Archive for the 'Progressive' Category

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.

Note: This piece is cross-posted at 4&20blackbirds.

Which is why I have been so absolutely perplexed about the bullcrap recently blogged over at Carol Minjare’s website, attacking Forward Montana.

At first I went looking for the “Humor” tag, given her propensity towards bad jokes.But alas, it was missing.

She frames the Roosevelt Institute as a “Soros-funded conglomeration of think tanks.”

The Roosevelt Institution has an annual budget of around $150,000. Can’t much fund a conglomeration of think tanks with that kind of budget, now can we? (But honestly, if you want to see who’s funded well, check out that link.)

Google is your friend.

She disses on his 2 year communications director gig at Progressive States Network because they were funded with $30,000 ($30,000! The horror!!) grant from the Proteus Fund, which is separated by how many degrees? Three? Six? Fifty? to George Soros?

Lord!

Then she goes on to connect the $250,000 grant that Forward Montana got to “Jon and Peter Lewis of Skyline Public Works.”

Skyline Public Works is the baby of Deborah and Andy Rappaport - and hell, Google is your friend on that one too..

From there she takes that lie and ties the Lewis’ false connection to Soros - which she admits didn’t work out too well - and connects Matt to Soros.

But wait! It gets better! She then takes an anonymous post to that first lie-filled post and creates another post about how Matt supposedly had a conversation with a group of strangers, in a public place, bragging about his connections to Soros!

Look - I’ve been around ‘think tank’ people on both sides of the aisle - if you want to believe me - and I sure don’t go throwing around the names of who I’ve hung out with and how much money they spent on whatever they’re spending they’re money on. You just don’t get to be around people like that if you’re going to do stuff like that. Period. You wouldn’t last 3 minutes - they’d nullify you in a heartbeat.

Even The Montana Misanthrope, I’m sure, would back me up on that one.

But it shows the gumption of wanna-be’s who will print anything to drive up traffic on their site.

Now aside from Forward Montana’s mission statement that basically reads:

Forward Montana is:

Cultural Politics - combining music, art and political activism

Mobilizing for Change - using media, email, and the masses to make our voices heard

A New Generation of Leaders - recruiting and training young Montanans to lead in the 21st century.

What does all this stuff mean? In short - a new model for political participation that recognizes that we can make serious change and have a little fun at the same time.

And aside that, as I’ve noted above, just about everything she tried to smear Forward Montana, and in turn, my friend Matt Singer with was lies and bullcrap….

I don’t give one rat’s ass over where in the hell that organization is getting it’s cash.

