent Republican office holders in county, state and federal offices also have a vote. The state headquarters sent out information packets notifying everybody who is eligible.

and

Q: How will the caucus work?

Iverson:On Feb. 5, there will be a caucus held in each of Montana’s 56 counties. For example, here in Missoula they will meet at the Doubletree Hotel at 6 p.m. They’re having a social hour, and then at around 7 p.m. representatives of each of the campaigns will give speeches. After that, there will be a chance for discussion, and then there will be a vote conducted by paper ballot. Most of the caucuses follow that same model. The only rule we have deadline-wise is that all of the votes need to be called into state headquarters by 10 p.m. that night.

Right, so now, not only do the majority of citizens who consider themselves to be Republicans not get to participate in choosing the candidate that they want to run against the Democratic nominee; but the final votes are not due to state headquarters until an hour after the California and west-coast polls close, which could lead to the vote in Montana being swayed by the outcome of caucuses and primaries in other states. I thought the whole point of having Montana’s Republican caucus in February, well let’s use an Iverson quote again, this one is from last August:

The new proposal would require Montana’s 25 delegates to support the winner of Montana’s Republican Presidential Caucus, an honor that could only be won by garnering broad support from 2,262 party officials representing every county across the state. Under the new, reform plan, those who cast a vote on behalf of Montana Republicans at the National Convention would better represent the will of Republicans from throughout the entire state, instead of their own personal preference.

Iverson has changed his tune since last August, now he is saying:

Q: What happens once you have a winner?

Iverson:All 25 delegates to the Republican National Convention will be required to vote for the winner of the Montana caucus. However, there are a couple of protections built into that.

For example, say Fred Thompson wins in Montana on Feb. 5, but by the time a few other states’ results come in it’s pretty clear that John McCain is going to be our nominee. In that case, our delegates are bound to vote for Fred Thompson on the first ballot at the national convention, but on the second ballot they would be free to vote for whomever they wanted.

Also, we’ve made a provision where Fred Thompson (in that scenario), by way of letter to me, could release his delegates to vote for whomever they wish.

So the good news is, that even though the delegates are bound to cast all 25 of Montana’s delegate votes at the Republican Presidental Caucus to the “winner” of Tuesday night’s selective caucus; the will of the citizens who are members of the Republican party should still cast their votes in the June primary for the Republican candidate of their choice.  Then maybe the 25 delegates will finally listen to those not allowed to participate in a primary caucus, and cast their votes to represent who Montana really wants to run as the Republican Presidential candidate.

With all the news over Senator Larry Craig what is missed is at what cost? To begin with, he will receive his retirement to the tune of some $136,000 dollars a year. So it must not go unnoticed that the crime does not fit the outcome very well does it?

Had it been a felony rather than a misdemeanor then this would not be the case. However, he will able to continue his lifestyle in whatever manner he chooses and we as taxpayers will pick up the bill.

Speaking of costs, there were some 1,800 civilians killed over the past month in Iraq. In one instance the cost of life was 500 in just one incident.

And then there is my own battle with the VA’s disability rating board. I just found out that my Agent Orange cancer disability payments have been reduced from 100% to 20% which is not only a huge deduction (like $2,000) because the people who oversee the veterans benefits have concluded that I am cancer free after just one year of remission but they can’t explain the huge loss of weight which is well over 100 pounds, the night-sweats, the sleepless nights that come in one to two hour blocks, the diminished lung capacity, the hoarseness of the vocal cords due to damage by chemicals used to kill the cancer and of course the huge loss of revenue because I was too sick to work.
Am I battling to fight this and do the right thing, Yes - But keep in mind that when you take on the VA you are appealing to the same people who determine what you do or do not get in terms of disability compensation. I’ve taken the steps of seeking help from both of our Senators (Bacus, Tester) and Congressman Reberg but that as I am sure most realize takes time and money both of which I do not have.
Clearly my medical records (both past and present) show that the side effects of the cancer are presenty even today but just try to prove to them that you are trying to do the right thing when it is clear that the government are more concerned with their own set of values and protecting their nest eggs to worry about the plight of the veteran.

Not long ago I was asked to share my experiences with the effects of service related health issues and you can trust that I shall. Why? Because this whole affair just simply is NOT fair. It IS about more than money it is about doing the right things for the right reasons.

Can they say the same?

