Thank you for FOOD!

by: Rob Kailey

Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 16:26:50 PM MST

Okay, I'm uncertain if that's really a defeat so much as support for real small business in an economy that favors the glorification of the huge.  But still, if the House accepts Tester's amendment, then small producers will still have a little weapon to use against
the conglomerates that seek to consume them, and, quite literally, force mass produced food down our throats.

Yes, it is a simple fact that small producers can still endanger the public with tainted food.  Please consider this.  The threat posed by small producers is very limited.  The return for quality absorbed by small producers makes their risk very high as well.  So it serves them to produce a quality product and get the most distribution possible.  This seems like a free market solution that all could embrace, as long as Congress doesn't require the casual turkey producer to be subject to the same rules as Butterball.

So, yea food!

Happy Thanksgiving!

by: Craig Moore

Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 08:34:37 AM MST

We give thanks:

For food in a world where many walk in hunger;
For courage in a world where many walk in fear;
For fellowship in a world where many walk alone;
For earthly angels that share their lives helping others;
For tolerance and forgiveness from those we wrong;
And for the opportunity to make tomorrow better than today.

Thanksgiving day fun.

by: Doug Coffin

Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 11:56:32 AM MST

The first realization is the absence of any "progressive" thinking on the horizon in the upcoming session, because there has been very little historically in Montana. Hence our traditional standing at the bottom of the national economic ladder. I consider "progressive thinking" in economic terms along the lines of Obama's "stimulus", the Fed's current QE2 program or simply investing in quality public education. Montana State government has a very limited history of state government actively spending to stimulate certain economic sectors and that won't change in the 2011 session.

All this makes me a Krugmanite (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/) where I see an essential role for both federal and state government investment in certain sectors for economic stimulation and development. My career in science makes this a natural believing that there are certain places that government investment has to go, because private investors would be crazy to do so.

My favorite examples are biomedical research and the space program. No private company could ever have conceived of investing in a program to send a man to the moon or develop a space shuttle in the 20th century. Thus, it took the government to spend/invest there, but the payoff was huge. All the products (Teflon, Tang, etc., etc.) and of course a satellite fleet next to none have been the basis for our economic growth in the late 20th century. It goes without saying that the private sector is the twin to government investment where entrepreneurs mine the gold through product development and marketing. Witness how, once the technological groundwork was laid and the risk is lowered to an acceptable level, 21st century companies are moving into space. A corollary also exists between NIH funded research and the pharmaceutical or health care industries. The trick for Montana policy makers is to find our local "space program" and invest accordingly. That's not easy.

The tealeaves for the upcoming legislative session predict that GOP legislators will be off-task and most certainly tip too far in the direction of the private sector's "magic hand" by over-cutting government spending. This will only serve to starve Montana's economic growth in the long term, evidenced by their cutting educational budgets and other essential services like FWP that maintain the infrastructure for tourism. They will also pass ill-advised tax cuts to fatten corporate profits that only fly out of state. Our consignment to the bottom percentiles of the national income ladder and our legacy of being exploited by other more wealthy states and corporations will continue. Out of state corporations will continue to make money and send their profits back home (e.g. Walmart). The debilitating trend where out of state landowners buy up large ranches and lock out Montana recreationalists will only accelerate. So, if you want to make some money in Montana, invest in the orange paint business.

Amy Goodman on the Insurance Industry's Fear of Sicko

by: Matthew Koehler

Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 07:17:21 AM MST

Goodman hosted a joint interview with Academy Award-winning filmmaker Michael Moore and Wendell Potter, who was the head of corporate communications for the health insurance giant CIGNA when Moore's film, Sicko, was released in 2007. Potter left the company in 2008 and has since become the industry's most prominent whistleblower. Potter is also the author of Deadly Spin: An Insurance Company Insider Speaks Out on How Corporate PR Is Killing Health Care and Deceiving Americans

In the interview, Potter apologizes for his role in the industry's attack on Moore and the film. Moore accepted his apology, but acknowledged to Potter that, "I think we both know this is much larger then what was done to me or in the movie." Moore said that the industry was willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to "stop a movie" because they were afraid it "could trigger a populist uprising against," what he called, a "sick system that will allow companies to profit off of us when we fall ill."

Wuerthner: Do ranchers have a right to predator free landscape?

by: Matthew Koehler

Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 09:18:45 AM MST

We've all seen the flood of emotionally-charged, less-than-accurate letters to the editor from some unsuccessful Montana hunters blaming their empty freezer on wolves.  Yep, apparently, in a state with a landbase of 147,000 square miles, approximately 600 wolves will kill 150,000 elk and about a 1,000,000 deer if we don't do something about it.  But don't you have to wonder how in the world some of these hunters can't find any of the 150,000 elk or 1,000,000 deer roaming the state, yet these same hunters claim to see wolves and wolf-tracks everywhere? Seriously, does this add up?

Unfortunately, the silliness will continue as we have the upcoming bi-annual state legislative session to look forward to, where one can assume that numerous anti-wolf bills and meaningless resolutions will be put forward by the Republican majority.

