Call this an extension of a recent Rebels Are We post, but I needed to point to another decision that shouldn’t be hard, no matter what side of the aisle you are from. In the previous post, I talked about Republicans taking tough about supporting the troops, until that stance clashed with another popular right wing ideal; decreased government spending. Today, a similiar situation arose with regards to the anti-terror legislation that is headed for the President’s desk.

This legislation would enact many of the 9/11 Comission’s recommendations regarding preventing terrorists attacks. However, Congressional Republicans, along with the President, still oppose the legislation because it contains language allowing TSA employees to form unions:

Washington - Democrats in Congress are pushing to extend union protection to 43,000 federal airport security workers, reviving a debate that stalled the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and could now derail broad antiterrorism legislation.

The proposal has provoked opposition from Senate Republicans and the Bush administration.

[snip]
White House officials made clear on Tuesday that President Bush was prepared to veto a bill that enacted recommendations of the Sept. 11 Commission if the provision granting Transportation Security Administration workers collective bargaining rights was not removed.

So again, we see how quickly Republicans abandon their tough-on-terror rhetoric when confronted with something they perceive as far more dangerous; collective bargaining rights. That sounds silly, but how else are we supposed to take it when the ‘tough’ party bails on anti-terror legislation just because of a few rights it gives to American workers? What is more important to these guys; fighting terror or fighting unions?

Just in case you think I am being a little extreme (or perhaps you think the anti-terror legislation in question is a bad idea in its own right) I will remind you what was at stake the last time this union issue came up:

The disagreement so divided Congress in 2002 that for months it prevented passage of the bill to create the department [of Homeland Security]. Republicans successfully used the delay, for which they blamed Democrats, to help defeat Senator Max Cleland, the incumbent Democrat of Georgia, that year, openly questioning his commitment to fight terrorism.

There ya go; even if you think this current bill is worthless, this shows that Republicans were willing to jeopardize the creation of the entire Department of Homeland Security rather than give up these collective bargaining rights. How can you seriously tell me that Republicans are more qualified to keep us safe and prevent terrorists acts when they behave like this?  These guys can talk the talk all they want, but when we look at how they vote, it seems that there are far more important (and frankly, petty) things for many Republicans to worry about than staying tough on terror after all.

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 . . .

The latest headline via Yahoo:

Democratic Leaders Revamp Anti-War Plan

The Detail Quote:

House Democratic leaders are developing an anti-war proposal that wouldn’t cut off money for U.S. troops in Iraq but would require President Bush to acknowledge problems with an overburdened military.

Obligatory Dissenting Democratic Response:

Bush “hasn’t to date done anything we’ve asked him to do, so why we would think he would do anything in the future is beyond me,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey D-Calif.

Obligatory Bizarre Journalist’s Conclusion:

The tactic is more likely to embarrass Bush politically than force his hand on the war. He would have to sign repeated waivers for units and report to Congress those units with equipment shortfalls and other problems.

I say bizarre because I’m not sure Bush can be embarrassed any more than he has been, considering his poll numbers. All of this leads me to a question that will probably provide some good fodder for Mark, but I’d like the rest of your opinions as well: If the American public is so opposed to the war (as the polls indicate), why are the Democrats afraid of doing the obvious?

Pretty much not a day goes by where some instance of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad looking very defiant is not splayed across our televisions and monitors. Most recent, of course, has been his comments defining Iran’s nuclear program as a train where “we dismantled the rear gear and brakes of the train and threw them away sometime ago”. And as we watch this coverage, we have to wonder why the Iranian President is so over the top in his delivery; why does he seem to purposefully provoke the United States? Knowing the kind of man President Bush is, what is the source of Ahmadinejad’s defiance, and has it always been the case?

Perhaps not, possible news of an Iranian proposal for compromise and peace is being presented. Allegedly, Iran was a bit worried about the United States following the speed by which Saddam Hussein was ousted. Despite the fact that the war in Iraq rages on to this day, many in Iran were probably stunned to see Iraq’s regime removed within three weeks, and began to work towards their own stability.

This [alleged plans for bombing Iran] comes against the backdrop of last week’s allegation that Bush’s chief advisor Karl Rove personally received a copy of a secret offer from the Iranian government to hold negotiations four years ago. The Bush administration decided to ignore the grand bargain offer. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice recently claimed she had never even seen the document. At the time Iran said it would consider far-reaching compromises on its nuclear program, relations with Hezbollah and Hamas and support for a Palestinian peace agreement with Israel.

