Archive for May, 2007

…and more disgust from me.

The ArmyTimes is reporting that some Army posts are ending individual memorials for the heroes lost to this illegal immoral war in Iraq, and replacing them with a one-per-month basewide memorial.

Seems the number and rate of deaths is interfering with the ability to honor these soldiers individually, so one mass memorial a month is gonna have to do. While the article I link to above mentioned Fort Lewis (WA) and Fort Drum (NY), it does go on to say that mass memorials have been taking place on other Army bases already.

Fort Lewis, Washington (outside of Tacoma) has lost 19 soldiers, so far, for the month of May.

So I openly ask Representative Rehberg and Senators Baucus and Tester – is this what funding the war means? Is this what you want? Is this what you think I want? You represent me. Please remember that.

If you’ve got a plan - any of you - it’s time to speak up. I need to hear it. America needs to hear it.

Now pardon me while I go and vomit.

I just got an email from Emily Lockwood, the Online Strategies Manager from Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Her email was about the policies of the new owners of Snyder’s Drug store in Great Falls. It seems that a lady went to have her birth control prescription filled. All she got from the pharmacist counter was the following note that reads “Snyder Drugs will no longer carry oral contraceptives.”

It could have been anyone, but this particular example comes from a 49 year old lady who does not use the pills as a contraceptive. When asked ‘why’, one of the new owners told her that the pills are dangerous for women.

Upon hearing this story, I put on my investigative journalism hat (it’s made of tinfoil) and called the pharmacy. I was told that this was the policy and that it had been the choice of the new owners, Stuart Anderson and Kurt and Kori Depner.

Far be it from me to make policy decisions, but isn’t this a bit… insane? Shouldn’t the safety of the drugs in question be left up to the woman, her doctor and the FDA? Did this decision really involve patient safety or was it purely religious ideology? Consider this ad that Anderson signed on to:

As health-care professionals, we call upon the American people to once again reaffirm the right to life for future generations of the unborn and join with us in our efforts to restore respect, dignity and value to each human life-born or unborn.

Now, I support an owners right to run their business in the way they see fit. However, I do take issue with folks hiding a religious agenda behind the guise of ’safety’. Additionally, while it is one thing to say that you do not want to sell certain products because it attracts the kind of business that would drive away your other customers (alcohol, nudy books), this is somehow more insidious as it attempts to say ‘I don’t believe in this in my personal life so I am not going to sell it to you and you are somehow wrong for wanting it’. I take exception with that. We are talking about birth control here, not a bag of slow-roasted puppy heads.

I read a lot, like most of us here, I’m sure. (Ayn Rand - I hope someday you read Ayn Rand.) But lately, between that and my continuing education for accounting (aye yi yi ) I’ve had my fill of it. I’ve got a book on Iraq history here, and I cannot bring myself to open it. I’ve had enough. I am ready for some light fare.

So I’m looking for light reading - fiction. I like cops and robbers, don’t cotton much to political thrillers, as I’m yet to encounter a real life president as heroic as the ones in those books. I’ve read most of the Detective Prendergast books and all of the Lincoln Rhyme stuff, good and bad, over the years. I just read one by Robin Cook and found his writing skills to be a little weak (unrealistic dialogue). The people imitating the late Robert Ludlum are weak at best. (They’ve actually trademarked his name and have people writing books under his cover.) But these are the easy finds - I’m basically a greenhorn when it comes to good fiction.

Can any of you suggest an author who does good cops and robbers? How about any work of fiction that kept you up past bed time?

Perhaps I have more of an indepth take on immigration. Maybe I am more sensitive to it because of my dealing with the issues. In the past week, immigration, and its problems have raised their heads into Montanans awarenesses. Both in the immgration enforcement raids in the Mexicali Resturants and in Dennis Rehberg’s guest editorial in the Billings Gazette.

Background. When I lived in LA, I was the head of the green card department of an immigration law firm, from 1999 until I moved home in 2004. In case you missed it, that covered two very important times in immigration.

A) In April of 2001 (which really started in December 2000) there was what some people might call amnesty. Clinton signed it into law as he was leaving office. Thats right, the LIFE Act of 2000. I remember it well, do you? It appears that about 900,000 people applied to jump through hoops to become green card holders. I probably personally helped about 100 to 200 of those people.