Yet, for a political party that likes to champion "personal responsibility," one can bet the Montana Republican Party won't be calling on Montana's ranching community to take some rather simple and straight-forward steps to greatly reduce or eliminate livestock predation on account of wolves.

With this in mind, ecologist and former Montana hunting guide George Wuerthner has an excellent new essay "Do ranchers have a right to predator free landscape?" over at NewWest.

Below are some highlights from that essay (emphasis added):

Killing predators to appease the livestock industry is nothing more than another subsidy to an industry that is already living off the public largess, in part, because most predator losses are completely avoidable with proper animal husbandry techniques.

For instance, prompt removal of dead animals from fields, and burial of the remains can significantly reduce attracting predators. One recent study in Oregon showed a very strong association between wolf packs and bone piles-places where ranchers dump dead cattle.... One study in Minnesota found that rapid removal of dead animals from livestock operations could reduce a second predation event by 55 times!

In Europe where many countries ban the killing of predators like wolves, livestock producers have adopted other measures to reduce predator losses. The use of guard dogs with shepherds is particularly effective, again significantly reducing predation losses. One study found that the combined use of these techniques could reduce predation losses by better than 90%. When you are talking about only several hundred wolf attributed livestock losses a year in each of the states of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, a 90% reduction would bring these losses down to a negligible figure-and one that would remove nearly all demand for any predator control.

In Minnesota where there are nearly double the number of wolves that are found in the entire northern Rockies states of Idaho, Wyoming and Montana combined, farmers there are encouraged to adopt measures that reduce predator opportunity in order to qualify for state livestock compensation. After a depredation, a state official visits the farm, and discusses any measures that could be adopted to reduce future livestock losses. The farmer must sign an agreement to implement any changes in order to qualify for any future compensation payments.

OMG!! Palin leads the GOP........but loses to Obama

by: Doug Coffin

Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 01:41:33 AM MST

No kidding, she's got just a bump (1%) over "the Mittster" followed by the "Huckster" (literally and figuratively) and then Newt "Getrich". Any of these bozos would be a gift to Obama in 2012. Call me a Professional Lefty who's been tough on "Obummer" for betraying his base (me) but truth be told he's a great campaigner and he'll easily blast any one of these tired-olds.

We'd have to presume two things: First, that Obama will be Clintonesque and "get it" over the next year or two and figure out how to beat the GOP in the rough and tumble games of political spin and Washington politics. Second, we'll have to see whether the predictable rebound against the GOP in 2012 actually happens.

November 6, 2012 is a long way away but let the fun begin. Palin may not be able to beat Obama but she could affect the election. She is the untold story of the 2010 election where she was able to swing female independents over to the GOP. They really dig that assertive Redneck Woman schtick and the  Democrats don't have an answer. But a Presidential election is a whole different story and while that won't win it for her, she could hurt Obama by playing the quasi-independent Ma Griz from the sidelines the way she does now.        

Brief admin notes.

by: Rob Kailey

Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 18:26:24 PM MST

1)  Welcome to Doug Coffin and John Bacino, front page posters.  Post away, gentleman.  Hint, hint hint, I would like and appreciate some feminine influence as well ...

2)  There is a one day wait between registration and the ability to post a diary.  This is an anti-spam measure.  As I'm certain some have noticed, spammers love them some diary space.  I've already whacked two of them.  Forcing them to wait a day helps.  I have also begun deleting accounts that have emails such as "fine.Gucci.handbags at yahoo dot com".  I may be wrongish, but I don't think they're here for the discussion ...

3)  There is a one day wait for being able to post comments after registration.  This is also an anti-spam measure.  But it has an added benefit.  It prohibits drive-by flaming. There will be (have been) times that something written here sparks someone's need to respond.  The wait allows them to consider whether they really want to respond or not.  In most cases, the answer would be "No".  The simple request is simple.  Join the community, or don't.  You don't get to have it both ways.

4)  If a person has a need to comment or diary about an issue they see here, but can't because of the previous rules, then it needs to come through me.  Just because they have a beef does not mean that these requests should come through other users.  That sort of defeats the purpose of why these rules were set in the first place (by Jay and Matt, not by me.)  It has already happened on my watch, and I would gladly have proffered Katte's response to post.  This is not the norm, but rather the exception.  Please, my email is public.  Use it if you can't get what you want when you want it.

5)  Don't spam email me with your pet issue as if I will suddenly be a jumping advocate.  I am very sympathetic to most leftward issues.  But when I get 5 emails in a day from an advocate for issue X as if I'm supposed to use my limited time to promote X, well, that's just not going to happen.  We have front page editors now who can deal with a remarkable range of issues in a remarkable range of manners.  Trust them, and trust me.  If you have something you wish promoted, post a diary.  Or email me as a human, a real live concerned human, and not an issue-bot.  I'm not a robot; I'm a Luddite, remember?  So you don't be one either.

6)  Thank you for the readership.  I couldn't mean that more sincerely.  

