Reap What's Been Sown

by: Rob Kailey

Thu Apr 21, 2011 at 16:14:13 PM MST

Difference between Liberalism and Progressivism.

Hat tip to Angry Black Lady.

No doubts, many discussions could be had over the distinctions and verbal classifications that Dirk2112 draws in his thesis, which must have been a real pain to tweet.  But the takeaway is pretty obvious.  Ofttimes the biggest impediment to change and/or progress resides with the left, not the right.  The deepest divisions stand among those who think themselves like-minded.  Some would have it that I am finely agreeing that 'Democrats are really the problem'.  No, that's a failure to actually define what the problem is, and working to solve it.

This is important to realize with all the caterwauling currently being done over wolf reintroduction.  It's not just online.  It is truly a region wide issue, important to many people.  It is damned important to me, and has been since well before wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone.  They were already moving back of their own accord, and had no action been taken to reintroduce them, we'd still be facing these issues.

Matthew Koehler helpfully points out that Idaho Governor Otter signed a bill allowing him to declare a "wolf disaster emergency".  Rather unhelpfully, however, Koehler links to a sensationalist, and truly false, HuffPo piece attributed to Rueters that states Otter has declared such an emergency.  That's not "pants on fire" false, but it certainly isn't the truth.  Otter has done no such thing.

I'll freely admit that I personally enjoy finding such holes in the narrative coming from the liberal environmentalist groups, given the number of times I've been told that I don't really understand these issues.  Yes, I do, as do many on the left when they're not being lied to or talked down to.  All many of us have wanted was rational local control of a predator species in a prey rich environment.  That is a progressive goal, downright democratic even.  It is the recovery of a species such that it no longer needs the blanket of being "endangered". It should be obvious at this point that the goal of the liberal environmentalist is something different.  That is actually defining the problem, and it would appear to be among the left, not the right.

Seeking a solution to the problem, as seen by a progressive, continually stands against the disingenuous presentation of goals by the liberal.  The most pernicious is the "Science" canard.  Read the comments in the link from Suzanne Stone, and you'll see what I'm discussing writ large.

Stone said Otter's decision is "based on unjustified hysteria rather than sound science. We need our leaders to focus on resolving conflicts, not perpetuating them."

Notice please that Stone's latter sentence has nothing to do with science, and her defense of science is based on an Ad Hominem lie.  This is strictly my opinion, though probably shared by others, but the Ad Hominem in defense of meaninglessness is habitual to the environmentalist liberal.  It doesn't respond to the demand for Science in any meaningful way. Here's what does.  Wolf numbers have increased far beyond expectation in the region.  Wolves are spreading to other states and will well establish themselves throughout the Northwest without a whole lotta help from humans.  That is, they will do so if we don't hurt them by 'helping them'.  Stone herself admits that Idaho's wolf population is stabilizing.  That would be the 'science' right there.

Quite effectively, Stone's argument is this: Even giving the power of control to those we have chosen to have that power can (will) upset that balance of science. That's not science.  It's speculation.  More insidiously, it's finger pointing.  If something bad happens then it is someone else to blame.  Koehler's original comment pointing to this horror in Idaho was precisely an attempt at that very thing, finger pointing.  This all is happening as consequence of Jon Tester's rider to the budget continuation bill.  But that is the problem with the chain of cause and effect.  One can actually choose to look a little further back then another would wish, and that's why obfuscation and fallacy are so very important to the 'liberal' environmentalist.  They don't want the light shown on themselves as being part of the problem.  But they actually are.

Two plus years ago, Secretary Salazar of the DOI actually paid attention to the science, and asked for wolf control plans from the three states wolves were recovered in.  Wyoming's plan was less than stellar.  So, wolves were delisted in Montana and Idaho given the caveat that those states would follow the plans submitted.  14 environmental groups sued because those plans involved wolf hunts, the killing of wolves.  They got what they wanted which was an injunction against wolf hunts based on an interpretation of the Endangered Species Act.  I've written that so many times my fingers are sore.  But they really don't want anyone else to question whether that's best for science or the species or progress or change.  Simply put, and obviously exposed, it's not good for any of the above.  They got what they wanted and couldn't stop what they'd unleashed.  As Dirk2112 pointed out so clearly, that was very liberal of them, but not very progressive.

