Archive for December, 2007

Here’s some New Year’s reading from James Howard Kunstler about what we may have to look forward to in 2008. And beyond. Read it if you so choose.

Is Kunstler on to something? Is he full of BS? Should we ignore what he says as the ravings of a lunatic, or should we pay close attention to it? I’m curious to see what you think — I sure as hell don’t know what the future will bring.

So, is the notion of a Michael Bloomberg candidacy truly a breath of fresh air, or is it just another example of the power of idealism that sets in around non-candidates before they actually run?

The big story in the Chronicle today is Bozeman Mayor Jeff Krauss’s refusal to sign the recently passed Iraq anti-war resolution.

Krauss said he opposed the resolution for two reasons: he considered it inappropriate for the city to be discussing a federal issue; and U.S. troops’ perseverance in Iraq is saving lives.

I have written before about Krauss’s first point; whether or not local governments should be involved in federal issues. My finding then, which I still agree with, is that local governments are taking up this (and other) mantles in the absence of any kind of actual inspirational leader in our federal government executive. This is what I had to say at that time (about Kyoto):

I am constantly reminded, and impressed, by localized government entities that speak/act on issues of national (or in this case, international) importance. The number of city and county governments that have officially spoken up in support of the Kyoto Protocol is a fine example of this kind of local action, and this new agreement is an assertive extension of that kind of movement. This five-state venture is the most recent development in a series of pacts that these states have been working on for a while now.

When there is no real leadership; when nothing is getting done, more localized leadership has stepped up to fill in the void on issues like global warming, Iraq, and gun control.

Of course, we can (and we often do) argue about Krauss’s second point; that our presence in Iraq is worth the price(s) we are paying. If Krauss really thinks that a city government has no place in federal issues, then how does a Mayor have authority to speak to the effectiveness of U.S. troops in Iraq? It is a bit of a catch 22, but in the end this resolution passed and will go on to President Bush, Montana’s congressmen, and the Bozeman-area state reps, with or without Krauss’s signature.

In the space normally reserved for the mayor’s signature on the official copy of the resolution, two of the three commissioners who voted in favor of the resolution will sign instead, said City Manager Chris Kukulski. That is the protocol spelled out in the city charter. In addition, the resolution will note that Krauss refused to sign.

Gettin’ kind of boring here - can we poleez have a food fight? I’ll do my part.

From a recent Paul Krugman piece over at Slate:

I like to remind people who long for bipartisanship that FDR’s drive to create Social Security was as divisive as Bush’s attempt to dismantle it. And we got Social Security because FDR wasn’t afraid of division. In his great Madison Square Garden speech, he declared of the forces of “organized money”: “Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.”

So, here’s my worry: Democrats, with the encouragement of people in the news media who seek bipartisanship for its own sake, may fall into the trap of trying to be anti-Bushes—of trying to transcend partisanship, seeking some middle ground between the parties.

That middle ground doesn’t exist—and if Democrats try to find it, they’ll squander a huge opportunity. Right now, the stars are aligned for a major change in America’s direction. If the Democrats play nice, that opportunity may soon be gone.

One of the frustrations of being a liberal is that the Democratic Party is supposedly our standard bearer. But the party is not a fighting party - faced with the extremism of the right, they seem to want to make nicey. Krugman, in a piece he wrote way back reminds us that we are not dealing with reasonable people. These are radical revolutionaries convinced they are right about everything and intent on having their way at any expense.

You can’t negotiate with that.

I say Merry Christmas! I say happy Winter’s Solstice! I say happy Kwanzaa! I say happy Chanukah. I say happy Monday! I say happy end of December! I say happy day hangin’ out with family that you don’t always have that much in common with. I say happy Irish Cream day. I say happy birthday Jesus. I say happy birthday Mithra. Whatever the reason for your celebration this week, please have a happy one

I wish all of the peace and love in the world to the all of you. I love the all of you.

To All My Democrat Friends:

Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes
for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress,
non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice
holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the
religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your
choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or
traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or
secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful,
personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of
the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2008, but not
without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures
whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not
to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country
nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere . Also, this wish is
made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability,
religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.

