But we're in this mess, ultimately, because our political elites thought it was good social policy to encourage banks to give mortgages to uncreditworthy people, resulting in what Sailer months ago called the "Diversity Recession" (if this doesn't work, make that the Diversity Depression). In other words, if poor people in general, or blacks or Hispanics in particular, were less likely to be approved for a mortgage, the only possible reason was racism or classism or whatever. Thus "creditworthiness" was an illegitimate, dead-white-male concept, like middleclassness. Because, after all, isn't everyone entitled to credit? Therefore, I propose any bailout bill start with these words: "It is the sense of Congress that credit is not a civil right."
A fascinating case involving a libel suit and anonymous comments posted on the Billings Gazette was decided yesterday. Basically Judge G. Todd Baugh decided that Montana's shield law that "protects reporters from disclosing anonymous sources" also protects the identity of anonymous commenters.
At the end of a hearing into the Gazette's motion on Wednesday, Baugh said the state's Media Confidentiality Act protects the newspaper from being forced to provide the information sought by Doty.
Baugh also noted that the information Doty was seeking from The Gazette was related to comments made long after the 2004 campaign. The judge asked Doty whether the anonymous comments have enough credibility to reach the legal requirements of libel and defamation.
"I can't imagine an anonymous comment has much credence whatsoever," Baugh said.
Everywhere today the talk is Brian Schweitzer. That's the buzz. From national news sources to bloggers, the reaction is nearly the same. Schweitzer brought the crowd to life. Schweitzer stole the show from Warner.
But not everyone's happy. Erik Iverson's response to the Schweitzer coup? "'He took it up a notch in the partisan department,' said Erik Iverson. 'What struck me about (the speech) is it's not the Brian Schweitzer he tries to portray back here in Montana, where he runs with (Lt. Gov.) John Bohlinger being a Republican, and working in a bipartisan fashion.'"
Everyone says Iverson is a smart guy, but I think he's in a little over his head here. Incredibly lame response to a stellar performance on a national stage by the Governor. Iverson's response is going to look petty, mean-spirited, and partisan to Montanans who, today, are proud of how their governor wowed the nation.
Okay, I've been a little lax in describing what it's like here at convention, I admit. In short, it's complete chaos. A "Fear and Loathing"-style Convention would be easy enough to do. Who would notice that you're completely drug-addled? And frankly, between all the different events and forums and panels and meetings and dinners and conventioneering, there's not much time for reflection, let alone writing.
Brian Schweitzer in the Big Tent. Courtesy of Left In Alabama.
My typical day:
Up at 6:30am. Stumble groggily into shower. Dress.
Breakfast at 7:00am. With the delegation downstairs. A great way to start the day. Lots of good people hanging out and talking politics. History of Montana politics, gossip, districts or races in trouble, etc & co. I like to sit near Michele Reinhart because she's cool. Typically Matt Singer sleeps through breakfast. Lots of coffee, lots of liquids...
Sorry for the absence of posts. To be honest, everything's been a logistical nightmare, and right now is the first time I've been able to get an Internet connection.
I'm in the Big Tent; today was jhwygirl's day to sit with the delegation, but she's been given the runaround on her accreditation. She's been looking for credentials all day to no avail.
I'll keep you posted, and hopefully we'll be seated in time for Schweitzer's speech tomorrow night...
I'll have a post in a little while about the Oregon Bus project and the rest of the trip to Denver, as well as some posts on other topics later...
It took twenty-six hours to get from Denver. That's right. Twenty six. Basically we zig-zagged across the West, visiting some of the region's finest cultural landmarks, crawling, crawling to Denver.
Looks who's going to be a story at the Convention! Those Dirty F*cking Hippies (TM), the bloggers!
Hosted by Daily Kos, Progress Now, and the Alliance for Sustainable Colorado, the Big Tent will be a 9,000-square foot, two-story erected structure a few blocks away from the Pepsi Center where the convention will be held. It will be specifically geared toward new media - bloggers, podcasters, vloggers- and its sponsors include both Google and Digg.
Aaron Nelson, project director for the Alliance for Sustainable Colorado, told me that the discussion for organizing the tent began about seven or eight months ago.
"We recognize that more and more people are turning to new media and as a result new media has become a powerful driving force," he said. "We're providing access to resources and platforms to discuss politics and sustainability. We made it a non-partisan event and bloggers that have access to our tent represent this. For example we have people from Daily Kos and we also have bloggers from the Heritage Foundation - completely different sides of the spectrum."
(The Heritage Foundation???)
Ah, yes. The Big Tent. I'm glad to tell you all, that not only did your LiTW bloggers -- Matt, jhwygirl, and me -- get credentialed to sit with Montana's delegation, we also got passes to the Big Tent. So we've got pretty good access and can hopefully keep you appraised of what's going on, and what it's like to be at a Convention. (Tho' frankly, I'm thinking the bloggers' hotel room is going to be the place to be.)