The source for all this speculation comes from Trita Parsi, former aide to Congressman Bob Ney. Parsi alleges that Ney was selected to receive this proposal (and deliver it to the White House) due to his personal interest in Iran and his knowledge of the language:

The Iranians gave a proposal to the Swiss ambassador that he then sent to the Swiss foreign ministry in Bern, who faxed it onto the State Department, but the Swiss ambassador also made a personal visit to Washington, D.C. to brief the State Department about the proposal, and he also made sure that he met with Congressman Ney, who has been a longtime advocate for negotiations and dialogue between the United States and Iran, and he handed him the proposal, as well.

By this account, it seems extremely unlikely that senior White House officials didn‘t see the proposal, as they now claim. Now, I am not writing this because I know its true, but it is the kind of allegation that wouldn’t surprise most Americans, given other issues such as Valerie Plame. Furthermore, it speaks largely to the persona of Ahmadinejad that we continually see today. Assuming that he did in fact attempt to rectify relations with the United States, we certainly know his proposal was rejected outright, if not just ignored. Either way, the United States showed no interest in working with Iran; a stance they have publicly repeated several times (unless Iran were to stop their nuclear programs). Paris makes an interesting point about the position this rejection would put Ahmadinejad in:

The Iranians put this on the table and they were basically offering significant policy modifications in the hope that this would be able to open up a new chapter in the relationship with the United States, when the United States, when the Bush administration did not even respond to it, that left Tehran with the impression that the US does not necessarily have problems with Iranian policies. What the US’s problem lies is with Iran’s power. So if you can’t give any concessions to the Bush administration that would be able to change the nature of this relationship, then why give concessions to begin with? And that is part of the reason why Iran’s position has strengthened and hardened so much over the last couple of years. It’s mainly because of the failure of the Iranian government to be able to reach an understanding with the United States by offering concessions. So now they’re trying to do the same by playing it very, very tough.

Such a story certainly does much to explain the position of Iran’s president now; after having his best compromise attempt rebuffed, what was left to him but play the role that was given to him. I am certainly not trying to paint Ahmadinejad as the outright victim, but in the world of international politics, there are no clearcut good guys and bad guys. Like him or not, he is the man selected by his democratic country to govern them, and his attempts at foreign relations (just like ours) is an indications of the will of the people, otherwise he will be gone.

Perhaps this story is complete fabrication; I am sure Karl DF will have something to say about this, given that he will remind us that he is well trained in Iranian politics and owns the largest library in Montana on the subject. If it is true, then our government is even scarier and more irresponsible than I could have imagined. But, even if this story is false, it should remind us that often our impressions of foreign figures like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is often nothing more than the byproduct of media processing, and we, as responsible voters in the nuclear age, need to be far more informed of who our President tells us is dangerous. 100 years ago, a mistake like this could be a mistake; today, it can be downright catastrophic.

At the end of this posts, there was some discussion about how it seems that there is a certain ‘unfairness’ to the way abusive comments are dealt with. One commenter broke out the rules that I myself wrote and were approved by all the authors here. Truthfully, I was hoping to not go here because I had hoped that Montana Netroots always be a place where people could converse like adults. This is not always the case.

As a result, I have sent an email to one frequent commenter giving him the official warning for breaking rule number 2. I have all the confidence in the world that he will be able to live within those rules. Since I was forced into that, I will go ahead with the infractions on rule number 1:

1. No racists, bigoted or hate speech allowed. Results in instant banning. No warnings.

Meet Karl DF, a frequent commenter here at Montana Netroots. At least that is the name he posts under some of the times. Other times it is as ‘Bottle Rocket’, ‘Barnes 55′, ‘Eddie Colt’, ‘Nazz’, ‘Curious’ and several others. The funniest one was ‘History Major’ where he liked to brag about things like:

I do not have the time or the patience to eradicate the deficiencies in your education. I hold a BA (summa cum laude, 4.00 GPA) and an MA in history.

What are your credentials, besides Blog Buffoon 1st Class?

These are, for the most part, harmless incantations of the same person. You’ll find very much the same from the Karl incantation. Then he showed up as Mitch and made extremely disparaging comments about one of our posters, and I deleted the first comment ever.

That must have made him mad, because then he showed up as ‘Gryphon’ and ‘Paraphrase-o’ making horridly racist comments. I will not repost the content of these comments here, but I will say that a very very very very bad word was used in a very very very bad way on several occasions and the comments were immediately removed with notes from me. The general gist of these post was to address each and every person of African descent as though they were less than human. This behavior is simply unacceptable from a grownup.

