Here’s a quote that has been attributed to Benito Mussolini. There’s some question as to whether he’s actually the one who said it or not, but it doesn’t matter. It still stands true, and given the privatization mania gripping our society, and the gang at BushCo in particular, it’s especially chilling.

It seems that some foreign corporations, along with some Wall Street firms, are buying up the highway system in this country piece by piece. The Indiana Toll Road is the first to go, but there are plans in the works to turn over the highways in other states in the near future, as well as plans to build a network of privately owned highways across the country. It also appears that our good friends at Goldman Sachs, who recently held a stunning bonus bash, have a healthy interest in this.

But is this really the direction we should be heading? The decision makers seem to think so — the public opposes this whole idea by about a 2 to 1 margin, yet it’s being rammed through anyway. The opposition ranges from the likes of Ralph Nader to Phyllis Schlafly. Who benefits? That doesn’t even need to be asked. What needs to be asked is this — what are the consequences of a deal like this going to be? Ever increasing user tolls to fatten profits obviously. Are the auto makers and the oil companies and giant contractors like Halliburton and the like involved in this? I don’t know. Possibly. Are certain high traffic roads going to be well maintained because they are profitable, while alternative routes get neglected because they’re not? Are we going to continue to fight resource wars just to keep enough cars on our roads to keep our highway system profitable for a small handful of investors? Are we really willing to turn our public infrastructure over to the hands of the greedy few? What do you think? What are other possible ramifications of this?

Mike Dennison makes a pretty strong case on a couple of points in this article in todays IR. The first is that the central issues facing the state legislature this year will be budgetary. We all know the players and we all know the dance and we all know that he is right in that it will get the most airplay. The second point he makes is that for ANYTHING to happen there will need to be compromise from both sides.

Though the article’s title and content focus more deeply on the budgetary differences of philosophy beween the two sides, I think that last point is possible the most important of the two. We have a very real possibility of a gridlocked legislature this year where nothing is accomplished at all. Here are some of the possible scenarios as I see them:

Gridlock: Neither side compromises and very little is accomplished. In this case, neither side will leave Helena with a positive favor from the voters and will spend the next two years trying to conjure stories about the ‘other side’.

One side compromises: Here one side offers compromise and the other refuses to meet half way. Again, nothing is accomplished. This time only one side will be telling the truth when they try to explain it to voters.

One side caves: In this scenario, one side caves and lets the other have it their way. Something gets accomplished and about half the voters are pleased. The side that caved gets to explain to the voters why they caved and the other gets to crow in victory (but onl if their plans work out, reverse that if things go bad).

Both compromise where possible: In this scenario, we see a lot of things accomplished and the spirit of government that is working for the people instead of for the selfish gain of a petty idealogue. The voters see that and are happy that they have elected mature and responsible folk to represent them in Helena.

Sure, there are a lot of folks headed to Helena who want to see the last scenario. I know this. The big problem I see is how do you make sure that you are compromizing and not caving? Ideas?

Instead of going out to get some videos, my mother decided to bundle up and hunker down today.  I being the wonderful daughter that I am, decided to deliver her a copy of “Whale Rider” from my personal collection, so that she could stay in her jammies.  You see, she saw “The Nativity Story” with my big sis and aunt, while my big bro and I went to see” Eragon” on our traditional Christmas day movie matinee outing.  And Kiesha Castle-Hughes was in both films.  But I digress . . .

While I was at her house, we got to talking about my blog and posts, and about the uproar I caused late this week.  I told her I knew she would be shocked to find out that I was a troublemaker, and in true to Firecracker fashion, she feigned shock for my entertainment. 

Then she looked up at me and said, “Do you owe anyone an apology?”

“Nope. . . OK well yes I do, but I don’t want to back off of my original opinion, just the use of one word.”

“Well perhaps that is something you should think about.”

I turn 34 in a week or so, she still gets me.  Especially when I am riled up.

Kendall Van Dyk, I am sorry if my use of the word moron offended you or your person.  It was in poor taste, and certainly not the best way to express what I was thinking.  I apologize.

**************
On the flip side, I was thinking about how easily I use the word moron everyday.  I call myself a moron all the time.  I don’t take any offense at that.  Then again, growing up with two brothers, one more outspoken than the other, I developed something along the lines of a thick skin.

First, let’s look up a definition.  Ahhh, glorious Wikipedia provides:

Statesman is a respectful term used to refer to politicians, and other notable figures of state. It is often used in the context of national and international/foreign affairs, for example, “a meeting of statesmen.”
Whether or not an individual actually is a statesman, is generally a matter of opinion, although in some cases there is little controversy. Politicians and civil servants who are regarded as statesmen are usually old and revered, with long distinguished careers.
One can use the word as an euphemism for politician.

How about an example of what not to do:

“– blogs are something we’re going to have to deal with in the future. You can write or say anything.”  Dennis Rehberg, US House of Representatives, Montana (R).