It's finally sinking in that I'm actually going to this thing. Saturday night we're meeting up with the Oregon Bus Project's...well...bus in Idaho, driving all night to Denver. (With a French film crew tagging along?) And then -- we're there!
Anyhow, with the media's insatiable quest for stories, expect some coverage of bloggers at this convention, especially of the credentialed 50 "official" blogs, etc & co. And given this blog's insatiable quest for post fodder, expect to find some coverage of the coverage of blogs. We'll stand around pointing our cameras at one another! What fun!
Update: Hey! The Big Tent has its own website! And a Big Tent cam! There'll also be live-streaming of the Big Tent stage for all of the interviews and speeches, so you'll be able to peek in and see what's up. No doubt you'll see the LiTW gang downing their booze and food...
This is a pretty funny story: apparently Bill Donohue of the paleo-conservative Catholic League sifted through all 120 blogs credentialed for the Democratic National Convention, looking for offensive material.
Besides displaying a middle-finger waving child on the main page, Bitch posted on some balloon Jesuses she didn't like. Towleroad offended Donohue by unabashedly flaunting its "homosexual tendencies" and criticizing the Pope's choice in cape-wear.
The question here is, how in the world did Left in the West pass muster with the Catholic League? I mean, I'm an advocateof gay marriage and accused the conservative movement of being unhealthily obsessed with gay sex. I've also poked fun at folks who believe in creationism and applauded a California court for ruling denying students of religious schools credit for classes that substitute religion for academic rigor.
I mean, what does a blog have to do to get on Donohue's sh*t list?
Last week, Ochenski penned a column about his friend, Jackie Corr. He reiterated Corr's beliefs and political interests, his fervid antipathy for big corporations, their machinations against everyday people and the obsequious politicos that serve them. In short, he was kick *ss.
Ochenski recalled a specific event that Corr influenced, thanks to his "indefatigable research" and his flood of emails:
Jackie...is probably the single individual in this state most responsible for heading off the purchase of NorthWestern Energy by the Australian firm of Babcock-Brown (BBI).
Thanks to Jackie, members of the Montana Public Service Commission (PSC) were fully apprised of BBI's vast network of international business deals and the fallout from those deals. While Paul Polzin, the former head of the University of Montana's Bureau of Business and Economic Research, was cheerleading for the takeover, Jackie was busy sending hard data and news articles from around the world to reporters, columnists and those whose votes would ultimately decide the matter. In the end, Polzin turned out to be wrong, while Jackie, the man behind the scenes, turned out to be right when BBI's shares plummeted 27 percent just last month due to short selling and concerns about its debt levels. Not a bad call for a Butte taxi driver, eh?
Man, I had forgotten about that! It was Jackie! H*ll, he flooded my email inbox, too, and it was one of the times I ran with the information he sent me. I did a little research and learned a little about the sleazy business of corporate tax shelters and wrote a post (and someothers) that made both the Notorious Mark T and Dave Budge cringe. (It doesn't get any better than that!)
The point here is that Jackie knew a lot of stuff and tried to point me to good stories. When I chased his emails down, I was more often than not rewarded. But there were too many emails, too much to look up.
Well the emails have stopped. But I still have dozens in my inbox. So here's what I'm going to do. Every now and then, I'll dip into my email and retrieve a Jackie Corr email. I'll do a little research, and report back to you in a post. Hopefully in the end through the work I'll help seed another Jackie Corr or two. Lord knows we need 'em.
So, Dave Rye encounters someone with an advanced degree from the Harvard School of Education, a law degree from the University of Montana, who clerked for the Montana Supreme Court, who taught school in Browning and New Town, North Dakota, who worked in a law firm and in the Office of Public Instruction...
My question isn't for Dave Rye, it's for his boss, Taylor Brown -- now running for a state senate seat -- why the h*ll is this guy working for you as the voice of your radio network? Is this the kind of "leadership" you're going to bring to the state legislature?
I couldn't help notice Montana Headlines' gratuitous swipe at the left netroots community today -- which is as mean-spirited as it is false. It all starts with Fox News "liberal," Kristen Powers, who called netroots leftys "ninnies" because of their "obsession about Obama's recent flip-flop on FISA":
Newsflash to the netroots and the media (which seems perpetually confused on this issue): The netroots are not the base of the Democratic Party.
Overwhelmingly white, male and highly educated, they're a loud anomaly in a party that's wholly dependent on the votes of African Americans, women and working-class whites.
