So, Erik Iverson is coming home.
The news received precious little attention, even from those who for criticized Denny Rehberg for keeping him on as chief of staff while Erik served as chairman of the Montana GOP.
Perhaps it was the heavy media coverage of the Obama cabinet appointees. Perhaps it was the rush of holiday extravaganzas. Sales galore.
Rehberg's comments regarding Erik's departure were intriguing:
In the press release, Rehberg said, "I greatly appreciate all of Erik's hard work on my behalf and on behalf of our state. It's obvious those efforts have paid off. I wish him the best of luck in the future."
Exactly what Erik's "hard work" yielded to the state (v. himself) are not at all clear. Although Denny says "those efforts have paid off." Should we ask Denny to expalin how they paid off precisely? Perhaps the result is a nice sinecure for Erik.
Erik is back in Montana to work on unspecified projects for Tom Siebel, the zillionaire philanthropist, who has so generously bankrolled the effective Montana Meth Project.
Such a nice story.
Oh, and for those of you concerned about Erik's duties as chair of the GOP?
Not to worry.
He's staying on.
Thank God.
Erik is such an inspiring leader and spokesman for the GOP.
On his watch, the Democrats swept the statewide offices in 2008 for the first time in recent memory. Erik did make some headway in the Legislature: The House has 50 Republicans (v. 50 in 2007) and the Senate has 27 R's (v. 24 in 2007). You may recall that the R's vociferously objected to Sam Kitzenberg changing parties (from R to D) prior to the 2007 session; using the R logic, one could argue the R's had 25 seats in 2007, in which case, the GOP gained a net of exactly 2 seat in 2008.
The R's lost one seat on the 5-member Public Service Commission. {In January, four of the five seats are held by D's.]
Erik's boss (until recently) won another easy victory in November, this one against a dufus, maverick D, who won the D primary and promised not to campaign and, then, actually voted for Denny.
I'll cut Erik some slack on the Kelleher thing.
Fundraising? Through September of this year, the Democratic Party raised $3.4 million to the Iverson juggernaut, that is the Montana GOP, $1.6 million.
So Erik is the guy, either the candidate for Governor or the fellow pulling the strings for Mr. Siebel?
If his track record is any indicator of what lies ahead, this should be fun to watch unfold.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Monday, December 8, 2008
Up In Smoke
You may remember the movie. The opening scene with Strother Martin's monologue:
"When, boy when are you going to get your act together?
[Burp]
Gross.
Oh good God almighty me.
I think he’s the anti-Christ.
Anthony. I want to talk to you.
Now listen
Don’t walk away from me when I’m talking to you."
In 2009, Jerry Black, a state senator from Shelby, could well be Anthony. [OK. . . perhaps only in terms of the tight script cited above.]
Seems as though Jerry wants to set the Montana Clean Indoor Air Act on its head.
The public in Montana might be mumbling Martin's words before too much longer.
In 2005, the Legislature got its act togehter and banned smoking in public places starting on October 1 of that year. Because of the uproar from small mom and pop establishments, the ban on smoking in stand alone casinos and bars was delayed until October 1, 2009.
The moms and pops had nearly four and one-half years to prepare for the ban. But, now it seems, they don't want to ban smoking in their places at all. As many as 1,400of these places could be exempted from the ban if Black succeeds.
“I think I have to do this,” Darrell Keck, a steakhouse-lounge-casino owners from, you guessed it, Shelby, said. “I don’t really believe this is a smoking issue. It’s a property rights issue.”
There is the code for the wacko fringe: "property rights issue."
No. We sure wouldn't want to deprive owners of their property rights and patrons of their smoking rights.
Bans?!! We don’t need no stinkin’ bans. Burp.
Keck is quite quotable. The story continues:
Unless the law is changed, Keck predicted it will dramatically affect life in small towns, eliminate some bar and casino jobs, cut state tax revenues and deprive smokers of their rights.
“People don’t go into a bar for their health,” Keck said. “If that were the case, I guess they’d be serving booze at the health clubs.”
Black’s bill draft has fired up the same coalition of public health advocates who helped pass the clean indoor air act in 2005. It includes cancer, lung and heart association groups.
To think the Legislature could be so insensitive. The nerve. Our rural way of life is disappearing and all it wants to do is drive a stake into its heart?
Never mind non-smoking patrons and the employees.
Smoke! Smoke! (That Cigarette)
In a game of chance the other night
Old dame fortune was good and right
The kings and queens they kept on comin' around
Aw, I was hittin' em good and bettin' 'em high
But my bluff didn't work on a certain guy
He kept callin' and layin' his money down
See, he'd raise me then I'd raise him
and I'd say to him buddy ya gotta sink or swim
Finally called me but didn't raise the bet!
--Hmmph! I said Aces Full Pal -- I got you!
He said, "I'll pay up in a minute or two
But right now, i just gotta have another cigarette."
Don't worry. "Old dame fortune" will care for them.
