Friday, October 31, 2008

Hope Is a Good Thing

Is it just me or is this election dragging on and on and on to the finish line? This one, like no other I can recall, is wearing thin.

Perhaps it’s the anticipation of a real change.

There is a genuine sense of hopefulness that would endure with Barack in the White House. Perhaps it’s that everyone, including a lot of R’s, can hardly wait to run out into the streets and shriek to the sky, “It’s over! It’s over! It’s finally over.”

Deep down inside, D’s have to be bracing for yet another disappointment. Let’s get it over with and just win.

Been there, done that.

D’s have been disappointed before. Michael Moore penned a nice column a day before the 2004 election. Amazing how little things have changed, at least for the better.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-11-01

The only thing worse than the hopelessness that would accompany a McCain win is the sinking feeling that within months after an Obama victory, the whole shebang will fire up again. Mitt and Sarah and Huck will from exploratory committees for 2012.

Look. GW blew it. He got exactly what he wanted for the first 6 years (and, frankly, too much during the last two) of his reign.
And, where are we now? Hmmmmm.
Is there anything that isn’t broken, anything that actually works, sort of, kind of?

Foreign policy?
Military preparedness?
Financial institutions?
Economy?
Health care?
Energy?
Housing?
Education?
Civil rights?
Infrastructure?

Are we better off in any regard than we were eight years ago?

When the right says Obama is a communist and a socialist, what does that infer about the goodness of Bush. He’s a proven loser.

"Barack Obama is a Muslim terrorist," we’re warned. [Actually he’s a Protestant.]

But, George is the true terrorist.

Given his chance by the Supreme Court in 2000, he not only blew IT. He BLEW IT UP.

Our hopes, our country, our way of life, our future.

His economic policies, whatever they were, cannot even be labeled “trickle down,” because they didn’t even accomplish that. Instead, wealth was transferred in a unprecedented manner to the most wealthy amongst us. [Mind you, they don’t live by us. Certainly not. When they go home a steel gate clangs shut as they drive into their gated communities and the ocean tickles the sands on their own get-away islands.]

The richest nation in the history of the world is now the biggest debtor.

Americans, young and old alike, are fearful. They're worried, fatigued.

McCain is a shining example of Bush’s preferred crowd “have more’s.” He’s not certain how many homes he has. Many Americans are worried about how to keep just one.

Not many voters who supports McCain discuss their support openly. No one I’ve talked to who plans to vote for McCain has actually cited a reason to vote “for” John McCain, other than he is not George Bush. A ringing endorsement.

Shamed and departed are Rumsfeld, Tenet, Ashcroft, Scooter, Gonzales, Rove. Cheney will be joining them before long. Each flaunted the constitution and repeatedly broke the public trust.

Abramoff, Chalabi, and Haliburton were in it for the dough, the play, the kick-back, plain and simple.

George couldn’t always enunciate words and expressions correctly, but he and his minions gave clarity to ones to fear, e.g. water-boarding, presidential signing statements, healthy forests, clear skies, FISA, and FEMA emergency response

Guantonomo hasn’t been in the news so much since 1962 and the Bay of Pigs.

Along the way, did anyone keep track of how many times the apologists blamed failures of this bunch on Clinton? You know, Bill. The Clinton recession. The attack on the USS Cole. A budget balanced, yes, but by Newt Gingrich.

Many argued that we should get George. We tried in 2004 and failed.

Between election, we just couldn’t figure out the correct constitutional arguments. Perhaps we were simply too cerebral. Late last year, a car parked on Last Chance Gulch bore a bumper sticker: “Will someone please hurry up give Bush a blowjob so start the impeachment?”

Could it have been so simple?

Enough already.

It’s hard to imagine there are actually folks out there who fear giving the keys to the White House to Obama.

“All that we’re saying is give peace a chance.” John Lennon.

And, give hope a chance for a change.

Perfection: Life Really is too Short

RAVENNA, Mich. (WZZM) - Teammates in his bowling league think after rolling a perfect 300 game Don Doane's heart just gave out.

"You get nervous shooting a 300," says teammate Todd Place. "The pressure keeps building," says bowling alley owner Jim Nutt.

Minutes after achieving the life long goal of a perfect game the 62 year old bowler collapsed and died at Ravenna Bowl in Ravenna. "Don just collapsed," says alley owner Nutt. " At first we thought he just fainted." "Then when I rolled him over I realized it wasn't good," says teammate Place.

The teammates say he was giving a high-five minutes before. They tried to revive him but Doane never spoke another word. He died of what was apparently a massive heart attack "He looked fine, reached across the table and gave me a high-five and he fell over," says Place.

"I think he died by the time he hit the floor." Don Doane was a member of the "Nutt Farm" bowling team at Ravenna Bowl for 45 years. His teammates says its strange not to see him on league nights.

"It was like a book, a final chapter," says Place. "He threw his 300 game with all of his friends, gave each other high-fives and it's like the story ended. He died with a smile on his face."

"Don will be a legend," says Nutt. 'It's something that will never be forgotten as long as people bowl here." Ravenna Bowl is planning a memorial ceremony for Doan's' wife Linda and son Chad.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Polls and Crusading Liars

There’s an intriguing poll out there.

The University of Texas interviewed 600 Americans who call the Lone Star State home.

Barack Obama's religion has been the subject of much discussion in the media. Though Obama is a practicing Protestant, well-publicized emails and word of mouth campaigns inaccurately identifying him as a Muslim have been circulated since the early days of his candidacy. In order to gauge public awareness of Obama's religion, we asked respondents, "What do you believe Barack Obama's religion to be?" A plurality, 45.5%, chose the "Protestant" option, and 28 % couldn't say. Twenty percent, however, said that Obama is a Muslim.
http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu./11_1_2.html

No telling why so many must figure Barack to be a “Muslim.” Don’t suppose it's his name, do you?

The Bush bunch has worked hard to create a rich environment in which to pigeon-hole and then either hate or love, (mostly fear) one another. Wars have a way of doing that, you know.

It seems that too many Americans feel stereotypes are OK, again. It's a short-cut for those who spend more watching NASCAR and sharin' huntin' stories than they do with their kids. Ugly and hateful words, terms and expressions that went away with flat-top haircuts, and others with bell-bottom pants, are back and unfortunately have found a way into the public debate with reactionary, right-wing Republicans.

But, a Muslim as President? Not yet. But, Some day it will happen.

Speaking of names, shortly after his election, Keith Ellison, the first Muslim to be elected (so far) to Congress, the religious right began a crusade to prevent him from being seated. Something about not placing his hand on the Bible, instead choosing the Quran, when he was to be sworn in.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53345

Fortunately, the crusade went no where and Congressman-elect Ellison (D - Minnesota) was sworn in as a member of the Class of 2007.

Actually, Mr. Ellison was not sworn in on the Quran and no incoming members of Congress place their hand on the Bible. Everyone is sworn in together during a private ceremony without any religious text. It’s only during a ceremonial photo-op that a book is brought out.

The Class of 2007 also includes two Buddhists, Hank Johnson (D- Georgia) and Mazie Hirono (D – Hawaii). They did not use a book at the public ceremony, as there is no book in Buddhism equivalent to the Bible or the Quran.

Was there a word of concern about them? Nope. [The crusaders were trying to understand the meaning of “ooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmm.”]

Jews? [I can hear the muttering of the crusaders, "You know, they only hold their hand on the Old Testmaent." Or, "they're OK. After all, I suppose, they aren't Muslims."]

Agnostics and atheists? [They were wily enough to cross the fingers on their left hand.]

So, why followers of Islam? In the article cited above, Judge Moore explains: “ . . . common sense alone dictates that in the midst of a war with Islamic terrorists we should not place someone in a position of great power who shares their doctrine.”

You know: Islam faith = Muslim followers = Islamic terrorists.

[And, for the record, in March 2008, another Muslim, Andre Carson, a Democrat from Indiana was elected to Congress. No word as to which, if any book, he used.]

Perhaps that’s one more reason McCain crusades to wage the wars against terrorism for 100 years: To keep Americans who worship Allah out of Congress, and presumably any other deliberative bodies, too.

The Crusades, seems there were five (some say more)of them (back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back, if you’re keeping score), began in 1096 and lasted continuously for almost exactly 200 years. 200!).

The Christians took the fight to whom? Muslims. Moslems. And, which country is waging a war in two countries that are predominantly Muslim?

[In case you don't know: The Shiites and Sunni (yes, the very the same sects who are at one another's throats these days in Iraq) were fighting between and among themselves during the Crusades even as they tried to ward off invaders from the West, 700 hundred years ago. And, they've have been at it ever since.]


Larry Craig - The Accidental Tourist

For far too long, Americans denied people of color and women the right to vote. In 2008, the R's are crusading to prevent people of color from voting through registration challenges. One by one, the challenges have been turned back by the courts. But, none of this is new.

The United States has a shameful and dismal history on civil rights, both at home and abroad. For the past eight years, George W, like the Christians in bygone days, has attempted to outsource our version of "human rights," while denying basic rights to Americans here at home. Unlike his wars abroad, the President and his adorers on the fringe right have relied on bipartisan 'support' to do so.

It's a sick message that spews from AM talk radio, pounding the airwaves daily with diatribes: We should discrimintate against someone in the workplace because of his/ her sexual preference and deny them basic rights heterosexual couples enjoy.