First, Powers is about as "liberal" as Tokyo Rose was a good American patriot. Just as you'd expect misleading propaganda to fall from the lips of a personality on Axis radio, so should you expect a "liberal" promoted both by Fox News and the New York Post to be...well...not particularly up front about her motives. In short, she's the television version of a concern troll. Her mission: to drive a wedge between different groups in the Democratic party. (No wonder she's MH's favorite liberal!)
But is the progressive netroots "overwhelmingly white, male and highly educated"? The short answer: No. This is a movement who's "blogfather" is a first generation Latino-Greek who put himself through college with his military service. Several majorblogs include womencontributors or founders. As for "highly educated" -- what do Powers mean by that? College educated? Probably. PhDs? No. Would it matter anyway? No.
There's no doubt that the majority of bloggers are white men, that the netroots don't mirror the multicultural and class composition of the entire left. But -- unlike what MH insinuates -- that it's part of some institutional classism, sexism, and racism, inherent to the left -- well, all you have to do is look at the rightie 'sphere and the Republican establishment, which is overwhelmingly white and male, and you immediately realize that the marginalization of nonwhite, nonmale people and those of nonprofessional classes is a cultural problem. At least lefty bloggers, say, are trying to swim against the current.
To drum up the idea of a white, male overseer class in lefty politics, MH trots out a tired 80s era wisecrack that liberals seek to erect "a welfare state with a highly centralized government" and to install themselves as its bosses. Of course, what liberals and progressives want is an egalitarian society that offers all full and equal opportunity to succeed, prosper, and contribute to society. It is true that we don't always rule out government solutions or government-aided programs to ensure that egalitarianism, and that we think that government should be run as efficiently and effectively as possible and needs good, competent administrators to function. There's nothing wrong with working for the government -- if you do a good job.
Ironically, I suspect that not a few conservatives who read MH or LiTW are themselves members of government. They might not agree with MH's assessment as to our goverment workers' roles. Or they may. After all, which party was it that seeks to centralize government? Which president passed No Child Left Behind? Which president enacted the most far-reaching and intrusive domestic spy network in the history of the republic? Which president has blocked states' efforts to set its own legislative agendas, time after time? (Think California's emissions standards, or Montana's legalization medicinal marijuana.)
Of course, past and current Democratic members of government have been just as bad at clutching power and wanting to maintain or extend the power of the federal government. But isn't that more the result of the corrupting quality of money and power than it is of ideology? The natural reaction is to call for more sunlight on government activity -- but where are the conservatives in the call for ethics reform?
But the worst offense in MH's post was the insinuation that the netroots' problem with the recent FISA bill was a matter of a "transgression against progressive purity," and the proper subject of disdainful amusement.
Since when have civil liberties become a matter of "progressive purity"? Are we the only supporters of individuals' protections from unwarranted surveillance by the government? Are we the last group of people in the country who believing in inalieable rights? I'm not so sure we are -- and I'm certain we shouldn't be. Certainly there wasn't much support for the bill and for retroactive telecomm immunity, and certainly not from the Democratic "base," as Powers insinuated. Most folks shrugged, because they didn't really see the harm in it, and most Republicans and conservatives seemed to meekly support it because their "team" invented it.
But in the end, where you stand on the FISA bill reflects where you stand on constitutional guarantees of liberty. If you supported it, you think that certain freedoms and liberties should be curtailed in the interest of a greater national good. In short, you view our rights, in John Rawls' words, as a "socially useful illusion." The problem with that, of course, is that now any right can be limited if it's seen to serve public and societal utility -- but just who decides what's good, just, and useful?
In the end, if you opposed the FISA bill, you support inviolate rights, which extend even to those you don't like or disagree with. In 2009, when Barack Obama is sworn in as president, and our nation's intelligency agencies start tuning their equipment into the conversations and personal information of conservative activists and ideologues, I'll still oppose FISA.
It's ironc then, in the second half of MH's post, after a lengthy rehash of regurgitated talking-points, he writes this:
It is unfortunately true, of course, that all too many posts in regional blogs like those found in the Montana blogosphere simply rehash talking points about national politics that have already been endlessly regurgitated.
So you might have seen the link, but Michelle Malkin led a right-wing blog rampage against Dunkin' Donuts because they ran an ad of Rachel Ray...wearing a scarf.
I kid you not.
Apparently, the scarf looks like something that a Palestinian might wear.
The best reaction to this bit of news belongs to Kossak Hunter (well worth the read):
S o this is what we've (well, I say "we", but I mean a small subset of American patriots who, having absolutely no intention of doing anything meaningful for their country that involves getting out of their chairs, spend their days looking for secret terrorist messages in television commercials) been reduced to. We're examining the fashion statements of donut ads and parsing them for hints of surreptitious Islamic culture. We're locked into a mortal combat against those that casually accessorize without remembering that we are at war; we're mere weeks away from probing the hidden alliances of the doilies on our grandmothers' coffee tables.