I pointed out earlier that the goals of the liberal environmentalists and progressives aren't the same, and that's the actual opposition at play here.  The goals of the liberal environmentalists have been defeated.  They didn't want rational or scientific management of wolves.  They wanted no management at all.  No hunts, no controls, and no concern whatsoever for those whose lives were actually impacted by a predator in the region.  They sued to get no management, Molloy agreed that there should be no management until Congress would act, and Congress acted.  The protections for wolves would have been vastly better with the original deal between the states and Salazar before the lawsuits.  The protections for wolves would have been vastly better had the deal struck between the DOI and the 10 environmental groups been accepted.  As a particular Drama Queen pointed out, the remaining 4 groups didn't have to sign on because they had won, and screw you all.  Uhh, they've lost now, and so have the rest of us.  Now comes the finger pointing.  It is Otter's fault, but really it's Jon Tester's, aned most certainly mine.  No, It's the fault of liberal environmentalists for not paying attention to science, or their fellow humans in a democratic republic, or the needs of a stable wolf population or anything but really their own need to fight for a principle which really isn't principled at all.  The Bozeman Chronicle had an editorial last Friday which wrote basically the same thing I have here, and I will post it should it ever be displayed online.  The punchline was this:  Be careful what you wish for.

I have written papers and screeds and editorials about the difference between conservationists and the preservationists.  I will not play that argument out here, at least not yet.  But the reader would be well advised that on many issues the liberal environmentalists/professional left are more than happy to lie to you, attack you and shoot you in the foot to get what they want which will hurt what you want.  I have followed wolf issues since the mid 1980s when they were reintroducing themselves into Montana. I have studied it very well.  The results we see here today are not as tragical as portrayed, but they certainly don't serve anyone very well.  If you wish to play the blame game, then you'd be well advised to examine who really is being paid to point fingers, and why they're being paid to do it.  Simple truth, it ain't for your benefit.

Anti-Wolf activist, SaveElk.com founder accused of felony elk poaching

by: Matthew Koehler

Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 14:11:43 PM MST

Anti-wolf activist accused of poaching:
SaveElk.com founder charged with felony in killing of trophy elk
by TERRY SMITH, Express staff writer

The founder of a Twin Falls-based, anti-wolf Internet site has been charged with a felony for allegedly killing a trophy bull elk out of season last year in the Alturas Lake area of northern Blaine County.

Anthony J. Mayer, 59, is charged in a criminal complaint filed in Blaine County 5th District Court in September with "flagrant unlawful killing and possession of a trophy bull elk." He is also charged with the misdemeanor crimes of hunting without an elk tag, hunting without an archery permit and unlawful possession of protected wildlife.

Click here to read the whole story.

Attention American Public: Rollbacks in Idaho's Wildlands

by: Matthew Koehler

Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:33:50 AM MST

(Details below the fold.)

Sen. Craig Invokes the 'Do-Over' Rule, Unresigns, Retracts Guilty Plea

by: Matt Singer

Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 20:46:11 PM MST

It still leaves a giant gaping question as to why it was worse to solicit sex in a bathroom than it was for Rep. Scott Boggio to drive drunk with Rep. Elsie Arntzen in the vehicle. But I'm sure there's a sound reason in there somewhere.

Larry Craig to un-resign?

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 06:21:52 AM MST

Where do I begin with this?

His own party hates him. The rank-and-file hates him. Not for the gay sex thing, mind you, but for being icky about it. Democrats want him to stay so Larry LaRocco has yet another advantage in the 2008 election. Kossak mcjoan: "Because what could be more fun than the prospect of Republican Larry Craig staying in the Senate race in Idaho?"

Indeed.

If Craig does manage to shuck off his guilty plea - and with the legal team he's assembled, it's very possible - do all the conservative nay-sayers back track, for political reasons? Do they buy Craig's story that he has a "wide stance"? (Still no word on why he peeks through the cracks into other men's stalls.)