The Montana Tavern Association, to its credit, opposes the effort to undo the good-faith compromise worked out in 2005. At least, Keck is willing to put his money where his mouth is. He has retained Jerry Driscoll and Dennis Iverson (Erik's father) to lobby on behalf of the bill. Price tag? $30,000. $30,000 for a bill that even Black says has little chance of passing. [I can hear Driscoll, a prolific smoker in his own right, laughing all the way to the bank.]
Numerous scientific studies have repeatedly documented the toxicity of second-hand cigarette smoke. One such study right here in the Capitol City in 2003 documented the dramatic drop in heart attacks during a six-month smoking hiatus in public places. Opponents of smoking bans picked at the study, but the study's overall conclusion was correct: There is a clear cause and effect relationship between smoking bans and reduced heart attacks.
The public and its representatives has spoken clearly on this matter. Clean air is about health. Any other characterization is a smoke-screen.
Jerry, aka Anthony, "Don't walk away when I'm talking to you. . . ."
"When, boy when are you going to get your act together?
[Burp]
Gross.
Oh good God almighty me.
I think he’s the anti-Christ.
Anthony. I want to talk to you.
Now listen
Don’t walk away from me when I’m talking to you."
In 2009, Jerry Black, a state senator from Shelby, could well be Anthony. [OK. . . perhaps only in terms of the tight script cited above.]
Seems as though Jerry wants to set the Montana Clean Indoor Air Act on its head.
The public in Montana might be mumbling Martin's words before too much longer.
In 2005, the Legislature got its act togehter and banned smoking in public places starting on October 1 of that year. Because of the uproar from small mom and pop establishments, the ban on smoking in stand alone casinos and bars was delayed until October 1, 2009.
The moms and pops had nearly four and one-half years to prepare for the ban. But, now it seems, they don't want to ban smoking in their places at all. As many as 1,400of these places could be exempted from the ban if Black succeeds.
“I think I have to do this,” Darrell Keck, a steakhouse-lounge-casino owners from, you guessed it, Shelby, said. “I don’t really believe this is a smoking issue. It’s a property rights issue.”
There is the code for the wacko fringe: "property rights issue."
No. We sure wouldn't want to deprive owners of their property rights and patrons of their smoking rights.
Bans?!! We don’t need no stinkin’ bans. Burp.
Keck is quite quotable. The story continues:
Unless the law is changed, Keck predicted it will dramatically affect life in small towns, eliminate some bar and casino jobs, cut state tax revenues and deprive smokers of their rights.
“People don’t go into a bar for their health,” Keck said. “If that were the case, I guess they’d be serving booze at the health clubs.”
Black’s bill draft has fired up the same coalition of public health advocates who helped pass the clean indoor air act in 2005. It includes cancer, lung and heart association groups.
To think the Legislature could be so insensitive. The nerve. Our rural way of life is disappearing and all it wants to do is drive a stake into its heart?
Never mind non-smoking patrons and the employees.
Smoke! Smoke! (That Cigarette)
In a game of chance the other night
Old dame fortune was good and right
The kings and queens they kept on comin' around
Aw, I was hittin' em good and bettin' 'em high
But my bluff didn't work on a certain guy
He kept callin' and layin' his money down
See, he'd raise me then I'd raise him
and I'd say to him buddy ya gotta sink or swim
Finally called me but didn't raise the bet!
--Hmmph! I said Aces Full Pal -- I got you!
He said, "I'll pay up in a minute or two
But right now, i just gotta have another cigarette."
Don't worry. "Old dame fortune" will care for them.
The Montana Tavern Association, to its credit, opposes the effort to undo the good-faith compromise worked out in 2005. At least, Keck is willing to put his money where his mouth is. He has retained Jerry Driscoll and Dennis Iverson (Erik's father) to lobby on behalf of the bill. Price tag? $30,000. $30,000 for a bill that even Black says has little chance of passing. [I can hear Driscoll, a prolific smoker in his own right, laughing all the way to the bank.]
Numerous scientific studies have repeatedly documented the toxicity of second-hand cigarette smoke. One such study right here in the Capitol City in 2003 documented the dramatic drop in heart attacks during a six-month smoking hiatus in public places. Opponents of smoking bans picked at the study, but the study's overall conclusion was correct: There is a clear cause and effect relationship between smoking bans and reduced heart attacks.
The public and its representatives has spoken clearly on this matter. Clean air is about health. Any other characterization is a smoke-screen.
Jerry, aka Anthony, "Don't walk away when I'm talking to you. . . ."
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Comin'atcha
For those of old enough to remember, there was once a time that we had a nationwide 55-mile-per-hour speed limit.
Gas lines and gasoline shortages. OPEC.
At Richard Nixon's urging, Congress approved the National Speed Limit Law, which prohibited speeds in excess of 55 mph, in 1974. Even as crude oil prices rose, but gas lines disappeared, in 1987, Congress increased the speed limit to 65 mph. Then, in concert with individual responsibility and personal freedoms sentiment that was running rampant in Congress in the Gingrich days, Congress repealed the Act altogether in 1995 (Crude oil was $17.00 a barrel and regular gasoline cost $1.10/ gallon.) and states were once again allowed to set their own maximum speed limits.
It's safe to say that motorists ignored the speed limit entirely while it was in effect.