We are a nation that sees images of Jesus on toast. Admit it; there was absolutely no possibility that we would not eventually devolve to this point.
Malkin, of course, is the same blogger that broke the big story about the kitchen countertops of a CHIP family.
You know, sometimes I feel for the right-wing supporters of Representative Dennis Rehberg. He really does rely on them to carry his water. After all, Rehberg is a rabid political animal who changes votes faster than Britney Spears' mood swings. There was CHIP and Real ID and Mother's Day and...
Now, there's a new G.I. Bill making its way through Congress. It made its way through the U.S. Senate due to the leadership of Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA). Both of our Senators finally supported it. Good for them. It's now in the House and it has full support from Congressman Denny Rehberg. "The men and women who have defended our country in the wake of 9/11 have earned this," said Rehberg, a member of the House Appropriations Committee. "Increased educational benefits will ensure America's veterans have full access to the knowledge needed to go into the career of their choice. This legislation is long overdue."
Agreed. Webb's bill is good, and needed.
Only...wait! Is that Dennis Rehberg's name down in the "nay" column?
Hey! Ho! The DNC doesn't know what it's doing, because our application for credentials to blog the Convention in August was accepted. We're the "official" Montana blog of our state's delegation!
The best part (so far) is this video Howard Dean made for LiTW:
Who would've thunk it?
Actually I have a lot to thank Gov. Dean and the DNC's 50-state strategy -- it was an email way back in the Stone Ages of 2006 to the DNC's Missoula rep, Kevin Cass, that led me to the blog and...um..all this. I didn't know nuthin'. 10,000 posts later...and I still don't know nuthin' - but at least there's this cool video!
Seriously, I like the idea that the folks here from LiTW will be helping with Dean's vision of "crashing down the walls" of the Democratic party, and communicating directly with the American people. So that's our job. Letting you get an insider's peek at the hubbub and brouhaha of the Convention...
Yes, I'm sure Rehberg will later vote for mothers (next year, maybe?), and he'll say that he supported mothers all along, that his vote against mothers was just against this particular House version of the bill, and that it reflected "radical extremism" on the part of Democrats, etc & co, and he's waiting for the Senate version of the bill, which doesn't go so far to praise mothers, etc. & co.
Yes, I realize this was just a gambit to delay a vote on mortgage relief for homeowners...but that's not much better, is it?
So, where did the Montana bloggers and Millbank get the idea that House Republicans didn't support the resolution? Because after the vote was complete, Rep. Tiahrt (R-Kans.) moved for a "motion to reconsider." A motion supported by 178 House Republicans. But despite the motion's name, Rehberg's support for the motion doesn't undo his support for the Mother's Day resolution.
Heh. Besides demonstrating the need for a working Irony-Meter, the BS Cairn poster left the basic point of the post unanswered. How's that relief package looking?
It's fun watching the righties twist their panties in knots, trying to paint an image of a "culture of corruption" for Montana Democrats from nonexistent ethics violations - this was about as easy to see coming as an elephant in a teacup...or something. Heck, I wrote about back in March of last year:
Rightie blogger, "Jack," over at TWW seems to be on a personal mission to prove that Jon Tester is as corrupt and hypocritical as...well...as a Republican....From this attack on Tester's integrity (largely unquestioned in political circles, by the way), we can see how righties are going to distort the debate on our new Senator's record.
Like I said back then, I welcome the scrutiny. Because, frankly, the more attention is paid to Montana Democrats' ethics, the more plain it will seem just how corrupt Conrad Burns and his Abramoff pals really were.
So, if you're not a gamer, you're not aware that the biggest game of the year was released recently. That's right: Grand Theft Auto IV. Sales are brisk, to say the least.
Again, if you're not a gamer, you might not know the basic premise of the game: "Most of what you do in GTA IV still boils down to hustling jobs, stealing cars, trucks, and motorbikes of all makes and sizes, chasing and frequently stabbing, beating, or shooting enemies by land, sea, and air, and evading the law..." There's sex and violence galore. Only more realistic and disturbing than ever before:
Yes, concerned teenage boys of America, if your parents are irresponsible enough to let you get your hands on this, you can still kill and maim and plunder and screw until your heart is full. But there's a difference this time: The violence is no longer cartoonish. Shoot an innocent bystander, and you see his face contort in agony. He'll clutch at the wound and begin to stagger away, desperately seeking safety. After just scratching the surface of the game-I played for part of a day; it could take 60 hours to complete the whole thing-I felt unnerved. What makes Grand Theft Auto IV so compelling is that, unlike so many video games, it made me reflect on all of the disturbing things I had done.