The best thing about it, perhaps, is to watch a prominent figure struggle with his own sexuality. It's classic closeted behavior, isn't it? He'd rather put himself and his familythrough an intense sh*tstorm, a very public trial and an election where his sexual peccadilloes will be the main story, instead of 'fessing up. He'd rather destroy everything he has rather than acknowledge his sexual tendencies.

Maybe more folks will understand how difficult it is to come out, and that maybe - just maybe -- they're part of the reason why...

Politically speaking, this is a disaster for the GOP. Does rumored anointed successor, former Lt. Gov. Jim Ritsch, primary Craig? Don't count out Bill Sali, either. It'd be just like him to step in and make homosexuality the issue of the Senate race. In any case, while the right devours itself, Larry LaRocco is working his *ss off to take the seat.

Sen. Larry Craig Resigns

by: Matt Singer

Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 10:54:23 AM MST

No big news here. But I do think it's worth revisiting Dave Lewis's comments, not because I think that the guy ought to be hung for what he admits was a stupid over-the-top statement (one of the things that will eventually hopefully come with this whole Internet thing is an ability for press, people, and political parties to accept that we all sometimes talk before thinking), but because I think his more recent comments reflect a continuing grasping to justify his anger toward Senator Craig in a non-homophobic way.

Check out his back-and-forth with Jay where he says his problem with Sen. Craig is that "embarrassing and stupid behavior is unacceptable" and that he doesn't "care if he [Craig] is gay."

Well, sure, but when Jay asks about David Vitter, a man who has admitted to hiring a prostitute -- even though it is a crime unlikely to ever be charged. Lewis's response is that he'd feel the same way if Vitter is "found guilty of a crime." But isn't public admission basically the same as being found guilty?

And maybe Vitter isn't the best example. So let's look closer to home Rep. Scott Boggio faced precisely 0 calls from within his own party (as far as I can recall) to resign when he was arrested for driving drunk with a BAC of .14%.

That wasn't just stupid and embarassing -- it was extremely dangerous. A man with a similar BAC in Billings had recently struck and killed a pedestrian. Even worse, both Boggio and his passenger Rep. Elsie Arntzen either knowingly lied or made clear that they are too stupid to legislate when they said either that it was a "few drinks" with dinner (one wry commenter noted that 'quite a few' is still 'a few') and that they didn't know he was impaired.

Now, my point in all this isn't to make it sound like only Republicans do bad things. It's really any attempt to gain some clarity from people demanding Sen. Craig's head as to what, exactly, made his offense so much worse than sex with a prostitute or a drunk driving incident?

I'm asking because I don't understand how the outrage meter on the right really works. A President getting a blowjob from an intern? Impeachable. A Senator allegedly attempting to solicit gay sex in a bathroom? Kill him and/or make him resign. A Senator hiring a prostitute? Crickets chirp. A Representative driving while wasted? Crickets chirp.

Is it that it occurred in a public restroom? Because I agree that's distasteful, especially for a U.S. Senator. But after seeing everything else the Republican Party seems willing to tolerate within its ranks, I have a tough time seeing what's such a big deal about this.

And since I'll inevitably be called a hypocrite, let me just say this: Yes, Rep. William Jefferson should resign. He should have resigned a long time ago. And Congressional leaders should pressure him to step down.

Update -- Patrick Ruffini, a young GOP web consultant, is taking issue with those of us on the left who think that the outrage aimed at Craig is an indication of homophobia on the right. He has one fair point -- I think it is possible to believe in a religious definition of marriage that excludes same-sex marriage without being anti-gay. But I don't see where Ruffini gets off claiming that opposing LGBT folks in the military isn't an anti-gay stance. He claims it is a public policy issue, not a personal judgment. Well, sorry, buddy, but it's both.

See -- Jim Crow was public policy. It was also horrendously racist public policy. Now, you can make either that "I hate gay people and don't want to serve with them" argument or the more paternalistic "I don't hate gay people, but I know some people in the military would be uncomfortable around gay people, so I support discrimination to protect the feelings of bigots." Both arguments are fundamentally embracing of discrimination. For Ruffini to claim that such a stance doesn't make him anti-gay is a load of crap. And Marc Ambinder is wrong to acknowledge his point. He didn't really have one.