For years, the religious right demonized Barney Frank, the long-time, openly gay Congressman from Massachussetts (D). It took awhile, but Congress welcomed the “first open lesbian” to be elected, Tammy Baldwin (D – Wisconsin). In January, they will most likely be joined by Jared Polis, a Democrat running in Colorado’s 2nd Congressional District, where Democrats in the district outnumber Republicans by 32,000 voters.

[There are an awful lot of "D’s" by these names above each pigeon-hole.]

I wasn’t surprised when Larry Craig, a Republican from Idaho [the first “R” in the list], accidentally “outed” himself at the airport in the Twin Cities. I suppressed the cynic in me and hoped he would not resign, embrace his gay identity, and like other members of Congress before him, find his voice in supporting efforts to approve same sex marriage, outlawing workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation, and eliminating the policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

No such luck. The apple farmer not only remained. So did his strident anti-gay positions.

Despite early, but cautious, optimism and the capable leadership of Frank and Baldwin, bills to ban workplace discrimination have not passed this Congress. This, despite the fact that more than 85 percent of the Fortune 500 companies include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policies, as do 17 states and many local governments.

Same-sex couples still do not enjoy the same constitutional protections that opposite-sex couples enjoy.

And, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”? Don’t ask.

Blame the Republicans? Others say elect Democrats who support gay rights first; then, work on the R’s.

Come January 2009, Democrats will hold larger Congressional majorities and, most likely, the Presidency. The question is: Can Congress approve any type of civil rights legislation with sizable majorities and have it signed into law? Or, will it be more of the same, high hopes?

As the song goes, "When troubles call, and your backs to the wall
There a lot to be learned, that wall could fall." It might someday, but not as long as names and stereotypes guide and cloud the thinking of so mnay members of Congress.

Homophobism is found in both parties, although it is more pervasive within the Republican party.

“There is a longstanding hypocrisy of anti-gay conservatives like Rick Santorum and Mel Martinez employing openly gay senior staff. While in D.C., seemingly anti-gay members of Congress work shoulder-to-shoulder with gays and lesbians and seek their counsel on policy matters. But when back home in their districts, they endorse all manner of anti-gay measures.”

McCain is a case in point. His chief of staff, Mark Buse, is openly gay. And, yet, McCain vigorously supports California’s Proposition 8 to ban same-sex marriage and, when he been present and voted, has opposed every pro-gay legislation contemplated by this Congress.

If Congressmen Ellison and carson actually have a “Muslim agenda” and can match the successes of their gay and lesbian Congressional counterparts, the religious right has very little to fear in the next Congress.

And, John, you don't have to keep up the expense of an Islamic war for cover.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Between a Rock and a Hard Place

The debate over “gravel pits” in the 2007 legislative session barely scratched the surface over the interests of two immovable forces: property-owners who want to develop (rock) and property-owners (hard place) who want things as they are.

Each group is ready for a fight.

Everyone agrees: We must have sand, gravel and aggregate.

Industry deserves certainty in the regulatory framework. But while Michael Kakuk has enjoyed a string of successes in court, industry cannot [and should not] count on the crap shoot called the judicial system.

Industry must meet tight timetables specified in the contracts it successfully bids a project. It bids each job on the basis of where it will mine and process the needed materials. A key variable is transportation costs and securing sand, gravel aggregate as close to the project.

For smaller projects, like foundations for homes and businesses, bids are based on the materials coming from existing “gravel pits.” For larger projects, such as highway construction and reconstruction, it depends on the math.

The Montana and United States Departments of Transportation are unforgiving in their contractual requirements. The contractor must perform at the price it bids, no if’s, and’s or but’s. In the case of Knife River and the reconstruction project of US 93 south of Missoula it secured, transportation costs were calculated on mining and processing the materials at a site owned by Ken Allen just north of Lolo.

Responding to the well-organized opposition of adjacent property-owners, the Missoula County Commission imposed interim zoning disallowing the “gravel pit.” Knife River was forced to provide the materials needed for the project from its location near the north end of Reserve Street in Missoula and was stuck with “eating” significantly more miles (and costs) for transportation. Knife River says it absorbed $500,000 in costs. Because of deadlines imposed, coupled with the time required to process an open cut permit, it did not have the option of securing materials from another site.

At the time, Knife River had a permit pending with the DEQ for the Lolo location. As in every other permit it had filed previously, Knife River had every confidence it would receive the permit for the preferred location. The only thing that stopped it was the intervention of the county commission.

The county commission really forced a statute to fit the circumstance and acted to safeguard the rights, interests, health of property-owners and the environment. And, as in so many instances, there was a “loser.” To the tune of $500,000. No company can absorb costs of that magnitude and remain profitable. And, remember, this is only one example.

Obviously, there must be certainty in the process, but for everyone.

The industry really would prefer to focus on what it does best: Make money by supplying materials essential to build Montana. Property-owners would just as soon they do the same. In far too many other cases, property-owners, public health and safety and the environment have absorbed the “costs.”

Unfortunately, their futures are inextricably linked.

So what types of property owners are affected?

Suburbanites, the ones located fairly close to cities, where the permitted expansions of “gravel pits” are encroaching on the backyards and front yard views and placing heavy truck traffic on access routes. In most cases, homeowners mistakenly felt they were “far enough away.” In many of these cases, it’s ‘the buyer beware.’

Rural property-owners in thought to be remote, pristine areas, most often along rivers, a mix of old-timers and newcomers. Here, the issue is one of either the permitting and opening of new “gravel pits” or (2) the and re-opening of others that stood dormant for years or only operated sporadically (or both).

Property-owners just sort of get used to the eyesore that dormant “gravel pits” are. But, when they suddenly re-open, watch out! [This process reminds me of the cicada in the Midwest. This locust-type insect appears only in 2-to-3-year or 13-to-17-year cycles. They appear, make a lot of noise and a hell of a mess and then recede; but, everyone knows they will return – eventually.]

“When will you make an end of it?”

That was the question reportedly posed each day by Pope Julius II of Michelangelo, who was painting the Sistine Chapel.

A “gravel pit” is certainly no masterpiece, far from it.

But, the question is applicable and fair.

Just how long is the jagged scar to remain until restored and reclaimed? The permit covering each “gravel pit” specifies reclamation requirements, but hundreds of pits remain unreclaimed. Why?

The existing regulatory framework doesn’t work. Each side is not lacking for an opinion about how to “fix” it. But, they aren’t talking to one another.

So, the Legislature is rightfully expected to fix this and attempt to balance the competing values and conflicting priorities. In other words, it will occupy the place between that rock and the hard place. So much to know and so little time.
Legislators are elected by voters who not work for industry, but by just as many who lives and lifestyle may be destroyed. Hopefully, they will listen to both points of view. [Reminder: Property-owners do not have lobbyists.]

If you expect a resolution that protects propert-owners, don’t hold your breath.

In 2009, it will be entertaining to watch two legislators, both Republicans, in particular.

Garry Perry, a holdover senator from Manhattan, who reportedly lives near a proposed “gravel pit,” has filed a bushel-load (six to be exact) bill draft requests to revise the open cut laws.

Bill Nooney, a state representative from Missoula, whose election is anything but guaranteed if Bill Vaughn (darkacres.com) has his way.

http://www.darkacres.com/

Nooney, you see, is trying to play both sides. He has accepted money from MCA, but supported the Missoula County Commission interim zoning that stopped the Lolo “gravel pit” dead in its tracks. The race will be close.

If he does manage to win, he may feel he is joining 149 others in the squeeze. It is more likely that Rep. Nooney will be fed into legislative crusher or batch plant.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Pave Paradise and Put up a Parking Lot

This fall, I took the family to Yellowstone National Park. Breathtaking.

The most intriguing stop was at the Artist and Foundation mudpots. They spew and spit a thick brackish pudding, ranging in colors from a smokey gray to grizzly bear brown. Bubbling is periodically is interrupted by a belch, where the devilish stuff is hurled, coming perilously close to curious onlooker who venture too near.


As I hoisted my son onto my shoulders, it occurred to me that public policy issues also simmer along and then suddenly belch onto an unsuspecting public. And, like the odor at the pots in the Park, the contents are usually accompanied by a rotten egg smell.

One such issue that is about to belch is "gravel pit" siting and regulation.

Like the mudpots, the issue of where we mine gravel, aggregate and sand quietly seethed until late 2006.


Let's face it: Some parts of Montana have been “discovered.” More folks want to join us. They want houses, streets, sidewalks, school buildings, playgrounds and shopping centers. All of these require either concrete or asphalt, or both.

The primary ingredients, sand, gravel and aggregate, come from sites that range from huge excavations of several hundred acres to huge holes occupying several acres. Gravel is present in only a comparatively small number of places, most often on the alluvial river valley floors and glacial valleys.

The tough part is exactly where the pits are to be located, permitted and operated.

If you do not live adjacent to or on an access road leading to and from one of them, life in paradise is wonderful. If you are unfortunate enough to live in the wrong place, watch out. You’re about to be spattered.


Perfect Storm

Sand and gravel, like all of our resources, is finite. Rapid growth and the sharp escalation in demand require that more of the stuff be mined. When the gravel begins to play out, operators have three primary options: expand an existing “ gravel pit,” re-open and old one, or open a new one.