I am sure that the blogs are completley covering the abdication of the Attorney General’s seat by Alberto Gonzales today.  One Win.

The Republicans, I mean the insiders, got together this weekend and decided (72 to 14, yeah 96 people decided for you) that they don’t care about their party members and loyalists don’t matter to them, only the “up to 3,000″ or so party officials votes matter.  Don’t bother to show up at the primary, the decision will be made for you on February 5, 2008, as to who will represent the Republicans in the Presidential Race of 2008.  *Pats on head* You poor ignorant voter.  Just vote for who we have already decided is the best candidate.  You don’t know enough to vote for yourself.  Time to defect?  One Loss.

Why should you Hold Onto Your Hats?  Well, I might be remembered as someone who did some in-depth coverage of the initiatives last election season.  (Toot Toot).  The infamous Trio of Doom (CI-97, CI-98, and I-154 (which Wulfgar covered much better than I did)).

So I sit here today, and I see that the Governor has called a Special Session of the Legislature to appropriate funds from our savings to cover the costs of this fire season.  I have choked on smoke for the past couple of months; not being able to see the Sleeping Giant, or the Valley, and on the terrible days, even Mount Helena; the time has come to address the issue. 

Why does this come to mind?  Well CI-97, Stop Over Spending Montana, had it not been thrown out of the Courts as unconstitutional, would have left all us Montanans swimming in smoke.  We would have had to wait until the next statewide election, to vote in some money to deal with the issue.  Wait, when is the next statewide election?  Oh yeah, choke on that Montanans.

“Rumor has it” (the name of a game created by an old friend) that Howie Rich will be back in action in the election season of 2008.  Whether or not he trusts Trevis Butcher with it again, or can find anyone to support him remains to be seen.  Unfortunately, I know he will be back, trying to shove his ideas down Montanan’s throats again.  You heard it here first.  Hang Onto Your Hats, and remember to watch what is going on.  Better yet, look at things as they might have been had Montanans passed that proposed initiative.  Now do you understand?

Things will be more complicated this time, as I am headed to law school, but I promise to maintain my contacts, and keep fighting the good fight in the name of truth.

I just happened to be reading the Independant Record the other day, when this article caught my eye.

Early Caucus gives state a voice by Eric Iverson - Your Turn - 08/03/07

Every four years, Montana voters go through the motions of casting a ballot in the presidential primary election, hoping that our next president hears the concerns of Montana and other western states. Unfortunately, that voice often falls upon deaf ears. In reality, Montana’s primary comes so late in the process that each political party has already selected its presidential nominee long before Montanans have a voice. Typically by that time, several candidates have dropped out of the race, and our vote ends up being a simple affirmation of a pre-determined outcome. If Montanans want a voice in the process, we can’t allow that to continue any longer, and Montana Republicans are trying to do something about it. Under a new proposal, the Montana Republican Party would hold a Presidential Caucus in each county on February 5, 2008. Each county caucus would include folks from around the county who come and cast their ballot for the Republican nominee for President, all in one evening. The votes would be tallied from around the state and a winner of the Republican Presidential Caucus would be announced that very night.

Maybe I am missing something, but who makes up this caucus? Is every Republican voter in the county invited to come cast their vote for whom they think should be their Presidential canidate? Or are a select group of “representatives” in each county invited to cast their vote to represent the wishes of every one in their county? And who decides who the “representatives” from each county are?

Back to the article, and why those are very important questions.

The need for such a change is just plain common sense for most Montanans. Ultimately, we want to elect a President who understands and will address issues we care about, but right now we give them a pass on Montana issues until the general election in November. Currently we are the second-to-last state to hold it’s presidential primary, ahead of only South Dakota. Moving to a caucus in February will give Montana a voice in the presidential nominating process at a time that is relevant in the presidential campaign — when candidates are debating the issues and discussing the various policy positions that will impact our everyday lives. Montana Republicans happen to think that Denton is just as important as Des Moines, Iowa, and that Conrad shouldn’t have to take a backseat to Concord, N.H.