Update 2: It's worth noting that Senator Lewis did the proper thing here. I'm raising these questions publicly not to beat up on a public official who admitted a pretty minor screw-up, but because Dave has shown himself to be thoughtful enough to grapple with criticism. And I'm one of those folks who is arrogant enough to think my criticism worthwhile. He deserves respect for taking time to respond to his critics, for owning up to his mistake, and for not blaming anyone but himself for his poor thinking. We could all use him as an example on this stuff.

The GOP Short Bench in Idaho

by: Matt Singer

Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 11:03:26 AM MST

Update: What I'm hearing is that Craig is departing today -- and that Otter is appointing former Lt. Gov. Risch. GOP is saying Risch has money in the bank. That may be true, he's also got hundreds of thousands in debts from his last state race, so there's that. I was also told that he's literally the guy who pushed through a hike in the sales tax, so that might explain his 26% approval rating in Idaho. Anyways, CNN is reporting that Craig is likely to leave soon. My source (and it's a single source right now) says Risch is the guy who'll replace him. We'll see if this stuff bears out.

Throw some change Larry LaRocco's way.

So, some folks want Sen. Larry Craig to resign in a flurry of outrage not heard from the right since Sen. Vitter 'fessed up to hiring prostitutes (wait, there wasn't similar outrage for a sex scandal involving illegal acts with women; color me confused).

And who knows -- it may actually reach that point. Obviously, I'd prefer otherwise. Larry Craig looks pretty vulnerable right now and heaven knows it'd be sweet to score a U.S. Senate seat in that reddest of all states. But the GOP leadership is pushing hard and Craig might give in.

Would that be the end of our hopes for the seat? Here's a hint: not necessarily.

Gov. Butch Otter would get to appoint Craig's replacement and the natural choices aren't so hot. Their short list comes from a surprisingly shallow bench.

• U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson -- Simpson's a natural choice but his favorability is below 50%, he hasn't had a tough race in years, and he's only got $75k in the bank. Add to that the fact that the Club for Growth is basically pledging to primary him (probably with his colleague U.S. Rep. Bill Sali, quite possibly the stupidest man in Washington, D.C., and that's saying something) and you've got a stage set for GOP trouble.


• Former Lt. Gov. Jim Risch -- Sure, it's possible, but his approval statewide is 26% and he doesn't have any dough.


• Former Gov. Dirk Kempthorne -- How does a former Governor slip to a 46% approval rating? Probably by joining Mr. 25%'s administration. So even Kempthorne is far from a sure thing if he gives up his cushy job to give it a go in a Senate race.

Honestly, Idaho's going to be exciting whether Senator Wide Stance stays or goes.

Sen. Larry Craig Pleads Guilty to Peering in on a Bathroom Stall

by: Matt Singer

Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 19:40:19 PM MST

Speaking of issues, check out this transcript of Larry Craig calling Bill Clinton "a nasty, bad, naughty boy." Too much.

Feel the burn

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 13:40:56 PM MST

Greenfire's basic point is it's not regulations or roadless areas preventing logging and grazing that's creating these massive fires across the country, it's unprecedented temperatures, extended droughts, and the historical practice of suppressing fires quickly that are the culprits:

Many of the tools to predict fire behavior depend on climatological statistics, which are meaningless in an era of unprecedented climate.  It will grow increasingly obvious in the next few years that climate change is having a huge impact on wildfire extent and severity. Those fire behavior events, once thought to be "rare" are happening with an increasing frequency, often requiring a major recalibration of probabilities and fire behavior prognostication.  All of the best models break down in the case of extreme, plume-dominated fire behavior.  Firewhirls, mass area ignitions, and other disturbing anecdotal tales from the fireline give veteran firefighters chills. There will simply not be enough money, nor enough equipment to combat all fires in all places.  Those who choose to live in fire prone areas will adapt or be burned out. This will be a slap in the face to those delusional few, who still buy into the human dominion over nature rap, but Mother Nature always bats last.

Greenfire's post also included a link to this August 1 editorial from the Idaho Statesman, "Don't play blame game with fire management":

Timeout on the blame game. Time for tough reality.