A couple of facts. More than half of Montana’s existing “gravel pits” are operated by a governmental entity, principally counties.

Political and judicial battles are being waged in four fast-growth counties: Lewis and Clark; Gallatin; Missoula and Flathead counties. It is here that the demand for materials and property rights intersect. Under permits that are supposed to be granted by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), "gravel pits" are expanding and new ones are either opening or are on the drawing board.

The only thing that will slow the onslaught is an economic downturn of the type Bush and his greedy "haves" have brought us.

Homeowners wring their hands and shake their heads in disbelief that their life savings may be wiped out because of a de-valuation of property resulting from the presence of a “gravel pit.” There’s the dust, the heavy-duty truck traffic, the smell, the dust, the noise, and the eyesore, plus, the impact of the operation on the water table and the fine, invisible mica particulates on the health of children. County commissioners, with very little legal authority, are the ones caught in the middle, trying to balance property rights of those own adjacent or nearby with who own the land and want to develop the gravel deposits it holds.

Here is where it gets interesting.

The Open Cut Mining Law was enacted in 1971, when “gravel pits” were just that, a pit. In those simpler, slower times, a dump truck might appear several times a day and the driver would load it with a front-end loader and leave. The law today remains pretty much as written, now, some 37 years ago. Oh, wait, the legislature "streamlined" it, along with MEPA which was entirely gutted in 2001, a few times to meet the "concerns" of industry. Property-owners, remember, don't have lobbyists.

The industry and the technologies it uses to operate, of course, have not stood still. The law barely allows for real regulation of the actual on-the-ground operations.


In 2008, “gravel pits” are still sources of sand, gravel and aggregate all right. But, they have become major industrial operations in their own right. Crushers, batch plants, asphalt plants, along with belly dumps and dump trucks (making dozens of trips each day), dozers and loaders, are strategically located throughout each site and operated the maximum number of hours to offset the massive capital investments these machines and operations represent. Each movement is carefully choreographed. A veritable beehive of activity.


Historically, the business community, including the Montana Contractor’s Association (MCA), which most of our state's contractors belong to, have sided with efforts to protect property rights. Like Governor George Wallace once said, “A man’s home is his castle.”

Message: Don’t mess with me, my family and my property. Land use planning and zoning are bad for property-owners and an infringement on property rights.

In fact, during the late 80’s and early 90’s, the Legislature dealt with “takings,” where the right wing argued that property-owners should be reimbursed if their fortunes were adversely affected by action of a governmental entity. Now that industry is butting against real property-owners whose lives and well-being, both financially and physically, are being drastically altered, they have changed their tune. Never mind those quarrelsome property-owners.

The rights of industrial interests and businesses apparently trump those of homeowners and small-fry property-owners.

In his nasally, snotty commentary on KUFM in May 2008, Cary Hegreberg, the director of the MCA, called the impacts of these industrial operations an “inconvenience." In reference to a gravel pit that was denied a permit by the Missoula County Commissioners, he said, “In this era of enlightened environmentalism, the state agency charged with protecting air quality and conserving natural resources is forcing a company to unnecessarily to burn an extra 12,000 gallons of diesel fuel so as to not inconvenience a few people who sent letters and attended hearings.”


[It must noted that the letterhead inadvertently contains the wrong year in the date on the MCA letter with a verbatim transcript of his remarks. It says "2009," perhaps an indication of things to come.]

http://www.montax.org/index.php?pr=comment_cary_nov


Cary and his legions don’t want “govmint” to meddle and 'regalte.' No, instead, modifying a slogan from an insurance company (another industry whose reputation has been sullied to the point most of us would rather put our faith in the word of a used car salesman), he says the industry can self-regulate, through something called a “Good Neighbor Policy.” We promise to be good. No, really. Trust us.

Sounds good on paper. "Gosh, honey, do you think for once industry will truly be compassionate and caring? And, take care of us?"

[If there is any doubt about the political leanings of the MCA, with several exceptions, in 2008, it sent the maximum campaign contribution of $160.00 to only Republican candidates for the legislature. Check with the Commissioner of Political Practices for a complete listing.]


In fairness, there are a few good industry operators who really do care about how their operations affect property-owners. They work hard to make the best of a bad situation.

But, just as fairly, there are far more who do not.

They routinely violate the terms and conditions of their permits. And, if adjacent property-owners complain about noise and dust and hours of operations (you get the idea), the DEQ has no staff to investigate in a timely and effective manner.

The DEQ cannot actually deny an open cut permit. It may require the applicant to rework the application until each deficiency is corrected. [Consequently, in a sick kind of way, the state employees, who are supposed to regulate the industry, become consultants to the industry.]

The DEQ Director, Richard Opper, is a nice man and competent administrator. In 2005, he inherited an underfunded agency in complete disarray. The Stephens, Racicot and Martz bunch had underfunded and turned it (and its predecessor agencies) into a rubber stamp for all sorts of permits (air; water; landfill; gravel; you name it) from industry applicants. In fact, the permit applicants were referred to as "customers." The Open Cut program was no exception.

Opper dutifully attended to the other squeaking wheels of the agency. He might have made it to the Open Cut had it not been for a booming construction economy and an insatiable demand for sand, gravel and aggregate. Old sites were playing out, forcing industry to start expanding existing "gravel pits" or opening new ones in what were once "remote" locations. Where homeowners had plunked down big bucks to have their slice of paradise, not knowing what lay beneath: Sand. Gravel Aggregate.

Suddenly, the industrial age in all of its glory arrived. In backyards, across the road or just down the road a piece. And, the back-up alarms began clanging a half-hour before sunrise every day. The dust and noise followed. "Honey. I just listed our property . . ."

Like a wave, it hit, starting in late 2006. First in Missoula. Then, in the Flathead. Lewis and Clark. And, more recently, Gallatin County, which is now the apparent epicenter. Because of a huge backlog of permits in Gallatin County, industry went to court, arguing the DEQ was in violation of the 60-day timetable ("streamlined" by industry to make a meaningful environmental review nearly impossible) spelled out in state law. And, it won. Over and over again.

The facts and findings of each case varied, but the courts generally ordered the DEQ to grant permits that had been reviewed by DEQ and found to be incomplete. In others, the court ordered that even permits that were in the initial stages of review to be granted without regard to the potential impact on public health and safety and the environment.

In Missoula, a proposed "gravel pit" just west of town near the historic Council Groves was opposed and stopped by a group of citizens. The proposal was so bad that even some industry groups quietly assisted in its demise. In another case, using emergency zoning, the county commission stopped a proposed "gravel pit" slated to be opened just north of Lolo. It is during the fight over this "gravel pit" that Hegreberg penned and uttered the missive cited above.

At about this time, legislators weighed in. The Legislative Audit Committee ordered a performance audit. To no one's surprise, the audit was an indictment. Among other findings, the audit disclosed the Open Cut program was in such disarray that, while the auditors felt there might be a need for additional staff, there were insufficient management systems in place to measure the workload to make the case.

Sensing a political advantage, in 2007, the industry convinced Ralph Heinert, a Republican from Libby, to introduce a bill (HB 557) that would have completely emasculated what little power county commissioners over where "gravel pits" are excavated and operated. The bill eked through the House with almost every Republican vote along the way, only to meet a timely and fortunate death in the Senate.

So, where does that leave us two months before the '09 session?

Stay tuned.

Oh, and don't worry. Paradise is still being paved, just not as fast. But, not because of regulation. It's the George Bush economy.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Mr. Schweitzer Goes to Washington

It seems unlikely, but, just what if Brian Schweitzer were to go to Washington, DC?

Stranger things have happened. Like Sarah Palin being picked to be #2.

The speculation is based on the long-known fact that Schweitzer will win with with around 62 percent of the vote and the increasing likelihood that Obama will win.

The dog days of October are upon us.

Schweitzer would probably not leave prior to the '09 session. After all, Obama is not sworn in until January 20, 2009. Between November 7 and January 20, Obama would most certainly name his top Cabinet posts before: State; Defense; Health and Human Services; Homeland Security. After the first of the year, it's anybody's guess.

Yes, like you, I have read the stories: Brian “ain’t gonna be nobody’s secretary.” But, there other positions called “director” and “commissioner.” If Schweitzer were to accept something other than cabinet level position, it would have to be something extraordinary. Ambassador? Brian Schweitzer? Nahhhhh.

OK. So, he misspoke and agrees to lower himself into “that cesspool” as he called Washington (DC) politics in his first year as Governor. It's interesting that Brian has not repeated that quote, evidently being sensitive to the Democratic Congressional majorities.

So, let's say Schweitzer is on the short lists for Agriculture, Energy and Interior.

Then what?

There would be loads of speculation, replete with fanfare and Brian Schweitzer in the middle. Can't you just hear the quotes and sound bites?


Two places outline the process of gubernatorial succession: The Montana Constitution and state law to implement the constitution.

The constitution actually does not say the lieutenant governor becomes governor when there is a vacancy.

Article VI, Section 2 says “ . . . the offices of governor and lieutenant governor are voted upon together in primary and general elections.”

Article VI deals with vacancies in (2) the office of lieutenant governor or (2) both the office of governor and office lieutenant governor simultaneously.