I know some of it is from me. And I will be calling them tomorrow to up that meager donation I make to them a meager amount more. Yep. That’s right. THIS WHOLE DIRTY AFFAIR IS MAKING ME WANT TO GIVE THEM MORE MONEY!

~~~~~~~~

But back to the topic at hand:

I know lawyers are supposed to twist the facts to make the best case they can for their clients…but are they really supposed to lie?

{Now I really feel dirty. I’ve said what I’ve had to say - so don’t expect me to say anything more. Ugh.}

So I spent the weekend in Missoula, my first complete weekend off this summer.  Part of me was glad to be heading back to Helena, to get back to work, and part of me just wanted to take another day off to go see Edwards in Missoula tomorrow.  But I made a committment to my employer and to the bowling league, so I will be here in Helena.

I find myself wondering, what is it exactly you would ask Edwards if you could be there, and if you had the chance to ask a question.  Afterall, he is interviewing with you for a position whom the voters decided to elect.  So what is it?  What would you ask?

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.

So I checked into the legal stuff with caucuses.  I am not happy.

 
“But isn’t it illegal to commit the members support of one party months before the members even vote?

“You are so naive.”

“Seriously?  You have to be kidding me.”

“Cece, the parties are National organizations.  They aren’t held to any laws when putting their support behind a candidate for office.”

“So you are saying that it doesn’t matter what the people whom consider themselves to be a member of a party think.  The primary is irrelevant.  The candidate has already been chosen by the national party.”

“Oh yeah.  Well before anyone votes in a primary”

 
*******

I consider myself to be an Independent, I haven’t always been one, like most people my strategy with voting changes over time.  Currently, I evaluate the issues, what is important to me, then vote for the person I believe will help support and fight for the issues that I think are important.  That being said, in the past, I haven’t been stupid with my vote either.

My votes have matured with age.  I used to vote hard line Democrat, straight down the ticket at age 18 (even before had it been legal).  Then I started looking further into the issues, and the choices to be had, and I threw a few votes to the Republican side of the aisle (GASP!).  I was reluctant when I voted for Clinton the second time (and if you think I am voting Clinton for a third time, you are off your rocker).  I was hardcore for Gore in 2000.  We won, but lost to the Electoral College system.

So here I sit in 2007, already sick to death of the debates.  Sick to death of the pandering to one constituency or another.  Last week on “The Power of 10”, the question was asked, “How many Americans would rather watch a hot dog eating contest rather than a 2008 Presidential Candidate debate?”  For me?  Hands down a hot dog eating contest.  Either a lot of Americans were lying, or they are lying to themselves.

The way it stands, the national parties will make the decision for us, why the heck should we bother ourselves with sorting out our own issues?  Why should we care who we think should be in office?  The Republicans and Democrats will decide it for us.  No muss no fuss, just be sure to show up for the actual election in November 2008.

Who has the most money?  Who made the biggest gaff this week, and how will they placate the masses with a transparent cover story?  Who can duke out who on a national stage?  You don’t know?  Don’t worry, the party you have thought you were affiliated with will decide for you.  If you think the Democratic party isn’t up to the same way of thinking, then you are more naive then I was when I started looking into this whole thing.

 
Maybe it is time to be the disenfranchised voter that the party I usually vote with thinks I am during the primary, and counts on me not to be during the actual election.  An independent hot dog.

Treat my vote like it doesn’t matter, see if I show up on your side.

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.

We take this break from regularly scheduled LSAT preparation study time to bring you the following breaking news report: (deet deet deet deet dee dee deet)

***********************************

I just couldn’t sit still while studying tonight, and when I got out to my car, I heard “We have Shane from Helena on” *hat tip* and I will let him tell his own story.  On to mine.

Earlier in the day, I had read an article in the Missoulian:

If Schweitzer sets the special session for within seven days of the end of the regular session, which was Friday, its one-time setup costs are $20,000, she said. These one-time setup costs rise to $65,000 if Schweitzer brings legislators back more than seven days after the regular session concludes.

about the costs of starting up the special session.  Seeing as the Governor is the man with the calling to session power, I wondered what he would have to say about the issue.

So I called up YPR, and said that I had seen the article above, and asked him “What are the benefits for starting the special session on Monday, as opposed to the benefits for starting it at a later date?”

As I dove across my kitchen to turn my radio back up to hear his answer, I heard him saying you just have to allow time.  He pointed out that it would be penny wise and pound foolish to bring people back to Helena immediately at the cost of about $38,000 per legislative day, when tempers hadn’t simmered down enough to be able to have civil discussion.  Allow the legislators some time outside of Helena, working together, getting some ideas going, and coming close to a consensus prior to being called back to Helena for the special session.

What a great way to think of it, and very wise in my opinion. 

Don’t forget to contact your legislators, from both sides of the aisle, and remind them that while we don’t always agree, their jobs as legislators is to find the common ground and get a budget passed.

***********************************

*Returns to the Logic Reasoning Bible, sigh*

The sole independent Senator in Congress, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, has introduced a bill addressing the budget called the National Priorities Act. He lays out a pretty good laundry list of positive changes that could be made simply by rescinding the Bush tax breaks for the wealthiest 1% of our citizens. This one deserves a good hard look, but it probably won’t see the light of day.

It’s no great surprise, but Sanders has very little support from either side of the aisle. It’s been tagged as being too radical, and nobody wants to get anywhere near it. It’s no surprise either than no one — neither Republican nor Democrat — has stepped up to sign on as a co-sponsor. Any bets about whether this one ever makes it to the Senate floor?

note: Just prior to posting I e-mailed both of our Senators to find out their positions on this act and to suggest that they co-sponsor it. I’m interested to see where they stand. I urge anyone who likes Sanders’ idea to do the same.

I understand the genuine concern regarding the ability of elected officials to be able to have funds necessary for outreach to their constituents, however HB 462, presently before the Senate, creates problems far greater than any good it would achieve.

HB 462 would establish a system of two contribution accounts and limits for each person currently in public office; one being their campaign account, and the second being the constituency account. A challenger will only be able to have a campaign account for contributions to be deposited in. This is a fairness or equal protection issue, that would either cause the law established by HB 462 to be voided, or will cause a number of campaign finance related complaints by challengers, against incumbents.