-- We're in the heart of another long, unrelenting and frightening fire season. This summer could match 2000, Idaho's worst fire season in recent history. The fall's first snowstorm is weeks away.

-- The long term offers little relief as well. Global warming threatens to bring the West more of what we're seeing this year: More drought, more parched range and forest, more searing summer weather.

-- Climate change corresponds with a long-overdue attitudinal change to firefighting. The feds are abandoning their decades-old practice of trying to suppress all fires as quickly as possible. This approach strains limited resources, puts firefighters at unneeded risk - and has left public lands choked with trees and underbrush and vulnerable to catastrophic fire, such as the Murphy Complex Fire. The feds need to change their ways, but in the meantime, millions of acres remain at risk.

Severe fire seasons? Get used to it.

And remember, fire season unfolds under Nature's rules - rules that are especially harsh in 2007, and perhaps for years to come.

On a related note, check out Sarpy Sam's first-hand account of battling a Montana grass fire:

The fire was really going so I had to come up with a plan. I started by trying to get the west side of the fire out up to the alfalfa fields. There was a couple miles on the east side before the fire found any timber but we were all ready only about 100 yards away from timber on the west side so I wanted to keep it out of the timbered hills. That's really hard to fight once its in the timber.

I don't want to drag Sam into my argument - I'm sure he has his own opinion on the matter - but it's a great post that puts a little drama into the topic, shows the kind of cr*p our state's ranchers have to put up with on a daily basis, and elegantly displays the virtues of neighborliness so readily present in our state.

More Proof the West Is A Heckuva Lot More Colorful Than Red vs. Blue

by: davidsirota

Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 07:44:26 AM MST

Urban sprawl coming to the Tetons

by: Qwijibo

Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 08:15:08 AM MST

For those unfamiliar with the area, the towns of Driggs, Victor, and Tetonia, Idaho sit on the western face of the Teton Range. Across the Targhee Pass is Wilson, WY and the expansive valley more commonly known as Jackson Hole. 

Young Westerners Go Blue

by: Matt Singer

Sun Jul 08, 2007 at 12:33:41 PM MST

Call it blowback from the Sagebrush Rebellion. The same region that took a turn for the hard right a generation ago is now trending blue. The secret in the story is said to be a lot of things - different, authentically Western Democrats, and maybe an influx of people from California - but it may be simpler than all that.

The descendants of the rebels themselves - today's Western youth - are leading the charge for a more Democratic West. If the trends continue, the Republican Party may find itself in a world of hurt.

If you want to support Forward Montana, consider becoming a member. Alternatively, click on the lovely ad in the upper left to buy some sweet t-shirts.

Idaho Offers More Proof of Conservative Collapse in the Rocky Mountain West

by: davidsirota

Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 15:02:10 PM MST

Idaho's Larry LaRocco live blogging at noon today

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 09:40:47 AM MST

Larry's got a real shot at this seat, believe it or not. Especially if he gets enough widespread support to generate a buzz. And you can help, naturally, by dropping a coin into his cup.

...

Julie Fanselow reminded us that Democratic Senate candidate, Larry LaRocco, is live blogging at the Daily Kos today. (Here's the link.)

Larry's a strong candidate for Idaho's 2008 Senate race, and has live-blogged at Kos before, in which he laid out his ideas for alternative energy, Internet connectivity for the state, and protection of wilderness areas.

So head on over at noon and pitch Larry some of your questions. Even if you're not from Idaho, now's a good time to start measuring up candidates that need our support heading into 2008.