To My Republican Friends:
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

According to a post over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars, the UM Law School has been sued by a student legal group over being denied recognition due to bylaws that restrict their membership to those who share their religious beliefs. From the complaint:

In June 2008 CLS-UM began seeking recognized status as a student organization. In applying for recognition and later through counsel the chapter explained that participation in any of its activities or meetings is open to all, but that voting members and officers are required to agree with the Christian Legal Society Statement of Faith, including its interpretation that Christians should not engage in sexual activity outside the context of a marriage between a man and a woman. The SBA Executive Board granted the chapter preliminary recognition, and then voted to recognize CLS-UM as a law school student organization. The Board informed CLS-UM that it was officially school student organization. recognized, and included CLS-UM in the SBA budget.

Pursuant to its bylaws, the SBA Executive Board then submitted the proposed student activities fund budget to the entire law school student body for ratification. No guidelines or instructions were provided to the student body to prevent viewpoint-based discrimination in the budget ratification vote. However, several students broadcast e-mails to the entire student body opposing recognition and SBA funding to CLS-UM, a sentiment vocally supported by some law school faculty members. In a closely divided vote the student body rejected the SBA budget. In response, the next day the SBA Executive Board derecognized the chapter stating that CLS-UM’s Statement of Faith requirement and its interpretation to prohibit sexual relationships outside of marriage for its voting members and leaders, violated an SBA nondiscrimination rule. The SBA Executive Board did not specify which part or parts of this rule CLS-UM was alleged to violate.

The group is being represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, a Conservative Christian legal organization.

Assuming the complaint states the situation accurately, I’d say they’re in the right and should win their suit. There have been a couple of these cases recently, notably at the University of Wisconsin-Superior, and the student groups have come out on top. It’s a bit absurd if you think about it. What’s the point of having groups formed around one idea or another if you can’t keep those who disagree with that idea out of the group? A Christian group should be treated the same as any other group, whether it be College Democrats or a skiing club.

Interestingly, ASUM seems to have recognized the group, even though the law school has not.

So, with the caveat that what I quoted from the complaint is accurate, here’s hoping CLS prevails.

It is official; Congressional Republicans have set a record for the most filibusters ever used in a single session of Congress, with a full year to go still!

Absolutely not. The 49-member Senate Republican minority has done something no Senate minority in American history has ever done: they’ve filibustered more bills than any Congress ever has — and they broke the record with a full year to spare.

The latest came this morning, when the Senate GOP filibustered an omnibus budget bill, the 62nd Republican filibuster since the 110th Congress began in January.

This should help structure the debate between those who have accused Liberals of hypocrisy when criticizing Republican Filibusters (since Democrats used the tool last session as well). While Democrats did indeed use this minority tool, it was never used to the degree we are now seeing with Republicans. Although the filibuster was originally meant to protect the minority, it is obvious that is has been reduced to an obstructionist tool; essentially, Senate bills need 60 votes to pass, instead of a simple majority.

As a recent Rasmussen poll discovered, people are just as fired up about who they don’t want for their president as they are about who they do want to elect. Not that this should surprise anyone, but it got me thinking about who is the worst of the worst. We bloggers spend a great deal of time complaining, so I have a feeling that I should see the answers to this question coming, but I thought it would be interesting to ask everyone the same question Rasmussen put out there; to see what kind of commentary we get.

Here goes nothing (feel free to comment on why you answered the way you did):

Actually, the name to write in would be Jaime MacNaughton.

I was opening my ballot for the Helena Citizen’s Council, when I noticed that there was only one person (George Hoff) running, and three vacant seats for my district, district 3. So I went looking for more information on the Citizen’s Counsel, and saw that they are actually encouraging write in candidates. Here is a quote from the IR from Friday.

The HCC is encouraging anyone interested in becoming more involved in decision-making at the city and neighborhood level to run as a write-in candidate for HCC representative.

There are currently only two out of the seven districts that will have competitive races in January’s election. District 3 (the Mansion District/West End) and District 6 (the Midtown/South Hills area) have three out of their four representative seats open. Letting these seats sit empty would be a waste of the valuable opportunity for all of Helena’s neighborhoods to be represented at the city level. As Helena changes and grows, representation at this level is essential.