Now, there is plenty of speculation on who this guy is in real life. Some say he works in an office in Billings, others say that he is a school teacher at a catholic school in Great Falls. Me? I know exactly who he is but could care less right now. The simple fact is that he has clearly violated the rules of this server and I can prove it by a trail of IP’s linking Karl DF to all the other users I mentioned. Though these rules were approved by all the authors here, I have no desire to be a malevolent or benign dictator, so I am going to leave it up to you. You decide. If you decide that he must go, then I will enforce it by any means I can, and I will do so ruthlessly.

I’ll go first: I think that the integrity of the conversations on this blog are worth protecting. I vote he goes.

Could it be both? We all know about the split of the budget bills in the Montana House.

At a press conference in the Capitol rotunda, House Speaker Scott Sales, R-Bozeman, hailed the change as “a day of historic significance’’ that would bring back “a level of accountability in the budget process we haven’t seen in 30 years.’’

Lawmakers now will be able to vote yes or no on each budget bill, Republicans said, instead of feeling the pressure to vote for the single budget bill, even if they found parts of it hard to stomach.

Well, there are some valid points in there. The thing that makes it hard to stomach is the way that it was done. No one can credibly make the claim that this was an open process, even fellow Republicans claimed that they were shut out of the process

“If this was such a great idea, why didn’t they work on it from Day One?’’ asked House Minority Leader John Parker, D-Great Falls.

Parker called on Republicans “to end the secrecy and open the door for the public to participate.’’

Added Rep. Eve Franklin, D-Great Falls: “I would characterize this for the public as a bait-and-switch budget.’’

Your thoughts? Colby talked about this here, and made the point that this was a republican attempt to force more time being spent on budget debate, taking time from other bills. Disconnecting the manner that the house republicans chose to go about it, is it a better system? Does it have merits?

In a moment of extreme clarity, the Helena IR has published a piece that looks inside of NorthWestern Power’s influence over Montana legislation called Still Montana’s power: How NorthWestern Energy steers public policy at the Legislature. In what I would almost call an expose, Mike Dennison gives us a peak into the influence NorthWestern wields in our public policy.

Northwestern’s lobbyist Jack Fitzpatrick was at the state house talk about house bill 25. Many of the amendments to this bill were authored directly by Northwestern:

Fitzpatrick led members of the House Federal Relations, Energy and Telecommunications Committee through the 70-odd amendments to a bill that would allow NorthWestern to build or buy power plants and charge the cost back to ratepayers.

OK, well, I don’t get to author amendments to bills. Any of you guys? Is is just me, or does this seem a bit like the inmates are running the asylum? While I understand that all entities have a lawful right to lobby their government. Additionally, I understand that industry input is important when drafting this type of legislation. This crosses the line and appears that industry is directly dictating legislation.
It gets better though. It seems this isn’t the only legislative interest that Northwestern has with our legislators this year.

The Sioux Falls, S.D.-based firm is fighting bills to enable the city of Great Falls to offer electricity to local customers and to allow a “green energy’’ buying cooperative to own windmills and generate power for its members.

Nope, wouldn’t want competition would we? That might cause Northwestern (or whatever firm buys them out) to have to be competitive. To be truthful, I believe in the free market system, but it only works when you have a competitive market. Otherwise, you have a monopoly and there are no incentives for industry to police themselves.

That couldn’t be their reasoning could it? They can’t say ‘We oppose these bills because then we would have to compete on the open market’. So, their reasoning? Just that.

It’s all part of a push, says Fitzpatrick, to maintain the company’s 300,000-plus electricity customers and, eventually, offer those customers a reliable, long-term source of affordable electricity — just as the old utility did before it was dismantled in the wake of “deregulation’’ nearly 10 years ago.

Let’s be clear on this, Northwester energy was allowed to write legislation that would allow it to grow its monopoly in Montana. It has successfully killed or had bills tabled that would have allowed competition. You can not have a free market under a monopoly.

David Hoffman, PPL’s head lobbyist, says consumer interests are not being represented by NorthWestern, which just wants to corral a customer base and build a new plant to serve it, thus setting up a new, guaranteed revenue stream for the company.

HB25 shifts the risk to consumers because it allows the PSC to “pre-approve’’ any plant NorthWestern wants to build, virtually locking in the costs that will be charged to ratepayers in the future, Hoffman says.

Read the whole piece, it is rather good. I will say that it is good to see such an indepth look into the belly of the legislative beast. Even if it is a really ugly beast.

Today, a friend of mine from work had a pretty good letter to the editor in the Bozeman Chronicle. I can’t link to it, because their online letters are in the paid section of the website. I reprinted the letter at Rebels Are We, so go check it out. I would reprint it here, but I am an avid opponent of putting up the same post on multiple sites.