Article VI. Section 6. Vacancy in office. (1) If the office of lieutenant governor becomes vacant by his succession to the office of governor, or by his death, resignation, or disability as determined by law, the governor shall appoint a qualified person to serve in that office for the remainder of the term. If both the elected governor and the elected lieutenant governor become unable to serve in the office of governor, succession to the respective offices shall be as provided by law for the period until the next general election. Then, a governor and lieutenant governor shall be elected to fill the remainder of the original term.

Summary: If the office of lieutenant becomes vacant, the governor appoints the successor for the remainder of the term. If both offices are vacant simultaneously, state law kicks in.

Not just a good idea, it's the law.

2-16-511. Vacancy in office of governor and lieutenant governor. (1) If the offices of both the governor and the lieutenant governor become vacant, the president of the senate shall become governor and shall appoint a lieutenant governor. (2) If the president of the senate is unable to assume the office of governor, the speaker of the house shall become governor and a lieutenant governor shall be elected in accordance with the provision of 2-16-512.

While this is not going to happen in this eventuality, the law underscores the importance of the majority party in both the Senate and House if it ever were to occur. [Under a tragic series of events guys like Bob Keenan, Doug Mood and Scott Sales could have been governor. We can only shudder about whom they would have appointed as their #2.]


Scenarios

1. Schweitzer resigns; Bohlinger, a Republican, ascends; Bohlinger appoints his choice of lieutenant governor. [Are you kidding? Schweitzer is still in control, baby.]

2. Schweitzer resigns; Bohlinger, a Republican ascends and appoints his successor that is actually (but, unofficially) Schweitzer’s choice. ["]

3. Before Schweitzer resigns, Bohlinger, a Republican, ‘retires’ to spend more time with his bride; Schweitzer appoints his choice to succeed Bohlinger; after a cooling off period, Schweitzer resigns; the newly-appointed governor ascends and names his successor who is actually (but, not officially) Schweitzer’s choice. [" "!]

There are other variations, but you get the drift.

Regardless, Brian Schweitzer, the sly, coy one, doesn’t just ride off into the sunrise. [Riding east to DC and ‘into the sunset’ are not possible.] The only thing Schweitzer likes more than self-promotion is speculation that promotes Brian Schweitzer. Just as he has so far, he will play it for all it’s worth, even if he not a serious candidate.


So, then, who is #2 in a Bohlinger administration?

Which Way is the Wind Blowing? Really?

Montana is blessed with abundant natural resources. You name the resource, we’ve either still got it (or had it).

Timber. Copper. Silver. Gold. Coal. Wind.

The mindset of those who controlled Montana’s economy,either by size or force, was to take first and rarely answer questions later.

Not sure?

Just ask all of the American Indian nations, the First Montanans.

We’ve always been a colony for buyers elsewhere.

The Last Chancers hit a Mother Lode and the gold rush brought miners by the thousands. They dug, they placered, they built Helena, Virginia City and Nevada City. But, the real wealth left the state.

Our ancestors mined, smelted and refined copper in Montana. There were a lot of good jobs, but the real wealth left the state.

We cut down our forests, milled and processed the logs and sent them elsewhere. And, the real wealth left the state.

We’ve dug up coal and railed it to utilities for them to produce black electrons. We built electrical generation plants next to the coal and generated our own electrons and sent them elsewhere. And, with the coal and power, the real wealth left the state.

Some want to bring coal bed methane to the surface, extract the methane and pipe it to customers elsewhere. When that happens, the real wealth will leave the state.

Heck, for a time, we even mined vermiculite bagged it and sent it to places around the world. The tragedy is that we poisoned the entire community of Libby and killed innocent workers and their neighbors and most likely many of the end users. But, here too, the real wealth still left the state.

America’s and Canada’s industrial consumers need more electricity. We already send sixty percent of our power out of state. And, as loyal colonists, we will build thousands of wind generators, harness the wind and ship the power out of state to them. And, just as with the other developments, the real wealth will leave the state.

In most cases, Montana was left with the crumbs of wealth and our backyards full of the debris left behind by the agents of the wealthy. The pits, the stretches of rivers and ponds laden with toxic waste are now called “Superfund” sites. The good news? A little of that wealth that left us is coming back is coming back to us from the US Treasury (without interest) to help clean up the messes.

We should be happy. After all, the “restoration economy,” as it is called, provides jobs. Jobs necessitated to fix the mistakes of the past.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

Sure we want to develop and diversify our economy. But, on whose terms? And, for whose benefit?

Within the past decade, we embarked on developing a “new” resource, wind energy. Clean, renewable and abundant. Next to north Texas, Montana has some of the best wind resources in the country.

The Judith Gap wind farm is the centerpiece.

The region around Cut Bank is next.

Just where else depends.

This is complex stuff.

For as much wind as we have, there is one irrefutable fact: The wind does not blow all of the time everywhere in Montana, or elsewhere for that matter.

We are learning from Mother Nature (finally). If you build forty wind generators in the same wind shed, when the wind stops blowing, all forty generators stop (or slow down) at the same time.

Lesson: Perhaps we ought to create a distributive system and build the wind generators in groups of four or five in different, “good wind” areas. The challenge here is to get the power onto the grid and move it from the point of production to the point of consumption.

Now, not everyone is sold on this renewable energy “thing.” Detractors say, we told you wind power was going to be more expensive than hydro- and thermal-generated power. (They are armed with a bushel-basket of “concerns,” usually provide by the utility and coal mining lobbies.)

As for price, they’re correct. It is more expensive.

In order to keep the lights on the engines of industry humming, we have to go through a very expensive process to “firm” the power supply when the wind stops or slows down.

Firming, or ancillary, power it’s called. Nationwide, this power is derived from both renewable sources (hydropower) and, in more cases, non-renewable (coal-fired; natural gas fired generators).

In Montana, the principal supply of firming power comes from hydropower sources (dams) in Idaho. Because of the variability of winds conditions, our utilities, most notably Northwestern Energy) buys the power with a contract with Idaho Power for prices you would pay on the open, spot market versus lower-cost, long-term prices.

The point is that ancillary power is expensive.

Despite the fact that Montana has thermal-plants (Colstrip) and dams (Missouri and Clark Fork Rivers), we have import expensive power, from Idaho? Yes. Remember Pennsylvania Power and Light (PPL – Montana)? (Yes, and here, too, the real wealth leaves the state.) It owns most of the power-generating facilities. Northwestern Energy can actually get a better “deal” from Idaho Power.

Many Montanans want more energy from renewable sources and say they will pay more for it. How much more is a matter of great political conjecture.

In 2005, the Montana Legislature passed legislation mandating that certain threshold percentages of Montana’s energy ‘portfolio’ come from renewable sources by specified years. The requirements of the law are not nearly as important as the insufficient legislative concern over climate change. Had it known then what it knows now, the bills likely would have been amended:

1. to speed up the timetable and specify higher percentages of energy to be derived from renewable sources in order to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and reduce the consumption of finite fossil fuels; or

2. to lengthen the timetable and substantially lower the percentages, arguing the costs of meeting the targets are too high and may put Montana’s economy at a competitive disadvantage.

[The debate over climate change and our renewable resources future hopefully will result in a debate and agreement about an energy policy for Montana.]

In the meantime, once it is constructed, we will send electricity, initially from black [coal fired] and, then, supposedly, increasingly from green electrons [wind farms], to power the massive coal shale and coal tar plants in northern Alberta via the Montana Alberta Tie Line. Known as the MATL Line (line is redundant), it is Governor Schweitzer's baby. His clean and green legislation, enacted in 2007, lowered property taxes (depriving school districts of much-needed tax revenues) sufficiently to make it feasible. It is a tax giveaway, pure and simple.

Rube Goldberg would be proud.

We generate part of the electricity for Montanans from wind farms (clean) that is firmed by uber-expensive electricity hydropower (clean) from Idaho, so we can send some wind energy (clean) to Alberta, so it can convert (carbon dioxide galore) various forms of coal into oil and fuels which can be converted (more carbon dioxide) into energy and contribute to global warming?

And for what? For higher electricity bills, a few jobs and a despoiled panorama.

Who benefits?

And where does the real wealth go, again?

Unless we actually develop an energy policy in this country, perhaps it doesn't matter.

Too many may not care which way the wind is blowing. They will feel comforted by the fact the wind is blowing at all.

Sunday, October 26, 2008

I Can (Not) See for Miles and Miles

Roy Brown and, to a lesser apparent extent, our Governor want to develop the Otter Creek tracts located in southeastern Montana just east of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation. These huge coal-rich deposits were acquired by the State of Montana in exchange for agreeing not to tear the top off a gold-laden mountain just outside of Yellowstone National Park. The state took these tracts, seventeen in all, instead of $10.0 million in cash.