The HCC is working to make sure Helena’s citizens have a voice in the decisions that affect their neighborhoods and beyond. If you or anyone you know would like to serve a two-year term on the HCC, please tell your neighbors to write you in as a candidate on the mail-in ballots. Your involvement could make needed changes in your neighborhood a reality and dictate the characteristics of development in the future.

And from the Helena Citizen’s Council webpage:

“….Operating independently from the City Commission or City Officials, the HCC shall advise the City Commission of the various problems relating to the annual budget and make recommendations relating to the future development of the City”

I feel it only fair to warn everyone, that should I be accepted for admission to law school for the fall of 2008, I will have to resign the post, but it seems like a good idea to have someone from our neighborhood occupying the seat in the meantime.

I grew up in Helena, went to Carroll College, then after graduation I lived in Philadelphia and Los Angeles for a while, before a strong need to come back home developed, and I returned to Helena in 2004. Since returning to Helena, I have jumped back into the community in many different ways. I am a member and volunteer for SAVE, I am a board member of Montana Common Cause, I have been up to the legislature several times, I have enjoyed judging the Helena speech and debate tournaments, and obviously I blog on political issues in the state. I work as a legal assistant in a local law firm, and have a weekend job renting videos to Helenans.

Seeing as I have such a strong interest in working on vote by mail procedures, specifically return postage, it seems like a natural step to actually get involved with the process, investigation, budgeting and advising the City Council on my thoughts.

If you live in District 3 the West End/Mansion District, and think having a seat filled by someone who passionately cares about the rights of all voters and Helenans, I would appreciate it if you could write my name (Jaime MacNaughton) in on your ballot, and check the box next to it.

I have written before about my understanding of the 2nd Amendment, and how the clauses contained within it give it its meaning; I did so having never read anything by anyone else on the topic.  So it was interesting for me to find this article about the ‘prefatory’ and ‘operative’ clauses in that amendment.  It is also curious to note the place, according to the article, that punctuation played in the Founders’ day:

Refreshing though it is to see punctuation at the center of a national debate, there could scarcely be a worse place to search for the framers’ original intent than their use of commas. In the 18th century, punctuation marks were as common as medicinal leeches and just about as scientific. Commas and other marks evolved from a variety of symbols meant to denote pauses in speaking. For centuries, punctuation was as chaotic as individual speech patterns.

Either way, it is an interesting read.

Unlike the my reasoning on why Huckabee will never be president, the reason’s Rudy will never be president can not be summed up in 3 words. The list is as long as the reasons are many.

The Man Is Corrupt

From Bernie Kerik to city sponsored romantic rendezvous with his mistress, these are not issues that America wants to cloud the waters with. Many republicans are taking the time to consider what the next presidency would be like, should a Republican win, and a continuous stream of scandals and revelations are not what they have in mind. While I listed two of the more sensational, the general election would bring out a lot of nasty details about Bracewell & Giuliani and their lobbying representation of Saudi Aramco and other such questionable clients and activities. While he has repeatedly admitted that he is not perfect, this slogan isn’t really a winner as a platform.

911 911 911

Yes Rudy, you have mentioned 911. We know that you consider yourself the hero of 911, but there seems to be a lot of pushback on that as being ‘fact’. Do a quick google search for ‘Rudy 9/11′ and look at the first few results:

• YouTube - Giuliani Gets Exposed As Fraud by Firefighters
• Rudy 9/11 plans ripped
• Another dent in Rudy’s 9/11 image? - First Read - msnbc.com

In fact, no results on the first page are positive. Let’s try yahoo

• Rudy Giuliani Urban Legend
• YouTube - 911 Truth: Rudy Giuliani & the Feds Destroyed WTC Evidence
• The REAL Rudy: Radios

Not so much good news there. Microsoft live? The same. The truth is, while Rudy has been talking up 9/11 as a positive, others have done a better job as spinning it as a negative.

Not Reagan:

While Rudy has tried to spin himself as the new Reagan, it has just reminded voters how very far from Reagan he really is. See above for details.