This new approach also gives more Montanans input on the presidential selection process as a whole. Remember, the presidential nominee is selected by delegates at the National Convention. Right now, Montana’s 25 delegates to the Republican National Convention aren’t obligated to vote for the candidate who wins Montana’s primary — they simply vote for the presidential candidate they personally want to support. That’s right, under the current policy only 25 people get to decide which candidate gets the support of all Montana Republicans. The new proposal would require Montana’s 25 delegates to support the winner of Montana’s Republican Presidential Caucus, an honor that could only be won by garnering broad support from 2,262 party officials representing every county across the state. Under the new, reform plan, those who cast a vote on behalf of Montana Republicans at the National Convention would better represent the will of Republicans from throughout the entire state, instead of their own personal preference.

Woah. Wait a minute. So this undefined caucus decides in February of 2008 who the Republican presidential canidate will be. And the people who go to the polls, and vote in the actual primary on June 3, 2008 are wasting their time. The decision has already been reached months before by this “caucus”.

Tell me, when exactly was it that the members of the Montanan Republicans abdicated their right to cast a vote? Now the party and an undefined group of people are going to take that decision away from you? If you aren’t riled up, I just don’t understand it.

Implementing this change opens the nominating process to Republicans from every walk of life, with every county in Montana being allowed to provide its input. I don’t know a single Montanan who doesn’t think we deserve to have a voice in the presidential primary election, and ultimately, that’s what a Republican Presidential Caucus will do for this state: give us a voice.

Montana Republicans are taking the lead to ensure that Montana issues are addressed at the national level — not just with hollow rhetoric late in the campaign, but with honest, thoughtful discussion right from the start, early in the primary process. This is the kind of presidential election Montanans deserve, and Republicans will work to make it a reality.

Erik Iverson is State Chairman of the Montana Republican Party.

Call me ignorant, but I am fairly certian that “opens the nominating process to Republicans from every walk of life, with every county in Montana being allowed to provide its input” is the very definition of a primary.

Don’t get me wrong here. I can understand the impulse to want to have a say in who gets nominated to be a party’s presidential canidate, but removing individual party members right to vote in the nomination process, is completely undemocratic. I even like the idea of binding representatives to the electoral college to cast their votes as Montanas have.

Looks like Sam got the jump on this story. A great convo in the comments over at Wulfgar’s site. And a post from Montana Headlines. That will teach me to wait a couple of days to post.

The important thing here, is that we are talking about it. Heck, I plan on shouting it from the rooftops, and probably checking into the constitutionality of the whole thing with a couple constitutional lawyer friends of mine. I’ll keep you updated with what I find out.

Well, I am sure that some of you have seen that the Federal Minimum Wage went up today to $5.85, pursuant to the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, which was voted in by some of our congressmen back on May 24, 2007, and was signed into law the next day by Bush. It raises the Federal Minimum Wage from yesterday’s $5.15 per hour, to $5.85 per hour today. Next July 24, 2008 it will raise to $6.55 per hour, and the following July 24, 2009, it will raise to $7.25 per hour.

Some of you might be thinking at the back of your head, “What about the wage increase that we voted in last November, how will this interact with Montana’s minimum wage laws?” (Remember Initiative 151? How about Raise Montana?).

So presently, Montana’s minimum is $6.15 per hour, even today we are above the Federal minimum. But as some of you will recall, our initiative amended the MCA § 39-3-409, and no later than September 30 this year, Montana has to calculate a new minimum wage, which will go into effect on January 1, 2008.

Now, these are not the hard numbers, I am just making an educated guesstimate*.
 

Federal Minimum $5.85 per hour
Montana’s Minimum
$6.15 x the consumer price index .027* = .166
.166 + $6.15 = $6.32
$6.32 rounded to the neatest 5 cents =

$6.30 new minimum wage for January 1, 2008.

*please note, I am using the June to June CPI for 2007, and the law says to use August to August, hence the guesstimate*

Alright, everybody with me? On July 24, 2008, the Federal Minimum will raise to $6.55 and Montana’s Minimum will raise to the Federal minimum of $6.55 from $6.30 (MT’s).

Assuming the same June 2006 to June 2007 CPI of 2.7%, for the upcoming years:

Year  Federal Montana
2008  $6.55  $6.30
2009  $7.25  $6.45
2010  $7.25  $6.60
2011  $7.25  $6.80
2012  $7.25  $7.00
2013  $7.25  $7.20
2014  $7.25  $7.40

I bolded how the power between the two would shift.  Montanan’s will always earn the most amount that the law will allow, as I read the law. (thanks William)

So basically, minimum wage will be about $6.15 (MT) until January 2008 when it will raise to $6.30 (MT), then again in July 2008 to $6.55 (Fed). In July 2007, the Federal Minimum of $7.25 will reign until January 1, 2014 when MT’s formula will overtake the Federal, to become $7.40.