Sorting fact from fiction

"When the Otter Creek tracts were first accepted by the Racicot administration, Jim Mockler, the long-standing executive director of the Montana Coal Council, told the Land Board that "the state should have taken the money." Mockler then went on to add that the federal coal had "been there forever" and "if it was economical to develop it, it would have already been developed."
Undeterred by advice they didn't want to hear from the state's most pro-development representative of the coal industry, both the Racicot administration and that of his successor, Judy Martz, forged ahead in their attempts to develop Otter Creek. The 2003 legislature even went so far as to appropriate and spend $300,000 of public money to perform initial studies on the tracts.
Faced with the prospect of massive coal development on its border, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe sued the state and eventually reached an agreement (see Focus on Montana State Lands, Summer 2002 and May 2005) in which cultural, social, environmental, educational, and hiring issues were addressed. In the meantime, ranchers were fighting the proposed Miles City to Otter Creek Tongue River Railroad to prevent it from transecting their ranches.
And then politics reared its ugly head when Secretary of State Brad Johnson, the lone Republican on the Land Board, called Governor Schweitzer's plans to build a coal-to-liquids plant a "pipe dream" at the Republican state convention in 2006 and chided him for failing to push development of the Otter Creek tracts.
Schweitzer struck back hard three days later at the June Land Board meeting with an hour-long presentation which had not been on the agenda, detailing the administration's efforts to develop Montana's coal resources and peppering Johnson with questions about what he thought the state should be doing.
At the July 2006 Land Board meeting, DNRC made another presentation of the administration's coal development efforts, this time with special emphasis on the Otter Creek Tracts. Significantly, Chuck Kerr, the president of Great Northern Properties (GNP), which owns the private land checker boarded with the state land in the Otter Creek Tracts, gave a long presentation and cautioned the Land Board against rushing into leasing the coal properties until necessary infrastructure was in place. Although he called the estimated 1.2 billion tons of Otter Creek coal "a wonderful resource," Kerr said because of its high sodium content it was not suitable for use in today's thermal generation plants -- but would be suitable for coal gasification or coal-to-liquids. Kerr estimated the current high-sodium coal market at only 20 million tons per year compared to the 400 million tons per year mined for coal burning plants. Likewise, until a railroad, transmission lines, and/or pipelines were built to the tracts, Kerr felt that both the state and GNP would receive far less than the coal was actually worth and perhaps even face the prospect of the leases being purchased by Wyoming coal producers who would simply sit on them to eliminate any competition from Montana coal. Kerr estimated the time frame for getting the necessary infrastructure in place would probably be 6- 8 years and take $600-700 million.
In a surprising bit of news, state representative Jim Keane (D-Butte), gave a presentation and told the Land Board discussions were underway to build a much shorter rail line that would access the tracts from the south. As a union representative of the Operating Engineers, Keane said they have always opposed the Tongue River Railroad and still do because all it would accomplish would be allowing Wyoming coal to be shipped up to the northern tier — which Keane said would cost Montana 200 coal miner jobs in the first year alone. Keane estimated a 41-mile railroad could be built for $73.5 million to move the Otter Creek coal down to the existing Decker-area mines and generators where it could access Midwest markets, be blended with other coal, or used for gasification or liquefaction.
In the end, it was clear that not much is likely to happen with the Otter Creek coal tracts in the near future. As GNP’s president Chuck Kerr noted when he testified before the Board: “Otter Creek is obviously a remote area...a geopolitically sensitive area...an extremely rugged area...a pristine area” – which are all good reasons for conservationists to be happy that development of this low-grade coal is not imminent."


http://www.mtvoters.org/land_board_article/article/2006/otter_creek_coal_not_ready_to_be_developed



One name is synonymous with Otter Creek coal: Mark Gustafson, President of Wesco Resources in Billings, a tireless promoter whose picture likely appears next to the definition of ‘perseverance’ in some dictionaries. He has championed the cause for decades.

He has made a little headway with the State Land Board, comprised of the Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Auditor and Superintendent of Public Instruction. The Board holds the power to determine when and how the tracts will be offered for lease and developed.

With one exception, the Democrats on the Board have been generally more circumspect and cautious about proceeding. Linda McCulloch is the exception. For what it is worth, here is the rationale (admittedly dated).

http://www.opi.state.mt.us/Supt/NewsStories/024D670427.nclk

With Carl Venne, leading the way, the Crow Nation is ready to make-a-deal-at-any-cost for coal development, be it mining or mine mouth electrical generation. Their hated neighbors, the Northern Cheyenne, are another matter. It is more concerned about weighing the long-term impacts v. benefits of coal development. The Council has made it clear that it will demand job training and job opportunities for Northern Cheyenne tribal members, protection of Cheyenne cultural sites and resources, offering contract opportunities for Indian-owned businesses, and a strict environmental monitoring program.

As a central player in the Otter Creek tracts, the Northern Cheyenne will similarly demand any coal-burning plants meet pristine air quality standards (carbon dioxide and mercury). It, along with ranchers in this arid setting, remains concerned about the likely adverse impacts of extensive strip mining on the aquifers that traverse the coal seams.

It will be fascinating to see whether, in the face of increased political and economic pressure to develop Otter Creek, the Land Board and the Northern Cheyenne buckle. Elect Tim Fox and Duane Grimes and that baby is a done deal.

Chicken or Egg? Or, just plain Boondoggle?

Coal mining and industrial interest are also chomping at the bit to construct the Tongue River Railroad from just north of the Wyoming border through the Tongue River Valley to Miles City. Earlier this summer, the United States Surface Transportation Board issued a permit for the right-of-way for the railroad.

In 2005, the estimated to cost was $200.0 million. You could probably ‘super-size’ the cost at $400.0 million and still be short. At the time, coal barons made it clear that the railroad was viable only if coal mine capable of producing 12 million tons of coal annually in the Otter Creek tracts was permitted. Bear in mind that privately-owned tracts are interspersed with those owned by the state. In 2005 dollars, the cost of developing the mine of that capacity: $80.0 million. With fries.

The pitch is for the state to cowboy up with mining and industrial corporations to produce coal from Otter Creek at rock-bottom prices. The coal is sold with a higher margin to provide capital (read: “subsidy”) to build and operate the railroad. Sounds simple: Build a railroad and haul the Otter Creek coal to market.

There is only one problem: When (or if) the Tongue River Railroad is built, it will cut 320 miles off the route for Wyoming coal to markets in the Midwest. Wyoming coal is of a higher quality than Treasure State coal and less costly to mine (less over-burden and thicker coal seams), making it both more attractive and more cost competitive. Estimates in 2005 were that between 12-16 million tons a year of Wyoming coal would find its way to market over this line.

Do you want to bet on it?

By in any way subsidizing the construction of the Tongue River Railroad, Montana would be (1) subsidizing Wyoming coal and (2) compounding the competitive disadvantage it now faces. Reduced miles to market for Wyoming coal means lower transportation costs.

Gustafson says we need the railroad to make the Otter Creek viable. Build the railroad while we develop the mine. Once construction is completed, a torrent of Wyoming coal floods the Midwestern markets, Montana coal continues at a trickle. Oh, and in the process, Montana coal miners lose their jobs.

And, who is the real beneficiary? Same as always: The robber barons in the suits.

The question is whether we want to turn the Tongue River Valley upside down and convert it into an industrial corridor. If you haven’t ever done so, you should drive out and visit Birney. Cast a fly in the Tongue. Talk to weather- and saddle-worn ranchers who descend from homesteaders. Their choked-up tears and sad tales about the land, livestock, wildlife and an increasingly threatened way of life are real.

There are other options than laying a pristine ranching and farming area to waste.

And, for what?

To fuel coal-fired electrical production across the eastern two-thirds of the United States. While their plumes are visible from space, the CO 2 emissions, measured in millions of tons annually, are not. Hell. We can’t even see them here on earth.

What we can see is the thousand-fold effects from a warming climate and burgeoning corporate bottom lines.

With Jake Out, Who's Minding the Store?

Slow day.

So slow, I visited the Montana Republican Party website.

http://staging.gop.com/MTGOP

By the looks of it, there’s not much going on with the Grand Old Party.

Under the Events Calendar,” the next event is Mineral County Lincoln Reagan Day Dinner, on May 1, 2009. Better get in line now for tickets - - - only 6 months away.

The last GOP News posts are July 21, 2008. The staff, you see, was busy cross-checking Big Brown’s change-of-delivery addresses with the voter registrations in Missoula, Hill and Glacier Counties and then conjuring up challenges to some 3,000 Montanans right to vote.

That didn't work out too well. Ask Jake Eaton.

Now, when a fine young lad who has served the R's so well resigns, you'd expect a "Thanks for the Memories, Jake" post, right? [You don't suppose 'dem buggers had a secret, surprise going-away dinner for him and didn't tell us, do you?] Family secrets.

A fellow named Larry Grinde replaced Jake. No "Welcome aboard, Larry," story.

Larry is not new to Montana politics. He served 14 years in the Legislature and, according to a recent AP story “helped run Mike Taylor's unsuccessful U.S. Senate campaign in 2002 and Pat Davison's unsuccessful primary race for governor in 2004. Two years later, Grinde supervised the Montana Republican Party's get-out-the-the-vote operation."

Evidently, in 2006, the GOP actually wanted people to vote. Oh, that’s right, it only pestered Republicans to vote.

In 2008, it tried to obstruct the right of 3,000+ Montanans to vote.

So, what do they have in store for 2010? Larry has presided over "unsuccessful" political ventures in the past. Montanans can only hope his string of luck continues.


Speaking of Pat Davison, the man who would be (or, more correctly, could have been) governor, he’s doing time in a white-collar federal penitentiary in Oregon.

“A former Montana gubernatorial candidate and investment adviser was sentenced Friday to 10 years in federal prison for orchestrating a Ponzi scheme authorities say bilked investors out of $6.8 million.