Ask Dennis Rehberg how he feels about his comment right about now.  God forbid someone have enough gumption to express their opinion, because as an elected official, you have no reason to listen to it.  Oh wait *Head Smack* gol’ darned that First Amendment thing, oh crud, and that thing about “representing” constituents. 

Elected Officials are just that.  Elected.  By whom?  Oh yeah those pesky buggers called people.  How dare they think they are your equal?  And those smug people who sit at keyboards and write their opinions for the public to consume?  They are insignificant gnats.  They don’t know anything.  They only write what I tell them to write.  Mere puppets.  

 “First Among Equals”

This tradition dates back to George Washington, the first president of the United States (1789–1797), whose birthday the United States celebrates on the third Monday of each February. Eager to establish a precedent that the U.S. president is neither a king nor a nobleman, but merely first among equals, Washington rejected such titles as “Protector of Liberties,” and “Your High Mightiness,” announcing that he would answer to no title save the plain “Mister President.”

from US Citizens Fearlessly Communicate with their Heads of State.  [emphasis added.]
“But merely first among equals.”  What does that mean?  Well someone has to lead, we elect them to do so, but that doesn’t mean he or she is somehow more important than we are, in fact they are merely an equal; and that as an equal, he or she treats their constituents and others with respect, these are the people I represent, these are the people who elected me to this position.
This quote refers to the Presidency, but in essence to all elected officials. 
Apparently, I have “waaaaayyyy” too much time on my hands, however, I find voicing my opinion on things that matter to everyone in Montana important.  Politicians might not agree with me, but I don’t need them to agree with me.
I will respect the office, but not necessarily the actions of the person holding it, and that is the beauty and responsibility of a citizen living in a democracy.

Kendall didn’t submit his blog to the Lefty Blogwire, someone did it for him.  Apparently Kendall wasn’t the person posting newspaper articles on his website/blog, it was someone in his office. The feed from Lefty Blogs then picked up on the new post, and put it on the Montana blogwire.

 
None of this changes the fact that I prefer actual news and stories to appear, written by people, rather than the media, and if I want to express my opinion, I will. 

 
Nor does it change Dan Villa or Kendall Van Dyk’s reactions to my post.

A lack of transparency in our voting system can spell an end to democracy. Seriously folks. The only thing that keeps this nation a democracy is that our votes really do count. We cast them and they are counted. Without that, we don’t have a representative democracy.

I am more than a bit concerned when I hear of stories like this, where a federal judge rules that a candidate has no right to have outside experts examine the ’secret software’ from the voting machines used. Christine Jennings (D) is challenging her loss by 369 votes based on the fact that 15% of the voters in her district failed to register votes for the congressional race. That is much higher than normal and was not balanced across all districts, which reached as high as 39%. Absentee ballots for this race had on a 2.5% undervote for the congressional race. This seems to me to be a real problem that should be addressed.

The courts don’t see it this way though.

‘’It’s shocking that there is more concern for protecting a company’s profits rather than protecting our right to vote,'’ said Jennings, who said she would appeal the ruling. “The secrecy and question marks surrounding electronic voting is creating a real crisis in confidence among America’s voters, and the only way to resolve this is by conducting a thorough review by outside experts.'’

Now, if the software is good then it will hold up to public scrutiny, right? Should the single tool we have to maintain democracy be a ‘trade secret’? Jeff had a discussion on this issue here. I made the argument there that we should be careful not to confuse obscurity or secrecy for security. A well engineered piece of software can only benefit from public scrutiny.

Edward Abbey inspired a lot of people, myself included, with his writings. He also annoyed people, aggravated people, gave his enemies fits, and generally did a fine job of stirring things up. He had much to say about wilderness, society and our technological, industrially oriented culture. Among other things. He also had much to say about writing. Here’s a quote of his that all of us who throw words around for others to read can ponder as we greet a new year –

It is not the writer’s task to answer questions but to question answers. To be impertinent, insolent, and, if necessary, subversive.

Thanks Cactus Ed, and a Happy New Year to all of you. I hope the coming year treats you well.

But I mean, COME ON.  Shameless self promotion, over nothing?

YAY you are young, YAY you got elected.  Show me some substance man, wait for my opinion, then pat yourself on the back and link to me.

Not only did Kendall get an article in the paper, but he let the blogging world know.  Whooppeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Early impression?  Moron.  Moronic. 

To be honest about it, I’m not all that worked up about the 2008 election yet. A little bit, but not much. Here in Montana we haven’t even seen our new junior senator, Jon Tester, sworn in yet. Besides, I’m still hungover from the relentless campaigning last fall. Jeezus…

That said, I’ll throw in a little bit about it though. We all know by now that John Edwards has declared his candidacy. My first reaction was a big yawn. We’ve seen this before. Then I see that he is focusing on some real, gut-level issues. Universal health-care. Poverty. Global warming. Oil addiction. Is Edwards simply paying lip service or is he willing to really address these issues? We’ll see. Time will tell.