So although it is great that the Feds finally came through on the whole minimum wage thing, you will also note that the change to the law, that Montanan’s overwhelmingly voted for, is quietly chugging along in the background, making sure that Montanan’s wages are keeping up with cost of living increases. 

Nicely done Montana.

I am sure that some people have seen the Dateline program “To Catch a Predator“, I know I have watched a couple of them, and I think they are a public service.  Well in Murphy Texas, the District Attorney has refused to prosecute the 24 predators who were caught soliciting sex from underage decoys.  Unbelievable. 

Why you ask?  Well the DA says it is because “many of the cases were tainted by the involvement of amateurs” (see the above article).  He also said in 16 of the cases he had no jurisdiction, because the suspects and decoys were not in his county.  As for the other 9, he said that he couldn’t prosecute because neither Dateline nor the police could guarantee that the logs of the online solicitations were complete.  Did he think to ask Perverted Justice, the activist group who has helped in catching and convicting 200 child predators?  This from their website’s FAQ page, regarding the question “Do you contact the men, or do they contact you?”:

We have an official “rules of engagement” that we train contributors in once they are selected. One of those rules is that unless asked to in the chat, always let the male PM you. That way they can’t cry that the “kid” messaged them in IM first, they have to take the first step. Often, just entering a chat room is enough to get 3-10 instant messages at once without having to say anything in the main chat room area.

 

We are philosophically against anyone or any organization that contacts people first as underage personas. There is no reason to do that when online predators are so numerous and motivated to contact what they think is a 10-15 year old male or female first. We want predatory threats and we are happy to wait as long as it takes to find them. Sadly, that doesn’t take very long.

If you scroll to the middle of the page of the article above, to the Related Content section, and read “Story behind the investigation, Part 1” and “Story behind the investigation, Part 2” from the Dateline people you might find just a little more.  Including the fact that at least one of the men was contacted from the sting house.

You see in Texas:

Police Chief Billy Myrick: Under Texas law, the offense had already been committed when the communication was completed through the Internet, so we don’t need them to come in. I mean we don’t even need them to show up at the scene.

One of the alleged predators, an assistant district attorney in Texas, had a conversation with one of Perverted Justice’s decoys.  Louis William “Bill” Conrat Jr., apparently made telephone contact with the decoy, and was recorded with a 13 year old decoy.  The conversation went on for two weeks.

Chief Myrick: when I just hear that it was that a chief felony prosecutor of a neighboring county, yes, I did say “No it can’t be. A lot of times and very loudly.”  I said, “Let’s confirm everything.  Let’s make sure.” 

 

Once the chief is certain he’s got the right man, he takes his evidence to a local judge and gets an arrest warrant. He also decides to involve the police in Terrell, the town about 35 miles away were Conradt lives. (not a quote, but an explanation from Part 2 of the story, id)

 

Chief Myrick: “We tried to make sure that because of who he was that we took every precaution possible by contacting the local authorities and/ the chief of the Terrell Police Department.”

The evidence for Louis William “Bill” Conrat Jr.’s arrest/search warrant was reviewed by two Judges. Turns out, that the Assistant DA, started by deleting his MySpace page, and even though he didn’t turn up at the sting house, he still committed a felony in the eyes of Texas law.  For the first time on the show, the authorities turned over the job to another county’s authorities, and tracked Louis William “Bill” Conrat Jr. down at his home for an arrest.  All the other predators who were caught, were ones who actually approached and/or entered the decoy house set up by Dateline.

They knock on the door, with no answer.  The authorities can tell that Louis William “Bill” Conrat Jr. is home, there are a computer and television on, and decide to wait for their tactical team to arrive.  When they arrive, they get into formation, and approach the house, and force their way in.  Here is what happened:

Lt. Barber: As they made entry, they confronted the suspect.  I believe he was in the hallway.  And he told them he wasn’t going to hurt them.  And then he shot himself.

Hansen: And he had a pistol in his hand?

Lt. Barber: A small caliber pistol.