Plus, I would appreciate any feedback on the new look of the site.

Today, the Chronicle had an interested article about the unleashing of the 6-headed monster that is the Republican budget proposal.  In case you are familiar, Sinrud and Co. have decided that proposing 6 separate budget bills is somehow more “transparent” than introducing one comprehensive bill:

GOP leaders said dividing the state’s single budget bill into six parts will bring more transparency to budgeting

Personally, I think that is very difficult to believe; as partisan as our state government has gotten, I don’t see how magnifying the budget debate by sixfold can possibly help transparency.  From my viewpoint, only one reasonable explanation of the move was given:

Lawmakers will not be pressured to vote for a bill just because they support increases in funding in one area not in another.

That does make sense for me; perhaps you believe education deserves a raise and corrections does not.  Although, in a state with a short biannual legislature, perhaps the “pressured” vote is the only way to get things done with the time we have.

Here is why I think this is happening.  It is pretty basic knowledge that Republicans like to limit government action from a fear that the government action will result in more legislation.  More than once have Republican and Libertarian authors written that they would be content to see the Montana government hamstrung by partisanship and split houses; there is less chance of legislation changes that way.  So I believe the Republicans have split the bill into 6 pieces to lengthen the debate time, amendment time, and voting time for the budget as a whole.  Because the budget is so important, and our legislature’s time so short, this change has effectively guaranteed that the majority of the remaining session will have to be devoted to the budget debate.

And every hour spent on the budget is an hour less spent on other bills.  Although with guys like Koopman and Wells around, maybe that isn’t such a bad thing…

I know I did. Or didn’t, as it were. Back in December, I wrote here about the upcoming expansion of televised coverage of the legislature. Lately, I’ve been pondering whether Stephen Maly ever actually got it off the ground, as the only thing I knew I had available to me was the weekend broadcasts on PBS of Montana Legislative Digest.

I was wrong.

For those of you that haven’t checked out Montana Statehouse, go on over…lots of good stuff there from the Democratic members of Montana’s legislature. And that’s where I found out that I can now view the daily going-on’s of legislative hearings. So in addition to listening to some of the committee hearings and/or the Senate or House floor sessions while I’m at work (I’d like to think my employer approves), I can now watch it at night on the tube. Yeah.

See if it’s available in your town. The upcoming budget stuff - since I can’t seem to find any specifics on the Republican proposals - makes this access all the more important:
Butte: 61
Bozeman: 63
Billings: 8 & 70
Missoula: 67
Great Falls: 7& 70
Havre: 43
Kalispell: 67
Helena: 19
Mid-River Communications also makes TVMT available in Lewistown, Glendive, Sidney, Miles City, Baker, Roundup, Ekalaka, Fairview, Savage, Circle, Richey, Terry, Fallon, Lavina, and Ryegate.

Looks like I missed out on considerable fun over the last week or so. I’ve been flat on my back in fever-land, but I see the comment threads have running hot and heavy. That’s good. A few basic ground-rules have been set in place, and that’s good too. I can see the need for a few rules, but for the most part I say let the comments fly. That’s what this is all about. There will always be a few who try to push others around, but they’ll soon get bored with their game, pick up their toys, and go home. Maybe they’ll come and pick on me for a while, but that’s OK. I’m perfectly willing and able to ignore them.

I want to address this to others who read Netroots, or any other site for that matter, and would like to comment now and then but feel intimidated by some of the louder voices who seem hell-bent on attack and ridicule. Speak out anyway. There are those who will bark at you, and snap and snarl, and maybe even call you some nasty names. But so what? They can’t hurt you. They don’t bite. They’re like your garden variety schoolyard bullies who, having little if anything to offer, will step in and try to start a fight because it’s all they know. Speak out, and either stand up to them or ignore them. It doesn’t matter much which.

As Shane likes to point out, and rightly so, it’s important to speak out even if your voice shakes. There’s little I can add to that but amen, and that your silence will not protect you. Speak out for yourself. Speak out for others. Speak out to us who genuinely want to hear what you have to say. Speak out even for the barking dogs — it gives them something to do. We all have voices — you do, I do, those barking dogs do, and we all have the freedom to use them. How well we use them is up to us as individuals.

OK - I know this is politics at it’s worst

However, there are two questions to be settled in the Smith case.

A.) Who is the father?

B.) Where will she be buried?

On today’s NBC Today show they led out the attorney’s on all sides and the two questions above are to be settled within days. This circus will hopefully come to a close soon but I am curious on where everyone here stands and how they would answer the two questions above. As for me, I think Mr. Stearn will outlast the rest and Anna Nicole will end up resting next to her daughter as it is clear she purchased burial plots there.