Evangelical block:

For the same reasons that I believe Huckabee will win the Republican nomination, Rudy will not win the Republican nomination. The rumors of the moral majority’s death have been greatly exaggerated. This is still an extremely powerful voting block in the Republican party and Rudy just doesn’t fit in. If the Republican party had fronted a fiscally conservative nominee with a clean record and a likable personality, they might stand a chance against this voting block. Rudy? Not a chance in hell. Social conservatives and wingnuts still control the Republican party.

Maybe BP should change the colors of it’s corporate logo or something. They’ve touted themselves for a number of years now as a ‘green’ oil company, ‘beyond petroleum’ and all that. So what do they do? They invest billions in the tar-sands projects in northern Alberta, basically saying ’sorry folks, there’s just too much money to be made here to leave this alone.’

The tar-sands mining is already wreaking havoc on the fragile ecosystem of the far north. Water supplies are being contaminated to the point where they are becoming deadly. The craters and tailings ponds are visible from space. That’s just what’s been done so far. When BP and the other big-oil players enter the game the destruction will accelerate. The amount of water used for processing will rise dramatically. The same with natural gas. CO2 emissions too. It all adds up to what the Independent calls the worst environmental crime in history.

Will we ever get it? Will humans ever accept and adapt to their role as one, but only one, of the mammals in a complex web of life? Will we re-discover our rightful place in nature and live accordingly? Given the insane rush to continue these kinds of projects, to keep the oil flowing at all costs, it doesn’t seem likely.

While I fully expect Mike Huckabee to be the Republican candidate in the general election next November, he will never be president. Why?

Three simple words: ‘Fair Tax’ plan. Carrying on with the traditions of the current administration’s policy of naming things the opposite of what they are (think ‘Blue Skies’ and ‘Patriot Act’), the ‘Fair Tax’ plan will be strapped to his neck like an stinking albatross.

In simple terms, the plan would eliminate income tax and replace it with a flat 30% sales tax. I know the arguments about tax-inclusive or tax-exclusive, but the simple fact is that for every $100 worth of goods/services you purchase, you would end up paying $130. It is just that simple.

What is the major problem here?

( Director of economic studies at the Brookings Institution, Bill Gale ) also asks whether Americans would accept a tax on everything — from retail sales to home purchases to health insurance. If enacted, there would be political pressure to create a series of exemptions, which would push the 30-cent rate even higher.

“I think the real rate they would have to impose would be much higher — around 40 to 50 percent — if it were enforceable. And that’s the kick,” he said. “There is literally no country in the history of the world that has enforced a retail sales tax with rates anywhere near that amount. The incentives to evade just get too big at that point.”

It will be very easy for the Democratic nominee to explain to the public that, no matter how loud Huckabee screams it, this is a regressive tax. Most of us spend 90% to 100% of our income, which means that we would be taxed at a rate of at least 30% of 100% of our income. The wealthy spend a much lower portion of their income, so they are taxed at a much lower rate. What do they spend their money on? Investments? Will the purchase of stocks and bonds be taxed? Not a chance in hell, who would buy a stock at a 30% loss to make a 5% gain?

A sales tax will only shift the burden even further onto the poor. I agree with the idea that we need to take a serious look at the way tax burden’s are accessed in this country, but this ‘un aint it. If the Democrats fields a candidate with enough gravitas to face Huckabee down on this one, the white house is ours for sure.

Here is one worth a discussion, I have a feeling we’ll find some differing views. From the Helena IR

The Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and other federal agencies would no longer be able to increase fees at campgrounds, trailheads and other public-use areas under a bill introduced Monday by Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Mike Crapo, R-Idaho.
[snip]
“Americans already pay to use their public lands on April 15,” Baucus said in a statement. “We shouldn’t be taxed twice to go fishing, hiking, or camping on our public lands. It just doesn’t make any sense. That’s why Mike and I are going to fight like the dickens to get this bill passed.”

On one level, this makes a lot of sense. I wonder though, if use fee’s don’t make sense on one level. The people who actually use the area are responsible for its upkeep and maintenance. Its the same model used by Disney World. Right?

On the downside, that model does not lend its self to preserving areas that don’t get public use but are still worth upkeep. Of course, if we follow the free market theory to its conclusion here, we could say that if these lands were worth preserving, people would visit them…