 

Dateline goes on to call this a tragedy (about 1/2 way down the page). There have been a lot of accusations flung since Conrat committed suicide.  Blame thrown to Dateline, Perverted Justice, the Murphy Police Department, the Murphy City Manager, etc.

Personally, I think it is time to throw blame in the direction from whence it came. 

Someone, who was doing (allegedly) something desperately wrong chose to kill himself.  Several people evaluated the evidence, and they came to the conclusion that he was violating the law.  He may not of known that, but he decided he was better off dead than facing questions.  I don’t call that a tragedy, I call that a decision.

What makes me sick, is that other admitted offenders are going free.  They broke the law, in a most egregious way, and they are getting of the hook because some people are too scared to do the right thing.

Well I am back in action. The LSAT was Monday, and I have sufficiently recovered to be able to put some coherent thoughts together.
There have been many things in the last few months that I have wanted to comment on, and thankfully there are reliable bloggers in Montana who will cover issues I think are important. And it was wonderful knowing that I could just relax and study for my test, and that someone would start a conversation on the issues.
So as I was revving back up this week, I was reading Time magazine, and I ran across Joe Klein’s commentary entitled “Beware the Bloggers’ Bile”. (June 18, 2007 issue, link provided).
Now I will be the first to admit that I get riled up at times, and have on a couple of occasions let my indignation get the better of me. Overall, I would have to say, I maintain a pretty level head. The simple fact remains, if I didn’t find something important to talk about, then I wouldn’t take the time to address it in a blog. I am not in the habit of just tossing out random ideas, in order to watch the shark feed happen. Better yet, I happen to write for a collaborative blog that actually discourages personal attacks, even when I am the one attacking.
Klien writes about “fury begets fury”, and I think he nailed it spot on. All sides of the arguments are susceptable to anger, some just tend to reside in it until their fingers get pruney. My favorite part of the article was this:

Anyone who doesn’t move in lockstep with the most extreme voices is savaged and ridiculed—especially people like me who often agree with the liberal position but sometimes disagree and are therefore considered traitorously unreliable.

One of the great things about this blog in particular, is that while occasionally authors will get “savaged”, the prevailing tone is one of open discourse, and sometimes the readers and writers’ change their minds. Last I checked, I don’t think anyone (reader or writer) of us falls into a hardline lockstep position with any party. I like that. I like the fact that there is somewhere in the bloggosphere that I can count on to discuss things I find important, and who could care less what my actual political leaning may, or may not be.So thanks to all the contributors: the readers, the writers and the commentators. It is a wonderful thing to share time with you thinking, discussing, and brainstorming.

I was listening to BBC on XM while in the park last week, and learned that Paris Hilton had been released and sent home to serve the rest of her sentence. Pretty astounding, it was. On returning home, I learned that she had been dragged out of her home and forced to appear in court again, and sent back to the slammer. The picture I saw of her seemed to indicate acute distress, perhaps foreshadowing a breakdown. She’s a mess.

If there is a cause I can get behind at my cynical age, it is this one: Free Paris Hilton. She’s been given a harsh sentence because she’s famous - same as Martha Stewart. Every now and then they like to take someone of note and stick it to them as a way of telling the American public that the criminal justice system is blind. It is not.

Free Paris Hilton. And can anyone tell me how to get that video tape of her - you know - the famous one?

Seriously a good listen on all that I have been talking about lately. (about a 45 minute listen)

You hear from the legislators their own ideas and solutions to constituency accounts.

From the Senate there is Sen. Carol Williams, Sen. Steve Gallus, and Sen. Roy Brown.
From the House there is Rep. Diane Sands, Rep. John Sinrud, and Rep. John Ward.

The link isnt live yet that I know of, but here it is.

Not to give away the ending, but there is more to come on this bill.

So what’s the ratio of CEO pay to worker pay running these days? 400 to 1? 500 to 1? I’m not even sure anymore. But the fact is that a lot of these CEO’s are walking away with obscenely bloated pay packages, and a lot of people are getting more and more outraged by it. But what to do?

There are new SEC rules for corporate pay disclosure, but what good will that really do? A guy who takes home 40 or 50 million a year is simply going to laugh and say tough shit — it’s mine and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it. And he’d be right. There are proposals to do something about runaway compensation though. As things stand now shareholders have very little say in corporate policy. A shareholder can get his or her 60 seconds to speak at annual meetings, but then they are brushed off to the side and ignored. Rep. Barney Frank has introduced legislation to require corporate pay packages to be subject to shareholder approval. A simple idea, but potentially very effective. It’s a system that’s used by England and it works.