Technically, 245(i) not an amnesty that rewards with permanent residency

From the day an illegal alien applies under Section 245(i) until the day a green card becomes available, the alien remains in illegal status as long as he or she remains in the United States. A Section 245(i) application does not change the fact that the applicant is here illegally. Technically, Section 245(i) applicants can be picked up for deportation proceedings the day after they apply for adjustment.

Illegal until they jump through the hoops, oh and wait in a long long line, at times taking 3 to 15 years or more. And the $1,000.00 fine does not just apply to the person who came here in the first place, but also to his/her children over the age of 14. (Because somehow, under US law, people are old enough to realize that their parents are acting illegally at 14, and venture out into the world, possibly subject to a 3 or 10 year bar from returning to the states to see their family, and make their way on their own).

Now lets talk about those hoops. In order to qualify for “amensty” in 2001, and alien had to be able to do a few things:

1) Well they had to have an illegal or overstay entry to qualify (I am oversimplifying here); 2) They had to have been physically in the country on December 21, 2000, and be able to prove it; 3) They had to have a sponsor, whether it be an employer or a family member who could sponsor and vouch for them in the US; 4) That relationship, sponsor/alien had to be established prior to August 15, 2001; and 5) and pay a $1,000 fine (USCIS Form I-485A).

Now, if you think working for the same employer for years while the application pends, with your ability to stay in the country on the line is an easy thing: I suggest you try it.

B) I also worked through September 11, 2001. There are a lot of things I could say here. It was a nightmare for me and the people I helped, but we got through it. I will never forget that time, or the job I held while doing it.
Amensty, as a word, is improperly used in regards to immigration, and causes a lot of confusion, because of people’s definition of the word. From the 8 lb dictonary: “2. Law. an act of forgivness for past offenses, esp. to a class of persons as a whole.”

The acts of offense are not forgiven by the US government. People have to pass a series of tests and requirements in order to even qualify for the program. If forgivness were granted, then there wouldn’t be requirements to be met. It would just be a clean slate. It isn’t, and I am sick and tired of hearing uninformed people call it that.
Yeah well, here comes Dennis. And he thinks a fence will cure our problems:

http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/05/29/opinion/guest/50-rehberg.txt?rating=true

The encouraging factor is the rating on the article. The discouraging factor is a Representative actually believes what he is spouting to be true. Does he seriously believe that the law they are proposing just “provide[d] legal status”? It just shows once again, how ignorant Dennis is of the laws governing immigration.

And let’s face it, we were all at one point immigrants. Yes, even the Natives, (of which I am one) if you go back far enough. We come from immigrants, and if you go back far enough, aliens (Adam and Eve).

Part of the credo of America, you remember that statue? The one you hold as a symbol of what it is to be American? Under which so many of our forefathers and mothers passed?:

The New Colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Perhaps we have lost the perspective of what it means to be outcast, and looking for a better future for ourselves and our families in the past 200 years.

How sad. How wrong. How uninformed.

I just finished my call in radio show with Craig. I think that it went really well, mostly because Craig knows how to keep the ball rolling. We had calls from our very own Cece and PJFinn, both added nicely to the conversation at hand. Thanks guys.

Now, you don’t have anything better to do, so listen. Craig has a nifty player on his site, you can stream it, download an MP3 file, download a WMA file or visit the archives of Small Town Long Street.

Good stuff Craig is doing there.

This is one of the most interesting pieces I have read in a while, as it articulates an argument that I have been trying to formulate for some time now. In the piece, Kos examines this argument by Karl Rove:

Rove thinks that more voters now are being influenced by technology and religion. “There are two or three societal trends that are driving us in an increasingly deep center-right posture,” he said. “One of them is the power of the computer chip. Do you know how many people’s principal source of income is eBay? Seven hundred thousand.” He went on, “So the power of the computer has made it possible for people to gain greater control over their lives. It’s given people a greater chance to run their own business, become a sole proprietor or an entrepreneur. As a result, it has made us more market-oriented, and that equals making you more center-right in your politics.”

Now, this is an interesting idea from Rove, but Kos thinks that it might not have the merit that one might think.  He provides a real world example.