Patrick Davison, 50, also was ordered to pay $5.6 million in restitution to victims including family members, friends and former colleagues. He pleaded guilty in November [2006]to two counts of securities fraud.”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-13-865317168_x.htm


The judge threw the book at Pat all right. He was ordered to pay back $5.6 million of the $6.8 million he bilked. Question for Bill Mercer, the US attorney [with his own problems] who prosecuted the case: What about the other $1.2 million?

As the story says, Larry Grinde ran Davison’s campaign and may have taught Pat a thing or two about big-money penalties.

In an earlier career, you see, Larry was a rancher in central Montana, with a ranch just north and a tad bit to the east of Lewistown (Hilger, Montana, actually). After logging a portion of the estate (I’m sure he followed forestry practices what was later made famous by the "Healthy Forests" doctrine - - - "Don't worry. We're just thinning."), the Grinde family set a fire to piles of slash and walked away. Seems the fire got away, burned across the Grinde place and got onto BLM land and kept going, burning other private, as well as public, land until extinguished. The price tag for fighting the fire ran into the millions. Larry, of course, said it wasn’t his fault and the matter went to court. (And, here I thought Republicans were all about personal responsibility.)

So, Larry, did you pay us back in full? Or, did you, too, receive a deep discount?


But, I digress. Back to the GOP website.


No mention of John McCain and Sarah Palin anywhere, even under Candidates.


MT GOP Blog. Won't open.

Multimedia. Governor Huckabee was in Billings That was back in July or August, right? [As the header says, "Visit this page regularly . . ."]

Register to Vote. This is my favorite page. Now that the deadline to register to vote has passed, perhaps 3,000+ new wanna be Republicans can register to offset the 3,000+ voters whose right to vote was upheld in federal court.

Volunteer. For what? " . . . to be a part of the largest grassroots army Montana has ever seen." [Memo to Larry: There's this guy named Obama running for President and he has hundreds of organizers in . . . .]

Donate. To help burn down Schweitzer in something called Schweitzer Gate. Nice bit on candidate Grimes. The website promotes the fact that Duane holds a "theology" degree from Bob Jones University, whose founder once said, "God is the author of [racial] segregation . . . and, that if you are against it, "then you are against God Almighty." [4/17/60 radio address, Is Segregation Scriptural?]

A few more news clips. Larry, you're posting them in the wrong place! See GOP News above. Didn't Jake leave you the memo?

For those of you in the Garden City, don't miss Steve Dagiokos at the Pachyderm Club on November 7. Steve, in case you don't know, is a mostly no-show R candidate for the Legislature in the University area. Can't wait to hear from friends in Missoula what he has to say.

Photo Gallery. Lot's of white folks a dinin' and a carryin' on with good ol' Conrad.

Contact Us. 'nuff said.

A Sunday morning reflection

We have so much to treasure here in Montana, This House of Sky.

" . . . a sky so big you feel like you will fall into it."

If you breathe and dream and haven't 'seen' it, somewhere in the recesses of your mind lies an image of what this grand place is.

For those unwilling or unable to leave the pavement, the best vistas in Montana:

Glacier Park from any angle. Thank God in the early 1900's, there were voices loud enough to preserve the "Crown of the Continent."

The Rocky Mountain Front. Spectacular contrasts, an immaculate uncluttered viewshed. Spared from drilling, now threatened by the construction of hundreds of wind generators.

The Mission Mountain Range. Magnificent reminder of the power of nature. Sheer spleandor.

The Big Hole Valley. Perfectly-formed bowl. A well-kept secret of a gem, carefully tucked into a green velvet purse. Best known as an historic refuge.

Charlie Russell County and Square Butte, particularly at sunset during fall harvest. Is this Heaven?

The Missouri Breaks on a crisp spring morning.

What are yours?

And, what will you do protect them?

Friday, October 24, 2008

Energy: The Last Frontier

It’s official. The Montana GOP energy plan is out. It’s a lot like the one favored by some Democrats - - - they just haven’t gotten around to calling it a plan.

It’s called: Dig it! Drill it!

DiDi?

It was good enough for Alan Olson, an R running for the Public Service Commission, to earn the labor [AFL-CIO] endorsement last June.

They say DiDi is all about energy independence and jobs. Not going to cow-tow to a bunch of 'olive-skinned' Middle Easterners. What did our Governor once call them? Raghead dictators?

While the R’s complain about the permitting process and environmental regulations, the truth is that state every law and review process has been written to the complete satisfaction of industry. Oh, wait, there is one they want: Anyone who challenges the sufficiency of an administrative (regulatory) proceeding or initiates a court challenge against a ‘project’ or permit for any reason, must post a bond. A really, really big one. That one hasn't passed just yet - - - something about due process and impeding one's right to access the courts.

Roy Brown says DiDi is about funding for education. Mining companies pay taxes on the coal they produce and there's a lot out there. In fact, Montana sits atop the largest coal reserves in the western hemisphere. Sometimes, outsiders even call Montana the ‘Saudi Arabia of Coal.’ I’d just as soon go without that handle, thank you.

What DiDi is really all about is lunacy.

We all know oil and even coal are going to run out one day. They are finite fossil fuels. Our rate of consumption is growing exponentially and no new coal and oil have been produced, not in our lifetimes anyway. What happens when it all runs out?

And, the there is the little problem called global warming. Some dare refer to it as ‘climate change.’

Yes, science is not 100 percent convinced that we have climate change. As Thomas Friedman, the Pulitzer winning, free-marketeer, puts it, only 98 percent of the scientific community agrees that the planet is warming and the increase in temperature is caused by the human production of carbon dioxide.

Let’s say our worldwide atmosphere is your child. Your child has symptoms of a serious illness. So, you go to your family doctor. The diagnosis is the child will die without treating and changing how some systems are functioning.

You love your child and you want to be absolutely certain the recommended treatment is correct. So, you seek a second opinion, and a third, and a fourth and so on until you’ve seen 100 doctors.

Two of them say nothing’s wrong. Just wait and see.

Who do you believe? What do you do?


The cruel truth is that Coal is King. Economies worldwide are built around it because it is abundant, cheap and, although cursed as dirty and unhealthy [black lung and mercury poisoning], thought acceptably benign. It will enjoy a long rule even if we agreed today to phase its consumption down to zero as quickly as politically, economically and all of the other "-icallys" you can list, possible.

So, we continue to mine it and burn it and make electricity in Montana.

Or, we mine it, rail it to buyers elsewhere who burn it and make electricity. The quality of Montana coal [and its distance from markets and the higher transportation costs that result], not out taxes, make it less attractive to buyers than coal from, say, Wyoming.

But, wait a minute. What about 'real' energy independence? After all, we need fuels to run our trains, planes and automobiles.

That’s the coal to liquids caper.

You build a plant and liquefy coal. There aren’t many in operation. Try South Africa. The so-called Fischer-Tropsch was perfected by the Master Race in Nazi Germany. Using the Fischer-Tropsch method, one ton of coal produces 1.5 barrels of diesel fuel. If you are keeping score, a barrel is 42 gallons.

Or, we could turn coal into a gas.

The first thing to note about these processes: They cost zillions of dollars. When the economy was booming, the real question [although not posed this way] was, who is going to the first one dumb enough to build one outside of Africa?

Second thing to note about these processes: They consume massive amounts of water. Years of drought conditions [maybe, just maybe brought on by a warming of the climate] and little precipitation mean the rivers barely run through coal country these days. What little there is belongs to senior water rights holders, ranchers, farmers, municipalities and reserved in-stream flows. Perhaps, instead of going meatless, the humans can go waterless. The fish and wildlife? Gosh, let's see . . .

Third thing to note: They produce massive amounts of carbon dioxide. Sell it, we're told. Yes, pipe it to compressor stations where it pressurized then forced underground to squeeze crude oil out of once-thought-to-be-depleted oil fields. [And, when the oil is depleted completely, what happens to the CO 2?] Better yet, how about storing ( aka: sequestering) the carbon dioxide underground, a new, but completely untested idea? If I recall correctly, for hundreds of years, didn’t we think the best way to rid ourselves of certain industrial waste by-products was to flush them down a river or heat them up and expel them into the air? That didn’t work out so well.

Fourth thing to note: They consume massive amounts of electricity. Through a whirling dervish of activity, these plants can be trained to sit up and co-generate electricity - - - the process itself consumes roughly 40 percent of the electricity produced. The investors can only hope the cost of the remaining, unused power can be produced at a cost that makes it competitive enough to be sold profitably on the open market.

Earlier this year, the Governor nuzzled up to investors from Australia who, pretty much without any state involvement, concluded an agreement with the Crow Nation to build one of these plants. Although, come to think of it, the media didn’t mention Fischer-Tropsch. [The Aussies do have their own problems with genocide of the Aborigines.]

When the topsy-turvy financial markets and an inadequate supply of water doom the project, the Governor can fade away. Roy, you ask? I don’t know - - - has he actually said he supports these damned things? [Tragically, once again, the White Man’s words will pierce impoverished hearts, souls and stomachs in Indian Country.]

When you enter the frontier, you had better have a real plan. Otherwise you might just be stuck with DiDi: damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Hardly a way to survive.

Hardly a legacy to leave our ancestors.

Mayoral Elections: Wasilla-style

Word has it that campaigns for the Office of Mayor in Wasilla are hotly-contested.

Sarah was elected in the first round of Paper, Rock, Scissors.

Because someone demanded a recount, it's now best two out of three.