There’s a tax issue at work here too. Under current laws CEO compensation isn’t taxed because it’s considered a corporate expense. !00%. Hence, as is so often the case, the burden falls on middle and lower income tax payers. So why not tax these guys? Subject any pay package of more than a million dollars to the highest tax bracket. I’ve seen this one proposed recently, but it’s not getting much air time for obvious reasons. But why not? These guys neither need nor deserve a free ride. Taxes and tax reform are always a hot political item, especially so at election time. This should be a good gutsy place to start.

These aren’t complicated ideas, and really shouldn’t be difficult to implement if our elected leaders simply had the will to do so. They could be a good start to reining in the greed in the corporate front offices that is becoming a major national disgrace. Simple disclosure isn’t going to cut it.

Dan Zwonitzer, a Republican politician from Wyoming, recently gave a very motivating speech while explaining to his chamber’s rules committee why he opposed a bill that would have allowed Wyoming to deny the recognition of same sex marriages from other states. It is pretty impressive to see any politician willing to sacrifice his position in order to vote his conscience, especially these days. In all honesty, the fact that these words come from a Republican, in Wyoming, makes it all the more impressive; it also reminds me that the labels we carelessly throw around don’t always stick as much as we are unfortunately used to.

It is pretty short, so I am inserting the text of the entire speech here:

Thank you Mr. Speaker and Members of the Committee.

I am not going to speak of specifics regarding this bill, but rather talk about history and philosophy in regards to this issue. It is an exciting time to be in the legislature while this issue is being debated. I believe this is the Civil Rights struggle of my generation.

Being a student of history, as many of you are, and going back through history, most of history has been driven by the struggle of man against government to endow him with more rights, privileges and liberties to be bestowed upon him.In all of my high school courses, we only made it through history to World War 2. It wasn’t until college that I really learned of the civil rights movement in the 60’s. My American History professor was black, and we spent a week discussing civil rights. I watched video after video where people stood on the sidelines and yelled and threw things at black students walking into schools, I’ve read editorials and reports by both sides of the issue, and I would think, how could society feel this way, only 40 years ago.

Under a democracy the civil rights struggle continues today, where we have one segment of our society trying to restrict rights and privileges from another segment of our society. My parents raised me to know that this is wrong.

It is wrong for one segment of society to restrict rights and freedoms from another segment of society. I believe many of you have had this conversation with your children.

And children have listened, my generation, the twenty-somethings, and those younger than I understand this message of tolerance. And in 20 years, when they take the reigns of this government and all governments, society will see this issue overturned, and people will wonder why it took so long.

My kids and grandkids will ask me, why did it take so long? And I can say, hey, I was there, I discussed these issues, and I stood up for basic rights for all people.

I echo Representative Childers concerns, that testifying against this bill may cost me my seat. I have two of my precinct committee persons behind me today who are in favor of this bill, as I stand here opposed, and I understand that I may very well lose my election. It cost 4 moderate Republican Senators in Kansas their election last year for standing up on this same issue. But I tell myself that there are some issues that are greater than me, and I believe this is one of them. And if standing up for equal rights costs me my seat so be it. I will let history be my judge, and I can go back to my constituents and say I stood up for basic rights. I will tell my children that when this debate went on, I stood up for basic rights for people.

I can debate the specifics of this bill back and forth as everyone in this room can, but I won’t because the overall theme is fairness, and you know it. I hope you will all let history be your judge with this vote. You all know in your hearts where this issue is going, that it will come to pass in the next 30 years. For that, I ask you to vote no today on the bill. Thank you.

Things have quieted down a bit in the Lefty Blogosphere in Montana.  And frankly, I think it is because some of us are taking a well-deserved break; not because things of importance are not going on.  The Montana Legislature this year has many critical topics swarming around, but there is simply not enough time in the day to cover them, not even considering that most of us hold fulltime jobs outside of blogging, but we are trying. 

 
There are a couple of great documentary-explanatory flicks coming out this week on DVD.  If your local video store doesn’t have them (mine does) ask for them.  One is called “ . . . So Goes the Nation”,  which explores the 2004 Presidential race, in particular Ohio.  It has some great insights and stories from both sides of the aisle, and is well worth watching. 