As for the rest of the circus I doubt that will be over any time soon and that IS sad! After watching some of the courtroom proceedings I can hardly believe this is a U.S. courtroom but I am SURE it will lead to a movie.

There are a couple of things I want to talk about that are not among the normal fodder for discussion here. Please bare with me.

First of all, we have posted a ‘rules’ page, you can see the tab above. These rules apply to both sides. The bottom line is respect, so we ask that you please respect others rights to speak their minds. This counts for folks from both sides of the argument.

Second, I want to talk about the authors here. Each and every one of them are putting their selves out on display to speak their minds here. I have offered a megaphone to bloggers on both sides of the proverbial ‘aisle’ to have their say, so no one can say that this blog is ‘biased’ intentionally. The fact that folks on one side do not choose to post as often as the folks on the other side is of their own doing. If you want to see more representation from a particular viewpoint, please ask the authors from your side to speak out. Personally, I would like to discuss the issues from the framing of each perspective. For the people who do choose to post here, I like to think that we all respect their courage in laying it on the line. Thank you each and every one.
Third, and why I am a bit sad, why is Cory Stapleton such a tool? Don speaks on it very intelligently on this issue here. In short, Stapleton said that bloggers are

angry, unaccountable, anonymous media.

First, I am not anonymous and neither are the most of the posters here. Secondly, we are not generally angry. I am not some red faced man gritting my teeth in the corner. I am a freaking software engineer with a wife, two children and a mild addiction to foosball and Unreal Tournament 2004 trying to figure out what the hell is going wrong in my country. I discuss issues with other folk from Montana and elsewhere in an electronic format on a stupid website. None of us have the answers. Really, we are all working together to try and come up with some answers that might help the country move towards a semblance of sanity. None of us claim to have the answers, we just have ideas and points we want to discuss.

Believe it or not, my best friend in Helena, outside of my family, is a conservative political blogger. Why do I like him so much? He, like me, is seeking what is best for America because he has a vested interest in what is the best for America. We are all here to debate the issues and to try to find the best route to get back to the America that we used to read about. That’s what the vast majority of us are here for.

You see, Cory Stapletons of the world, we are not some alien force to be fought against. We are not the ‘angry’ enemy. At the risk of sounding very hokie, we are a bunch of Montanans mostly just trying to make some sense of the world around us.  We are your public Cory. Maybe you could step in here and help us try to figure it out.
Read the rest of this entry »

United States strongman George Bush today announced deployment of an additional 20,000 US militants to Iraq, the country he occupied by force in 2003. The additional militants complement forces already present numbering 230,000. This number includes troops loyal to the regime along with mercenaries hired from US firms and foreign governments loyal to the US.

The US Democratic Party, mounting what many observers see as symbolic opposition, announced that it would debate the move in sessions of the US Congress. US Republicans announced, however, that they would fight implementation of the debates. Meanwhile Bush, invoking unitary executive status, has gone ahead with deployment.

The troops will be used to further solidify occupation of Iraq, an oil-rich country that the US invaded in 2003. The invasion was seen by much of the world community as illegal. The US, however, claimed that Iraq threatened its security, and also justified the invasion on humanitarian grounds. Skepticism was widespread.  However, no opposition was mounted due to US world domination in weapons manufacture, producing more hardware than the rest of the world combined.

The additional militants are widely seen as part of a larger Bush plan to solidify US control of the oil-rich country. One high ranking Iraqi resistance leader, speaking from a bunker in Baghdad, said that the Bush move, coming as it does in the wake of a large no-confidence vote by the US electorate, is designed to emphasize that the power of the Bush regime is largely unaffected by public sentiments within US-controlled states.

The US holds elections every two years, but those referendums are largely seen as symbolic, as few US policies ever change as a result. The US press is commonly seen as an adjunct of the Bush regime, rendering elections somewhat moot. In any event, US foreign and military matters are insulated from the political process. Elected representatives have power over funding of the “Pentagon” (a building containing offices, situation rooms and bunkers used by military brass and their operatives), and theoretically have the power to stop the country from making aggressive moves such as the Iraq invasion, but such power has rarely been used. One observer, speaking on condition of anonymity, noted that the ability of elected representatives to get funding for their campaigns and districts can be negatively affected if they are seen as obstructionist.

In other news, American heiress Anna Nicole Smith was found dead today … the one-time “actress” was known for her marriage to a wealthy US oil baron and aristocrat J. Howard Marshall. She was widely featured in US tabloids. This story currently dominates US broadcast news.