The price Montanans are paying for the war...(with more)

by: jhwygirl

Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 23:11:50 PM MST

This came from something else I'm working on, and I thought it deserved a post of its own.

my math was wrong on Montana, these are the corrected numbers. 
Per capita deaths of Montanans in the Iraqi war theatre:  1 per 58,125
Per capita deaths of Montanans in both the Iraqi war theatre and in Afghanistan:  1 per 54,706

Compare that with this:
Per capita deaths of Pennsylvanians in the Iraqi war theatre:  1 per 83,581
Per capita deaths of Pennsylvanians in both the Iraqi war theatre and in Afghanistan:  1 per 77,312

Per capita deaths of Californians in the Iraqi war theatre:  1 per 109,816
Per capita deaths of Californians in both the Iraqi war theatre and in Afghanistan:  1 per 101,130

Per capita deaths of Texans in the Iraqi war theatre:  1 per 84,229
Per capita deaths of Texans in both the Iraqi war theatre and in Afghanistan:  1 per 77,814

Per capita deaths of Coloradians in the Iraqi war theatre:  1 per 129,167
Per capita deaths of Coloradians in both the Iraqi war theatre and in Afghanistan:  1 per 113,414

Per capita deaths of Idahoans in the Iraqi war theatre:  1 per 81,765
Per capita deaths of Idahoans in both the Iraqi war theatre and in Afghanistan:  1 per 81,765

Per capita deaths of Utahans in the Iraqi war theatre:  1 per 165,000
Per capita deaths of Utahans in both the Iraqi war theatre and in Afghanistan:  1 per 145,58

Per capita deaths of Wyomingites in the Iraqi war theatre:  1 per 56,111
Per capita deaths of Wyominites in both the Iraqi war theatre and in Afghanistan:  1 per 45,909

I used figures from the U.S. Census Bureau's Annual Population Estimates 2000 to 2006, and ballparked the above states average estimated population for the period between 2000 and 2006 (I used 930,000 for Montana; 12,370,000 for Pennsylvania; 35,800,000 for California; and 23,500,000 for Texas.  4,650,000 for Colorado; 1,390,000 for Idaho; 2,475,000 for Utah; and 505,000 for Wyoming)

I took military death information from the Department of Defense, but I did use other more up-to-date death figures for Montana.  I used 16 for the number of Montanans killed in Iraq, and 1 for the number of Montanans killed in Afghanistan. 

You can nosh that around any way you'd like - but a consistent approach will show one thing that I started thinking about back at the beginning of the year when I wrote the original post linked to above - that Montanans are paying a pretty high price for an illegal war in Iraq.

Gov. Butch Otter Says Bush Shouldn't Escalate With the Idaho Guard

by: Matt Singer

Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 18:03:40 PM MST

Gov. Butch Otter has a message for President Bush: Don't send the Idaho National Guard to Iraq again.

[...]

"Idaho families already have made tremendous personal sacrifices for this war. I would certainly make a personal and persuasive argument to the president that our men and women have gone above and beyond," Otter said in a prepared statement.

Right, 'cause the Pentagon is closely observing time limits these days. Or, you know, abandoning them.

Western Republicans Can't Do Math

by: Matt Singer

Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 17:09:10 PM MST

Here in Montana, something similar has occured. Even considering Rick Jore to be a Republican (an affiliation that Scott Sales appears to be entirely too eager to make), Republicans outnumber Democrats by only two members -- a mere 2% of the body. Yet Republicans are indicating that they plan to appoint committees with 11 Republicans and 8 Democrats. The reason for the Republicans to do this, of course, is to craft a false insurance policy. If you've got a 3-seat margin you can lose one member and still hold a majority.

But is there any reason why a party should have a larger margin on a committee than they do in a chamber as a whole? Literally, that's just backwards.

Senate Minority Leader Corey Stapleton might want to call his House colleagues. Mike Cooney is a nice guy, but he could easily pull a similar move in the Senate. And after Montanans get a taste of Sales' style Republicanism and put Dems firmly in control next time, I don't think their party will appreciate similar treatment.

Say what you want about Dems being in control last time, by virtually all indications they were respectful in their appointments and hardly vindictive, especially considering some of the treatment they received from Republicans over the years. You'd think that Republicans would realize the pendulum could easily swing.

They haven't. This is pure spite and vindictiveness -- another indication that Sideshow Scott Sales and his buddy Madman Mike Lange are less-than-ready for prime time.

Honestly, what happened to the voices of sanity in the Republican Party? The Mark Noennigs, the Bernie Olsons, the Sam Kitzenbergs, and the John Bohlingers? Oh right, they either got primaried out or got scared away.

Update -- Julie writes more.