The other one is “The US vs. John Lennon”, the Myrna Loy had it a couple of months ago, but I was all wrapped up in other things and missed it.  Being a Beatles fan, my eyes lit up, when I started watching it of course I had the standard bias as a Beatles fan against Yoko, but I started to learn something about her influence on her life that I had never known before.  I particularly like the “Bed Peace” bit of the movie.

 
If you rent these, you might see a preview for a new Dixie Chick “Shut Up and Sing”  documentary-explanatory flick, and I for one, am looking forward to it.  I have to agree with the sentiment “I am Not Ready to Make Nice” , and I don’t think they should have had to apologize. 

 
This is America, and Freedom of Speech is a Constitutional right.

 
You might notice a parallel between “The US v. John Lennon” and the upcoming Dixie Chicks movie.  Both had protesters against their groups gather up albums and memorabilia to torch or destroy in a bonfire. 

 
I don’t know about you, but that makes me want to hear it/see it more.  (which is of course, a “Field of Dreams” reaction)

 
Sometimes, discourse on an issue can’t be polite or nice, because the issue needs to be discussed, despite the uncomfortable feelings it might cause.

Ok, I have evaluated this. At length. For a long time. It was so long ago I started thinking against it, that my ex-hubba emailed me an article 6 months ago, which means he heard more than his fair share of rants when we were married.
It is one of my pet issues. One I have been trying to figure out how to change for years. And while I think the current proposal isn’t perfect, it is on its way to being so.
Jay wrote a great post, giving some of the background, but here is what I think.
Here is the point.
The reason that a conservative in CA should go vote, is because if this law passes, his votes counts. If he votes under the current system, it is mashed in with all the others from his state, and he won’t be heard.
The reason that a liberal in ID should go vote, is because if this law passes, her votes counts. If she votes under the current system, it is mashed in with all the others from her state, and she won’t be heard.
Why is it that the Presidency is the only elected office (barring the Vice Presidency, which is a ticket ride) that isn’t elected by the majority of the people?
Why? Well I have done some research, but I am presenting it in my own words.
The Presidencies that would have been affected: Hayes v. Tilden 1876, Harrison v. Cleveland 1888, Bush v. Gore 2000. That’s a significant percentage of elections that were won by one person by the will of the people, and given to another because of the Electoral College.
In the majority of states, electors are not even required by law to cast votes as the people in their state voted. They can go maverick on us, and we have no recourse.
Think on that one for a minute. Are you scared? You should be.
Why was the Electoral College a part of the original Constitution? What were they thinking? Well it was put into the Constitution to solve a problem of the times. Communication. That might be a simplistic way of looking at it, but I think it is true.
Without a National Popular Vote, we don’t live in a Democracy.

That is why, basically, I support Montana SB 290. Your vote should count.
More to follow. . .

There is someone who is wearing their jockstrap way, way too tight :-[   if you’ve not heard the newsmen are making a huge deal out of the fact both super bowl teams have BLACK coaches and so they came up with a “RULE” that whenever a coaching position was to open they HAD TO interview at least ONE African-American!

Huh? Do you think this will have to be expanded to 1 Asian, 1 Mexican, 1 xxxxx Well you get the idea. One simply cannot get through a day without hearing something that is so STUPID in hurts :’( :-!

Well I know it all now

Mike

Let’s see . . .who is on the Business and Labor Committee in the House . . .

Scott Mendenhall (R)  - Ch, Mike Milburn (R)- V Ch, Jim Keane (D) – V Ch, Elise Arnzen (R), Shannon Augare (D), Scott Bogio (R), Ernie Dutton (R), Kevin Furey (D), Ralph Heinert (R), Llew Jones (R), Harry Klock (R), Michele Reinhart (D), Wayne Stahl (R), Bill Thomas (D), Kendall Van Dyk (D), Jonathan Windy Boy (D).

So on Monday January 15, there was a hearing on HB 29, 9 am, (now I wish I had gone, dilated eyes or not).  What is HB 29?  Basically it is legislation to limit the percentage rate payday loan people can charge to 36%.

Attorney General Mike McGrath said this legislation would only affect those businesses that are taking advantage of their consumers.   (Emphasis added).  Predatory Lending, in my opinion.
Who in the hairy heck would vote against a measure to limit the interest rate to 36%.