The Business of Government is Business

"The Business of governmentis business."

The quote is attributed to Calvin Coolidge, often rated the worst President ever.

OK. Some rank Harding the worst. Others list Hoover. No matter. Shortly, after the next Presidential inauguration, GW will assume the ranking of the rankest. [Oh my! They're all Republicans.]

Both Coolidge and Bu$h exhibited unbridled confidence in the ability of businesses to produce wealth, if only unshackled by government. Calvin set the stage for the Crash of '29 - - - George set the stage, produced, directed and presided over our current economic disaster.

Is bigger really better?

When it comes to Montana, corporations, big ones, have dominated since statehood.

No question that the Copper kings and Anaconda Company literally ruled the Treasure State until the 1960’s.

In the 60’s after it sold its ownership share in the daily newspapers and an environmental movement was in its infancy, the "Company" receded as the Bad Guy with the Black Hat and was replaced by a mix of bad apples: Montana Power, the Burlington Northern, and bad actors in the resource extraction industry, with Pegasus head and shoulders above the rest. The insurance companies were more tactful, but they got their share without the accompanying share of notoriety.

Each one either fought its way to the front or strategically awaited its turn at the trough in Helena for just the right time to gobble down its share of policy handouts. The gobbling took place when the R’s were in control, which was periodically until the mid 90’s, when they then ran the table with two house legislative majorities and the Governor’s office from 1995 to 2005. During that time it went something like this: Tax breaks? OK. How much? Reduced water quality standards? Write the bill and we’ll get it through. De-regulate electricity? OK, whatever that is. Keep the explanation simple and we’ll jam it through.

A few Montana-based, but mostly large multi-state and multi-national corporations left the Capitol Building their pockets full, their way clear to pollute and despoil. Oh, there were promises. Lots of them. They promised Montana’s economy would roar with abundance and new jobs would spring up under the glow of an unfettered free market system. New taxpayers with high-paying jobs and newly-arrived companies paying reduced rates on everything would flood the state treasury with tax payments. Property taxes would go down schools, would have enough money and, and , and blah, blah, blah.

In case you missed it, the plan, whatever it was supposed to be, didn’t work.

Yes, some Democrats participated in the dirty work, but make no mistake about it: They were all Republican initiatives that enjoyed near-universal Republican support on each vote.

But, then again, you can’t have missed it. Montana’s economy languished as it had prior to the tax and policy give-aways under Governor Racicot and Republican legislatures. The leaders of the R Pack were John Mercer, Larry Grinde, Doug Mood, John Harp, Bruce Crippen, Debbie Shea and Fred Thomas. [Fred had a way of actually sponsoring the worst policy initiatives in Montana history, most notably de-regulation and term limits.] Market-based power costs resulting from de-regulation leaves Montana with of the highest electricity rates in the West. Between 1995 and 2003, property taxes on homeowners and small businesses skyrocketed. University system tuition doubled for in-state students during the same period. [Out-of-state tuition? Out-of-sight increases!]

We, like every other state, chased smokestacks with their promises of jobs and money. We even promised to lower taxes on them if they would only plunk down the slightest morsel of their industrial largesse. The owners of those firms took their smokestacks to other locales where they said they got a “better deal,” meaning free land, no unions and no taxes. [Not surprisingly, when a better deal came along, the pulled up stakes and took their smoke elsewhere.]

In the late 90’s, an article in the New York Times called Montana “one of the poorest states in the country.” Even Appalachia had passed us by.

Well, golly. Gee whiz, the industry apologists exclaimed. “We don’t need to tear the scab off the sore by examining why it didn’t work, do we? We just need to reduce taxes on businesses even more.”

“We need to look to the future. And, be positive.”

That’s what the voters did. In 2004, it sent the woeful Martz bunch packing and elected Brian Schweitzer, the first Democrat elected since 1984, elected a Democratic majority in the Senate and sent an even number of R’s and D’s to the House.

With the Martz exit, the vestiges of her, Racicot’s and Stephens’ [Stan was Governor from 1989 through 1993.]misguided ideologies about businesses wafted away like the stench and haze their policies produced.

Since, then, the focus hasn’t shifted from the importance that businesses play in Montana’s economy. It simply concentrates the focus on the fact that small businesses are the backbone of Montana’s economy, constituting between 85 to 90 percent of its business base. Discussions of tax policy, including the business equipment tax, factored in their interests as well.

Schumacher said it best: Small really is better and, yes, beautiful.

Democrats never fare well with voting records put assembled by either the state of local chambers of commerce. The R’s do.

No matter. Make up you own mind. When you look at these and other voting records, take a careful look at the detail of each of the supposed “good” bills. Most would have us turn back the clock to the roaring 1990’s.

Fortunately, the D’s and some moderate R’s held the line.

If they hadn’t, we’d be right back to the Roaring Twenties with Calvin Coolidge calling for more favors for business. The big 'uns.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

What if They Had a Cattle Show and a Candidate Forum Broke Out?

I just attended another “candidate forum.” Lots of them right now. More often than not, the candidates outnumber the spectators or guests.

If you haven’t, you should go to one. Or more.

Too many questions and too little time.

The questions are loaded - - - in most cases, there is a “right” answer and a “wrong” answer.

This is strictly the case for candidate forums sponsored by human services and aging and disabilities advocacy groups.

Most candidates show up. It’s always interesting to speculate why some R's do not. Are they sick? Stuck in traffic? Forgetful? Not supportive of the sponsoring group and its goals?

In an way, I admire those who choose not to show up because they do not support the group, its mission and its members. Without a note from home with an excuse, their silence says it all.
Perhaps this displays remarkable integrity.

In another way, their absence appalls me - - - it underscores an utter disregard for trying to understand the challenges and misery that significant numbers of our less-fortunate neighbors must face.

Regardless, the experienced Republicans who do show up are often "for" everything. “Yes, sir, I’ll vote to support funding everything you want” is usually the attitude. This is especially true of candidates that have run previously and lost. ["Ill say anything to get elected."]

A careful examination of the R’s posture while awaiting a turn at the microphone reveals something I call the “GOP squirm.” While stretching or wiggling, they glance blankly at the spectators, as if to say, "Please don't lead me off to slaughter." You can panic in their eyes - - - instinctively they abhor government. The question is: “How do I make my answer sound like ‘yes,’ when deep down inside I know the answer is ‘no’? You know they want to blurt out and say, "We're mad as hell and we're not taking it any more!"

In this regard, first-time GOP candidates are the most fun to watch, particularly the ideologues. They simply don’t know any better and answer without regard to consequences. At times the answer doesn't fit the question. No matter. They answer like somehow the managed to scale down from the Mount with tablets containing the written word.

Like we haven’t heard it all before.

First-timers and perennial unsuccessful candidates don’t shy aware from declaring that they want to chop the budget, lower taxes and unshackle businesses from the burden of regulation.

Unfortunately, in increasing numbers these ideologues actually win. Fortunately, in more cases, they do not.

And, for those R’s who want to sound like ‘yes’, they haven’t the slightest idea what they’re talking about or committing to support. Admittedly, only a fraction, perhaps as few as 10, of the 150 members of the Legislature actually understand the appropriations process, let alone the content of the primary appropriations bill.

In many cases, this not only true of the newbies. Incumbent R’s with lousy voting records on human services issues oftentimes say ‘yes’ and then provide the qualifiers in a condescending manner. “We never have enough money." "You have no idea how tough it is." "Walk a mile in my shoes.” Their electoral success resides in their ability to avoid sounding like a Republican.

At times, R candidates (new ones and incumbents alike) with less panache, articulate the correct “yes” answer and, then, hand out their campaign literature which is rife with statements to lower taxes [usually called “tax relief”], ax government spending [“bloated bureaucracy”] and encourage families to take care of their own ["reduce the role of/ interference of government in our lives"].

Incumbent R’s know all too well that the Republican caucuses takes dim view of spending, particularly on “social programs.” Betraying their spoken words, deep down inside these R’s know they will buckle under the pressure from the caucus to cut “fat” from the budget, cuts that always disproportionately fall onto the human services budget.

Those who heard the promises in candidate forums are long gone and the words forgotten.

But, for those who do remember, this is how politics gets its bad name.


Montana, like the rest of the United States, does not have a health care system. What we have is a mess. With 140,000 fellow Montanans roaming about without any type of health insurance, we have a disaster. And, it is getting worse every day, literally.

Unlike wine, health care does does improve with age.

The market place alone won’t fix the mess.

The profile of the Montana population is one that is rapidly growing older, sicker and disabled.

This is compounded by a shrinking population of younger workers in the prime of their lives to work and pay taxes to support services for the older, sicker and disabled..

The primary source of funding for health care is our Uncle. You know, the one in DC.

Federal payments, like Medicaid, Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP), foster care and child care, are on the decline in an absolute sense [after all, funding those wars put pressure on domestic spending] or the state most pony up more state money to secure federal funds. In other words, for every federal dollar, the state must provide a specified match in state monies.

The feds have complex formulas to determine how much each state may receive. Depending on how you look at it, the competition for funds is a race to the bottom.

Medicaid payments to states for health care are made on the basis of how poor [or wealthy] State A is compared to its 49 counterparts based on per capita income. The weaker a state’s per capita income is compared to the other states, the larger the payment and the lower the matching rate. So, for states like Montana whose economic performance have improved in recent years, we stand to lose federal money because the economic fortunes of other states have declined at the same time. This means, we may have to spend more state dollars to receive the same number of federal bucks.