HB 462 will attack the gift ban established in Montana law, which prohibits all incumbents (public officials”) from accepting any amount greater that $50 while performing their public duties. Additionally, HB 462 legalizes proceeds from a “public event or function” in excess of $50 to be deposited into a public official’s constituency account.

I believe that Legislators should keep their constituents apprised of their activity both during and after the legislative session, which is why I support SB 91, presently before the House.

Montanans should support SB 91 as it provides for a legitimate use of surplus campaign funds that benefits the public. SB 91 does not tilt the playing field further in favor of incumbents. SB 91 does not attack Montana’s gift ban and SB 91 does not open a new avenue for money to corrupt Montana’s political process.

Meeting the highest ethical standards is critical to maintaining the connection and faith citizens’ have to their democracy, which is why I encourage legislators support SB 91, a solution to the constituency outreach issue, while at the same time maintaining transparency and equality in our political system, that will better serve and represent all Montanan’s values.

So a few days ago I saw Christine, walking up Lawrence Street, and I wanted to stop and congratulate her, but I was late for work, so I bided my time.
Why?  Equal coverage.

Men can have Viagra, but women shouldn’t have access to birth control.

PFTTTTT.  This fact peevers me off.

You think providing coverage for a birth of a child, as opposed to contraception would be more expensive?  Gimmee a break.  Child birth costs the State around $15,000; Birth Control costs about $20 per month on average, up to the birth (not considering the cost afterwards).  Let’s do the numbers: $15,000 / $20 = 75 months = 6 years 3 months of birth control.

6 years.  6 years.

By that time that child would be an adult, not an adult with a child.

It is time for the hypocrisy to end.  Time for the double standard to be called into question. 

It is time for “equal protection” to be called into question not only on CHIP, but also on basic healthcare coverage.

Getting an erection and maintaining it is covered by the majority of health care providers. . . while at the same time a woman cannot prevent a birth with health care provided or subsidized contraceptives? 

Both options seem fair to me, but not the double standard that is currently held.

I’ll take it either way.  Stop paying for erections, or start paying for birth control. 

It was brought to my attention that The Nation has published a piece on Max Baucus.  Ari Burman takes a pretty critical look at “one of corporate America’s favorite Democrats“.

We don’t talk about Max a lot here. Why is that? I am the first to admit that Max is not a progressive’s dream. Though I can sit and pick pieces about him that really really bother me, I also understands that he likely represents a large swath of Montana. I am a progressive liberal but am not ready to try and oust Max Baucus. I don’t think that it would be the best thing for Montana democrats. With that said, it would serve each of us well to remember that Max is very savvy and he is a political machine.
In the article, Burman brought out some fair points. There is one paragraph in particular that I found especially interesting.

To be sure, not everything Baucus does is heresy to fellow Democrats.
He’s always been solidly progressive on issues like choice and the
environment. After some initial pressure, he led the effort by Senate
Democrats to block the privatization of Social Security. He recently
came out for ending the conflict in Iraq (his nephew Philip, a Marine
corporal, died in Anbar last July) and for providing all Americans
with healthcare. Back home, he’s one of the most popular politicians
in Montana. In recent years the state has moved leftward, but there’s
mixed evidence on whether Baucus is currently following or resisting
that trend. Unlike a deeply polarizing figure like Joe Lieberman,
Baucus is not a rigid ideologue; he’s a dealmaker. That’s one of the
reasons corporate America likes him so much.

I think that sounds pretty close to right on the money.

So I am sitting here, woefully late, in my own timeline, filing my taxes.  Both State and Federal.  I had a few problems with the whole Health Care Savings account thing, and whether or not my own contributions should be shown somewhere, on any freeking form(dang nabllit), (as far as I can discern, the answer is no), but it got me to thinking, even though I am filing a tad late (for me).

There is this box, that you can check, that won’t change your refund, to donate $3 of your tax dollars to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund.  Which presumably, is split between parties. 

I always check the box, by default; I wondered about what the hell happens to that money.  Anyone know?!?

Additionally, I was talking with the Firecracker.  She met with her accountant this week, and was flummoxed to find out that while she has been paying into Social Security since she was 11, (= 50 some years in the work force), that when she goes to collect on her Social Security Income, and because she wants to still work, so as not to burden her children (the ole girl has many year kicking in her yet), she will have to pay income tax on her Social Security Benefits.

Now wait a cotten-pickin minute.  So the Firecracker paid taxes on the income she made from the age of 11 until now, (and for the foreseeable future), and as a result, she gets Social Security income from the Government in a few years. 

Benefit paid into, benefit paid out; benefit taxed?!?!

So the Government gets to double dip, and we don’t? 

Along that same kind of reasoning, why the hairy heck should the government get to tax refunds, on income we have already paid taxes on, into the following year? 

Didn’t I already pay my fair share of taxes on that income?  Who are you to tax me because I paid too much?  I didn’t adjust my W-Whatever to make the right deductions, so because the state took too much out, now I have to pay you more?

Double taxation is wrong.

Everyone cheer for a post from the Firecracker, we just might get her talking . . .

What are we to think of these guys? Exxon/Mobil I mean. In 2005 they set an all-time corporate record with about $36 billion in profits. That record stood for one year, when E/M broke their own record with $39.5 billion in profits. They are the largest and wealthiest corporation on the face of the earth. They also pour big bucks into disputing the scientific findings on global warming. They will be major beneficiaries of the deals to turn Iraqi oilfields over to corporate control. Their ex-CEO, Lee Raymond, was hand-picked by Bush/Cheney to advise the administration on energy issues. Their grip reaches right into the governments of many of the leading oil producing countries, not to mention the influence they have over ours. This is profiteering at it’s worst and needs to be exposed for what it is. Here’s a group that’s doing something to stand up to Exxon/Mobil.

The Sherman Anti-Trust law was passed in 1890, and was instrumental in breaking up the monopoly Standard Oil of New York had built. Two of the biggest pieces, Standard Oil of New Jersey (later known as Exxon), and Socony (Mobil) re-merged in the late 1990’s and are now known, a century after the break-up, as the global giant Exxon/Mobil. Yes indeed, what goes ’round comes ’round. Where are today’s leaders who will champion a new round of corporate constraints? Are there any? Or are our elected leaders too beholden to these global giants to have the guts or the will to take them on?

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. . .