As a small business person myself, my biggest worries are 1) health care for my family (my rates nearly doubled this year, and they cover less and less), and 2) the influence of Big Business on my ability to operate effectively. In my case, it’s the caustic influence of the big Telcos and their efforts to destroy Net Neutrality.

There it is, in plain English. He goes on to explain why Rovian strategy is played out.

Health care is a universal concern for small business owners. And which small business retailer or manufacturer isn’t worried about Wal-Mart destroying their livelihood? The tech sector, in particular, is heavily Democratic, and for a reason — Democratic policies are better for the small business entrepreneur than Republican ones.

Rove thinks these entrepreneurs will be voting Republican, but reality is much different. And some of the richest entrepreneurial hubs of the nation are some of its most Democratic — the SF Bay Area, NYC, North Carolina’s Research Triangle, Austin, Seattle, and so on.

Now these small business types are also more libertarian leaning, wanting to do their thing with as little government regulation as possible. But the GOP has traded libertarian-leaning voters for that other Rove obsession: the Religious Right.

Why is that? Why would Rove make the mis-statement that tech is driving America deep right when most of the innovation and growth in Tech is happening in Democratic areas? You see, the left is not ‘anti’ business, we are against business that would keep hold not by innovation and value but by practices that discourage competition.

Tonight I will have a phone call with Craig from Montana Politics. I have talked to Craig several times on the phone, so what is the big deal? Well, this time you get to listen in. Hell, you can even call in and talk too. Craig has been doing a show on Blog Talk Radio called Small Town, Long Streets for several weeks now and I’ll be his guest tonight at 8:30.

If you have not listened to the show in the past, you should listen to some of the archives. He has had such illustrious guests as Wulfgar, Blogger Dave, and Mike Harris. Unless Craig plans on a 60-minutes style hijack, expect the fare to be relatively light and fun.

[Update 0] Craig has the announcement here. You can listen in through a nifty player he has there. Also, you can call in to (718) 664-9769. I will expect some of you to drop in and put your $0.02 worth in, you just say hi. Don’t leave me hangin’.

Mountain snow packs are at record lows, climate change is part of life now. Come August, the State of Montana will probably be on fire. It’s time now, before the blazes start, to examine our priorities.

Many people have chosen, of their own free will, to build their homes at the interface of wilderness and private lands. Many of these homes are in harm’s way and vulnerable to destruction by wild fires. The question is, who should pay to protect these homes?

Last fall, five fire fighters lost their lives battling the Esperenza fire in California. As it turns out, they were protecting an empty mountain vacation home. The loss of life is senseless, but so too is our policy of defending all structures in fire-prone areas at taxpayer expense.

These homes could not be built if the owners could not get fire insurance. They could not get fire insurance if it was understood that taxpayers placed low priority on homes in high risk areas.

I have a suggestion: People who build homes in areas prone to wild fires (or floods, for that matter) form associations to protect their own properties and to pay fire fighters to fight them. Home owners, and not taxpayers, would be paying for their protection. Our current system is yet another subsidy.

The best defense I’ve heard of the current system is this: People who build these homes are probably wealthy and therefore pay a lot of taxes, and therefore are entitled to a subsidy.

That’s the best defense I’ve heard. In other words, our current system of subsidized fire fighting for high risk homes is indefensible.

House minority leader John Boehner showed his real colors on the house floor yesterday. Not by crying, but by using lies and fear to misdirect American views. I could care less about the crying, it is the lies and false emotional appeals that piss me off. Watch.

You see what he did? He tried to imply that the war in Iraq is somehow related to the attacks on September 11. The American people don’t want to live in fear of your false boogyman John. I know it makes you weak in the knees to think about, but we have lost 3500 men, women, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s have lost their lives and millions more displaced by your presidents little war. Know what? We aren’t one bit safer because the only thing that your precious war has done was create millions more people in the middle east who hate us.

They don’t hate us because of our ‘freedom’ or our way of life, they hate us because of our meddling and sense of entitlement to what it there. What is that? Destiny.

Now, go get some sleep and relax. Maybe see a shrink or something.

Unlike most of the authors here, I do not identify myself as a Democrat. While I have supported Democratic Candidates in the past (Tester for one), I am just as open to the idea of a Republican Candidate (if an honest one would actually run). 