The best line of new GOP candidates is the one about not accepting “a single dime from the federal government.” Without federal money, Montana would have no meaningful health care of any kind, especially in rural areas. We literally could not afford to take care of our own.

The wars, coupled with an improvement in our economy in a comparative sense, means we will receive millions of fewer “dimes” for health care.

So, the question is? Will the Republicans have the political fortitude during the 2009 legislative session to support backfilling the lost federal monies with state tax dollars?

My advice is to vote for the D.

After all, it’s better to be safe than sorry.

Just ask the Republican candidates who don’t show up at the cattle show.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

2008 Election: Education

If the election were held today . . .

You’re correct - - - the election is still two weeks away.

But, when the dust settles and the votes are counted, legislative power is divvied up in Helena.

The party with the majority of the seats controls the legislative process and the agenda.

And, good or bad, power is usually follows seniority.

Take the names of the following members and plug them into the various leadership positions and key committee chairmanships [Appropriations; Taxation; Judiciary; Natural Resources].


In the Senate, if the R’s win 26 seats, here are the projected prime-time players on the GOP team:

Bob Story; Greg Barkus; Dan McGee; Jim Peterson; Keith Bales; Joe Balyeat; Gary Perry; Roy Brown (although I need to caution the reader that Roy might not be a member if he takes out Schweitzer); Roy Brown (OK. He’s back).

Scouting report: All are middle-aged or older males; most are angry about something. Believe in no regulation, free market solutions and tax cuts for the landed aristocracy and out of state corporations.

No women. No one under the age of fifty.

Word has it that the leadership will give neither Dave Lewis nor Rick Laibel much rein - - - too moderate. Informally, John Brueggeman has holds the Sam Kitzenberg rubber chicken memorial award for his comments about the GOP’s voter suppression caper.

Pretty grim.



The Senate D team with at least 26 seats:

Carol Williams; Mike Cooney; Jesse Laslovich; Kim Gillan, Trudi Schmidt; Bob Hawks; Lynda Moss; David Wanzenried.

Scouting report: Four women. The youngest member of the caucus [28] in the mix.



The House line-ups with at least 51 seats.

GOP: Scott Sales; Dennis Himmelberger; Scott Mendenhall; Janna Taylor, Tom McGillvray; Dave Kasten; Bob Lake; Ron Stoker; Ed Butcher;.

Scouting report: Unlike the Senate, this team has a woman. Like the Senate, talk about angry white men!

Free marketers.


Dems: Margie Campbell; Bob Bergren; Dave McAlpin; Dan Villa; Mike Jopek; Jon Sesso; Jill Cohenour; George Groesbeck; Franke Wilmer.

Scouting update: Loads of women, including an American Indian. And, the youngest current member in the Legislature [25] in the mix.


In the event of a tie . . . well, let’s not go there.

OK, so, when it comes to funding for public education, who do you want to chair the Appropriations Committee? Or, which team includes members who actually believe in public education in the first place?

And, when it comes to funding for the University System, which team would most likely provide the level of funding needed to avoid large tuition increases?

Speaking of funding for the U-System, for the record, GOP team members Senator Joe Balyeat and House Speaker Scott Sales penned the arguments in opposition to the statewide 6-mill levy [LR 118], which has been authorized and re-authorized every ten years by the voters since 1948. One of their arguments is that by defeating the re-authorization of the mill levy, the voters will be sending the University System a message that it disagrees with the policy against students having firearms on campus.

http://sos.mt.gov/ELB/archives/2008/voters/2008_Voter_Information_Pamphlet.pdf. See page 10.

So, in other words, by denying the system $13.4 million a year, the plan evidently is to force the Board of Regents to change the policy and allow every student to pack heat.

Good idea?

[These and other equally bad arguments against the levy find a voice with the following groups: Treasure State Network, Montana Family Coalition, Republican Roughriders, American Dream Montana, Montana Values Coalition, Help Our Moral Environment, Montanans for Tax Reform, Montanans for Property Rights, Constitution Party of Montana, Montanans In Action, Republican Assemblies of Montana and the Montana Shooting Sports Association.

Guess which line-ups they prefer and are working hard to put into power?]

While this was all being sorted out, tuition would have to be increased to offset the $13.4 million loss.

Oh, and the next election to re-authorize the mill levy isn’t until 2018.

Of course, the University System could ask the 2009 Legislature [and each session thereafter] to backfill the lost proprty tax revenue. But, which team members in the Senate and House would you bet would be more sympathetic to the plight of students? And, in this case, which team members would scream the loudest that, if the Legislature acted to restore the funding from state sources, it would be violating the “will of the voters”?

The only good news in the midst of this lunacy would be that, as tuition goes up, perhaps gun-toting students would only be able to afford enough ammunition to load one clip.

You get the idea. The legislative process is about reconciling competing priorities and conflicting vlaues.

Monday, October 20, 2008

Which Way to Go?

I’ve been asked more than once: Why should I vote for a Democrat in 2008 for the Montana Legislature?

Given that the Legislature meets for less than four months every two years, the question deserves a full-fledged discussion. So, in response, I usually pose a series of questions.

How much would you be willing to pay to ensure that homeowners and small businesses ( v. multi-national corporations) are treated fairly when tax policy is being set? To see to it that the State of Montana pays its share for funding our Kindergarten through Grade 12 system of public education? To make strategic investments in our colleges of technology and University System? To seriously confront the real costs of more than 145,000 Montanans without health insurance to our state and the remainder of us who have the good fortune of having coverage? To diversify Montana’s energy portfolio by requiring an increasing portion to be derived from renewable resources? To effectively address the causes of climate change and to faithfully perform our responsibilities as stewards of the land?

Those who yearn for a progressive agenda usually say, “A lot.”

How about one hundred and sixty dollars? $160.00 for each closely contested race?

These days you'd have to live under a rock not to know what these races are.

In the next two weeks, that's what it may take. Last-minute responses to late hard-hitting, negative fliers are expensive. And, let's face it, negative, attack mail works [unforunately].

And, then, how about investing a day or two assisting with the get-out-the-vote efforts?

These days, the only way Montana will have progressive policies is to elect a majority of Democrats to the House (at least 51 needed) and the Senate (at least 26 needed).

In the 2005 and 2007 legislative sessions, Democrats managed to hold slim majorities in only the Senate. In each of those sessions, working with Governor Schweitzer, the Senate overcame the obstructive tactics of House Republicans to address and to move an agenda each of the issues included in the questions listed above. The antics of the GOP leadership beginning on the first day of the ’07 session and continuing the last day, complete with Mike Lange’s vulgar tirade, are well documented.

That behavior was mean spirited and destructive, not to Democrats. No, it was destructive to the voters who send legislators to Helena to conduct the public’s business and to safeguard Montana's present and future.

While holding huge legislative majorities in both houses from 1995 through 2003, as well as the Governor’s office, the GOP ran the state into the ground. The Racicot years were marked by a budgetary hocus pocus, under-funding schools, deregulating electricity, gutting water and air quality standards, and shifting huge property tax burdens onto homeowners by extending massive tax cuts to, which went directly to the bottom lines of out of state corporations with no tangible return to the state. Judy Martz stumbled through her four years, but still managed to oversee the effective demise of the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and the Major Facility Siting Act in 2001 and the introduction of massive inequities into Montana’s income tax system in 2003.

Industry got what it demanded and promised to deliver. Exactly what it was supposed to 'deliver' to Montana was clear. But, I am certain it was "a lot."

To the surprise of almost no one, none of it worked, at least not for Montanans trying hold down a decent job, to raise and family and educate their kids. The chicanery was exposed for what is was and Montana careened from one crisis to another.

While Governor Schweitzer and Democrats have made measurable progress, there is still a lot to do. They just need the opportunity. But, it takes legislators who go to Helena prepared to roll up their sleeves and find the common ground in setting policy that is so vital to Montana’s future.

Saying that we must elect Republicans to Helena to help balance things out only works if the GOP allows its members to stray from its hard core, extreme right-wing ideology, something that never occurred in the House during the 2007 session. In fact, in the 2006 election cycle, the GOP specifically targeted and defeated two moderates, Bernie Olson and Mark Noenig, who had the audacity to occasionally vote with Democrats. Ideological cleansing at its best (or worst).

A progressive agenda has begun to blossom.

The question now really is: Do we continue or turn back?

How much would you pay a lobbyist to persuade Republicans to be a part of moving Montana forward? And, if they continue their obstructionist ways, how much will each lost opportunity and setback cost us and future generations?

Let’s get it right starting now.

Questions about Democrats’ ability to manage the state’s finances have been answered. Despite Chicken Little proclamations that taxes would go up in 2005 and 2007, each session was characterized by a fiscal discipline that produced sustainable investments without an increase in taxes. That discipline and attention to the basics produced a surplus and, in 2007, each income taxpayer received a check for $400.00.

There is work to be done in the areas of the Montana economy and the creation of good-paying jobs with benefits, education, health care, and energy.

Each of these will be addressed in future postings. The frame of reference will be: The operations of the House and Senate will be controlled by individuals who are elected into leadership positions or appointed to chair committees. Of the two teams competing to control the process and the agenda in each house, which is better suited to move Montana forward?