What got my attention though is that he named David Bonior as his campaign manager. Bonior is a former Rep from Michigan who has a reputation for standing up and fighting for what he thinks is right. He was known as a pit bull during his years in Congress. He stood up for, and continues to stand up for workers. He opposed the WTO and free trade agreements. As minority whip, he spent much of his time in the face of Newt Gingrich and his right-wing cronies. In short, he has guts and integrity.

Could this be? Might there actually be a Democrat who will roll up his sleeves and fight for the things a Democratic Party should fight for? Might there be a candidate who will break from the timid, conciliatory, whimpering-as-usual policies that the Democrats have adopted for the past several decades? Do we have a candidate here who is willing to build a real opposition party, who will stand up to the corporatists who parade themselves across our TV screens and call themselves Democrats? Has Edwards grown enough to be such a candidate? I don’t know, but pardon my enthusiasm. I’ve been waiting since the days of Bobby Kennedy and Gene McCarthy and George McGovern to see one. The jury is still out, but the fact that Edwards chose a guy like Bonior may bode well.

I’m not about to climb on Edwards’ bandwagon yet — I want him to prove himself first. But this is a campaign I’m going to keep my eye on.

Even though it is still 2006, talk of the 2008 elections is already booming. As we ponder the ever-growing pool of presidential hopefuls, it is important (for them and us) to find ways to distinguish them from each other. One topic, discussed in a Wall Street Journal article today, is the power of the campaign message.

The article is focused on questionable effectiveness of Sen. John Edwards chosen message: The Great Moral Issue of our Time; Fighting Poverty at Home. Certainly, poverty is an issue Edwards has devoted a great amount of time and energy to, so it makes sense for his campaign message to coalesce around it. But, what about the other candidates? What would their campaign messages, if they were restricted to one sentence, look like?

Who knows? It is a pretty interesting idea; perhaps time for some interactive reading. I will start with a few ideas, and then I open it up for comments (funny or serious) about what the candidates campaign messages would be if we were in charge of them.

Mitt Romney: “big values for big families!”

Barrack Obama: “Jesus aint just for Republicans!”

Sam Brownback: “Judicial restraint means restraining judges.”

Let the comments begin!

Well I have been working in and with Immigration Law for a while now, and some know it is a pet issue with me.  Tonight on NBC, Tom Brokaw had a report on “Living in the Shadow of the American Dream”.  I tuned in.

 
Having worked with immigrants for many years, I am always shocked at the level of responsibility leveled on the American employer for verifying an immigrant’s status and eligibility for employment in this country.  How many of you know what a “green card” looks like?  How does an immigrant get one?  How do I know, as an employer that it is real? 

 
Oh, don’t ask the Immigration and Naturalization Service what they look like, the INS no longer exists.  Now you have to go to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services website http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis, a division of Homeland Security, which is quite simply a mess, because they just “updated” it.  The Form I-9 Employment Verification page of the site doesn’t even include a link on how to recognize a valid green card, yet employers can be held responsible for HUGE fines if they don’t comply with the law.  Who is falling down on the job here?  The employers or the US Government?

 
Let me try to help. 

 
First off how many employers know about all the visas available to make an immigrant or more specifically to bring a non-immigrant worker to this country legally?  Not many.

 
Please identify what these are: A-1, A-2, A-3, B-1, B-2, D-1, D-2, E-1, E-2, F-1, F-3, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-5, H-1b, H-1c, H-2a, H-2b, H-3, H-4, I, J-1, J-2, K-1, K-2, K-3, K-4, L-1a, L-1b, L-2, M-1, M-2, N-8, N-9, NATO-1, NATO-2, NATO-3, NATO-4, NATO-5, NATO-6, NATO-7, O-1, O-2, P-1, P-2, P-3, Q-1, Q-2, R-1, S-5, S-6, S-7, T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4, TN-1, TN-2, U-1, U-2, U-3, U-4, V-1, V-2, V-3, Practical Training, I-765 (I-661B or I-766), 245(i) and an I-151 holder.  Give up?  Yeah well even I am not sure if it is a complete list or not.

 
Helpful information available from the USCIS includes “an employee’s foreign appearance or accent is not a relevant factor.”  Morons.

 
Well, Green Cards aren’t green, and I still haven’t found a picture of one on the USCIS website, even on their I-9 Documentation Review page.  They were at one time, then they were kind of pinky-purple, now they are yellow-green.  The new ones have all sorts of security measures imbedded in them.  Across the back they have holographs of all the presidents, and another strip of all of the state’s flags.  They also have, if you tilt them, the immigrant’s signature and picture.  Oh, and an important factoid, Green Card’s are actually Lawful Permanent Residence, or proof of an immigrant’s ability to live, work and travel in the US and abroad freely.  NOT CITIZENSHIP.  Did you know that?  There is a whole other process they must go through to become citizens, after a specified waiting period.

 
Perhaps the Government is putting too much responsibility on business owners for the express ability to say, “Well they should have known”.  “It is the employer’s responsibility.”  COME FREEKING ON.  Be accountable for pity’s sake, being accountable is what I pay you for.  If I were this incompetent at my job, I would be fired in a heartbeat.