This last Campaign cycle, I supported primarily Democratic Candidates for a number of reasons. I won’t argue that the first reason was that most of the Republican Candidates I had to choose from were apparently corrupt (can anyone say “Conman Burns”?).

Equally important to me was that every one of the Candidates I supported touted the idea that they would do something about the Iraq “War” (I find it hard to call it a war since Victory was declared years ago…). America’s young men and women are still over there dying and yet nothing has been done to bring this debacle to a close. One of the candidates I supported even advocated Impeachment for our Comedian in Chief. In short, I supported the candidates on the idea that they would have enough backbone to stand up to a President that is taking a crap all over the Constitution of the United States.

I was not alone in this. Many of the people elected to serve this Nation got there on promises of curbing the excesses of the Comedian in Chief and his staff. Unfortunately, all of us who supported those people got shown in the last week how little our clear mandate was listened to.

These idiots must think we are not watching. They must think we have forgotten thier promises. Unfortunately for them, we ARE watching and we HAVEN’T forgotten.

This will hurt the Democrats in 2008, make no mistake. This country is tired of the “same old thing”, and if the a candidate can convince his/her constituancy that they are “stand up”, it won’t matter what party they hail from.

You can already begin to see this at work in the speeches and “sound bites” making it into the news. Many Republican candidates are already making an issue of the broken campaign promises and empty rhetoric of those Democrats launched into office on promises of taking on the “Decider”. Frankly, I am certainly dissatisfied.

At this point, it would take a legitimate move (either by the Senate to “deauthorize” the war or by the House to Impeach) for me to even begin to buy into any more promises of movement. This President is arguably the worst Comedian in Chief in our country’s history and his blatent moves to violate the Constitution have got to not only be stopped but reversed. If a candidate shows me a clear move to do that, I certainly won’t care whether he/she is a Democrat or a Republican.

You people from the Democratic Side of the aisle had better have a “sit-down” with your representatives and point out the obvious to them. I can guarentee you, this is happening on the other side of the aisle. You have given the GOP all the ammunition they need to put a very large dent in the Democratic Party’s momentum. You want to impress me? Bring up a vote to Impeach (either on a State level as has been done in other states or in the House). Even if the vote fails, it will at least show who is really listening to the people of the Country.

Moorcat

Pretty recently, I wrote about John McCain’s extensive absence from the Senate floor at Rebels Are We! Since that time, I have been surprised by how little conversation has commenced regarding this topic. For myself, the fact that McCain has missed almost 50% of the votes in the Senate says volumes about his dependability. I am particularly curious to hear the opinions of those who have criticized our Governor for much the same behavior; they sure had plenty to say about his absences.

Finally, it seems I am not the only one who is troubled by McCain’s wanderlust.

An Arizona State Senator is calling for McCain to step down as a representative of that state, citing McCain’s continual absence as a vote they can no longer count on:

Republican Representative Russell Pearce of Mesa says Arizona’s interests aren’t being heard because John McCain is skipping Senate votes to campaign for a spot in the White House.

“He’s our Senator and we elected him,” said Pearce. “This is about representing Arizona properly.

This isn’t partisan bickering; Pearce is a Republican, and a man who believes McCain was elected to do a job for Arizona, not himself. All of the Senators seeking their party’s nomination have the same problem; how to balance their campaigning and their obligations as an elected official right now. As I pointed out in my previous post however, Democratic leaders Clinton and Obama have much lower absentee numbers; an understandable 1.8% and 6.4% of the time, respectively. I think it is fair to evaluate such numbers when deciding on who to support in the tightly contested presidential race. Or as Pearce puts it:

“When you are no longer a vote to be counted on, in fact you are a vote not to be counted on, it bothers me and it bothers most Arizonans”

Again, I go back to Schweitzer. There has been no shortage of vocal criticism (mostly, but not exclusively from the Right) about his out of state trips. Such critics have always reminded us that the Governor wasn’t elected to go on the Colbert show or campaign in other states; he was elected to work for the people of Montana. I urge those same critics to step forward and explain how this is any different.

And before you break your foot stepping up to defend McCain, remember the only Senator with a worse absentee record is South Dakota’s Tim Johnson, who is still recovering from massive brain surgery.

At least he has an excuse…