Anyone remember what happened on Nov. 22nd in 1963?

by: Doug Coffin

Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 08:36:09 AM MST

What they're sayin across the Big Sky

by: Doug Coffin

Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 08:28:32 AM MST

Not surprisingly the focus is definitely on budgets, taxes and the upcoming legislative session:

Posted: Friday, November 12, 2010 6:00 am | Updated: 2:44 am, Fri Nov 12, 2010.
Belgrade News
"any effort to arrive at a tax-reform solution that benefits Montana's middle class taxpayers - the majority of us - is blocked before the session even begins by a gimmicky pledge to never raise taxes, at all, ever.
One issue this creates is with our problematic medical marijuana law. The burgeoning new industry - entirely untaxed and virtually unregulated - begs for both. But according to one Republican legislator who spoke to the Belgrade News recently, taxing medical marijuana is "not an option because most of us have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge."

Bob Brown, Former MT Secretary of State and Adjunct Professor at UM editorialized in the Big Fork Eagle on Sunday (11/19) about what Montanans should expect if real budget cutting actually occurs in WDC. Says Brown:
The Republican tide swept across Montana with perhaps even greater velocity than the rest of the nation. There is no question about the mandate for cutting spending here. That being true, Montanans should brace for some belt tightening, because 40 cents of every dollar the Montana government spends comes from our big brother in Washington. The most uncomplicated and frequently mentioned strategy for cutting back is to return federal spending to 2009 levels. That year Montana received $1.9 billion in federal aid. On a per capita basis, only six states were higher on the federal dole than Montana. In 2010 our federal piece of the pie jumped to $2.3 billion. That $400 million increase in one year by itself equates to more than 20 percent of all the money the state takes in from taxes, and would be a $100 million over-draft on the $300 million Montana now has "in the bank." The impact of such federal cuts would surely prove the old saying that a government big enough to give you what you want is big enough to take from you what you have. Since our state constitution requires a balanced budget, we won't have the alternative of going into debt to compensate for federal cuts. Our state government will have to severely cut services or drastically increase taxes, or both. With conservative Republicans now in control of both houses of the legislature, don't figure on any taxing solutions..........swallowing hundreds of millions [of cuts] won't be as easy, but the reality is that our nation can't continue to live beyond its means. Significant reductions at all levels of government have to occur. Nickeling our way out this time will not be an option for Montana. This time we will feel the pain.

Likewise, the Flathead Beacon's Kellyn Brown says: "Every politician has his or her own agenda as to what should be accomplished over the next few weeks, but most would agree with Rehberg's assessment that the budget and tax cuts loom largest."

Most any newspaper from around the state that's saying anything seems to be cautious about great Republican mandates. From the most conservative to the most liberal (if there really is any such thing in MT besides "Left in the West") they all remember the last presidency when the GOP added more to the national debt than the last two Democratic presidents combined. Indeed, my beloved Rachael Maddow (MSNBC) pointed out that the Crown Prince of Conservatism, Ronald Reagan, grew the debt by 187% during his term. GW Bush was a piker by comparison with about 90% and the two Democrats trailed all the Republicans with Carter at and Clinton in the low 40's. I'm not sure how these figures were calculated but the essential point is accurate, the GOP is THE debtor party in historical terms. You have to give them credit for turning the issue around on the Democrats in political terms. I guess that means kudos to the evil genius "Turd Blossom" (Rove).

The Republicans have lost their arrogance and they are doubting the keystone of Reagan's conservatism where tax cuts are supposed to balance budgets. They know better now. "Supply side" economics are dead and buried by the Great Recession. Modern conservatism may stand for "smaller government" but they are even cautious about that. They know that cutting government means sacrificing their favorites, like defense spending, and there simply isn't room for huge tax cuts because the actually do decrease revenues. The Great Recession has brought sobriety to the heady days of the stolen 2000 election when huge tax cuts rolled through. The GOP was sure that the budget would magically balance and prosperity would abound. Neither happened and now the GOP, fresh off the Tea party demolition of its ideology is looking for new ground. They also sense that "small government" isn't really what people want; Democrats and Republicans both know that Americans want "good government" regardless of size. That means that it's not really about budgets and taxes, it's about delivering services and solving problems when resources are thin. Their task is finding the equation to deliver. The Democrats failed during their biennium and the GOP knows the price that they'll pay if they don't find it either.  

What are they smokin' in Helena?

by: Doug Coffin

Sun Nov 21, 2010 at 14:58:38 PM MST

Lewis was present when the Gov pointed out in public at his budget-rollout press conference that Lewis was making more as a state employee when he retired (about $110K) than the cap that he is proposing for current state workers ($80K). Hypocracy? Embarrassment? Shoulda been.

But Lewis has hung with his ugly duckling and now he has the support of the home-town newspaper. Yup, the editorial board of the Helena IR drank Lewis' Kool-aid and gave his brainstorm legs with a "gee isn't this intriguing" editorial in today's (Sunday's) paper. Is Sarah Palin subbing as a ghost writer for the IR?.... or perhaps the Beckster? It sure seems quintessentially FOX Newseque.