You might recall that, when the national law was repealed, Montana had no set maximum, daytime speed limit for the better part of three years. The rule was "reasonable and prudent" and, until the legislature acted to set specific maximum speed limits in 1999, Big Sky County became the laughingstock of the western world. Stories abounded about the United States Autobahn.
Perhaps its time to revive a discussion about the merits of reducing the speed limit, most notably fuel conservation, safety and carbon emissions.
For those who believe we can make the biggest dent in our dependence on foreign sources of crude oil through conservation, reducing the speed limit is one major initiative that could make a huge difference.
For those who say they will do anything to reduce carbon emission so long as it does not harm the economy and competitiveness of the United States in world markets, welcome aboard.
The only real cost here is time, extra time spent driving the vast, open spaces of the Treasure State. Scholars call it 'psychological adjustment.' For us lay people, it's called personal sacrifice.
Let the battle of statistics begin.
Yes, time is worth something. How much?
Yes, slower speed limits appear to conserve fuel. How much?
Consumer Reports tested the effect of higher speeds on gas mileage. David Champion, director of auto testing, found that boosting the highway speed of a 2006 Toyota Camry cut gasoline mileage dramatically:
•55 m.p.h. – 40.3 miles per gallon
•65 m.p.h. – 34.9 miles per gallon
•75 m.p.h. – 29.8 miles per gallon
On a hypothetical 1,900-mile round trip from New York City to Disney World in Florida, the Camry would use 47 gallons of gas at 55 m.p.h.. But at 75 m.p.h., it would burn nearly 64 gallons – a $70 difference.
One of the most amusing arguments against reducing the speed limit is enforcement. With the speed limit at 55 mph, some observers estimated that approximately 4,000 lives a year were spared. 4,000. Evidently, the concern is that there will be a dangerous mix of drivers who obey and drivers who ignore a reduced speed limit. If Montana were to reduce the speed limit with the token $5.00 energy conservation penalty for speeding violations, these concerns are likely well-founded.
Lower speed limits appear to save lives. How many?
There has been no real serious discussion abou this idea in recent times.
Nor is it likely to see that light of day in Helena. After all, although not protected in the constitution like the right to bear arms, driving as fast as one wants to is a sacred right in Montana.
Gas lines and gasoline shortages. OPEC.
At Richard Nixon's urging, Congress approved the National Speed Limit Law, which prohibited speeds in excess of 55 mph, in 1974. Even as crude oil prices rose, but gas lines disappeared, in 1987, Congress increased the speed limit to 65 mph. Then, in concert with individual responsibility and personal freedoms sentiment that was running rampant in Congress in the Gingrich days, Congress repealed the Act altogether in 1995 (Crude oil was $17.00 a barrel and regular gasoline cost $1.10/ gallon.) and states were once again allowed to set their own maximum speed limits.
It's safe to say that motorists ignored the speed limit entirely while it was in effect.
You might recall that, when the national law was repealed, Montana had no set maximum, daytime speed limit for the better part of three years. The rule was "reasonable and prudent" and, until the legislature acted to set specific maximum speed limits in 1999, Big Sky County became the laughingstock of the western world. Stories abounded about the United States Autobahn.
Perhaps its time to revive a discussion about the merits of reducing the speed limit, most notably fuel conservation, safety and carbon emissions.
For those who believe we can make the biggest dent in our dependence on foreign sources of crude oil through conservation, reducing the speed limit is one major initiative that could make a huge difference.
For those who say they will do anything to reduce carbon emission so long as it does not harm the economy and competitiveness of the United States in world markets, welcome aboard.
The only real cost here is time, extra time spent driving the vast, open spaces of the Treasure State. Scholars call it 'psychological adjustment.' For us lay people, it's called personal sacrifice.
Let the battle of statistics begin.
Yes, time is worth something. How much?
Yes, slower speed limits appear to conserve fuel. How much?
Consumer Reports tested the effect of higher speeds on gas mileage. David Champion, director of auto testing, found that boosting the highway speed of a 2006 Toyota Camry cut gasoline mileage dramatically:
•55 m.p.h. – 40.3 miles per gallon
•65 m.p.h. – 34.9 miles per gallon
•75 m.p.h. – 29.8 miles per gallon
On a hypothetical 1,900-mile round trip from New York City to Disney World in Florida, the Camry would use 47 gallons of gas at 55 m.p.h.. But at 75 m.p.h., it would burn nearly 64 gallons – a $70 difference.
One of the most amusing arguments against reducing the speed limit is enforcement. With the speed limit at 55 mph, some observers estimated that approximately 4,000 lives a year were spared. 4,000. Evidently, the concern is that there will be a dangerous mix of drivers who obey and drivers who ignore a reduced speed limit. If Montana were to reduce the speed limit with the token $5.00 energy conservation penalty for speeding violations, these concerns are likely well-founded.
Lower speed limits appear to save lives. How many?
There has been no real serious discussion abou this idea in recent times.
Nor is it likely to see that light of day in Helena. After all, although not protected in the constitution like the right to bear arms, driving as fast as one wants to is a sacred right in Montana.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)