He wants to be forgotten, even by God

by: Yellowstone Kelly

Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 06:05:13 AM MST

Didn't you hear? It's not a good idea to drink and drive. It's poor judgment to be at the controls of anything moving while impaired.

Let alone a high-powered, luxury speedboat.

In the dark.

On one of the most treacherous sections of Flathead Lake.

Going over 40 miles per hour.

Using GPS.

With four passengers onboard.

OK, you did it. No. You did them all. Just how impaired you were is open to question.

Hearing all of this, a stone sober observer might say incredulously, "And, you're trying to tell me he wasn't drunk?"

Our Congressman took the offense and made his BAC available immediately. Erik Iverson, who mysteriously surfaced within a matter of hours after the crash, saw to that. After all, the best defense is a good offense. Get the BAC out there; get it sullied, and then argue against its admissibility as evidence in court.

We can all speculate about woulda, coulda, shoulda with Denny's BAC at the time of the accident. (He was not legally impaired at the time the BAC was taken, several hours after the accident. And, if he was, well, the law seems to absolve him of any responsibility.)

But, his BAC is not a secret.

Evidently, you feel yours should be private. Sort of a private understanding with you and your barkeep.

While there have been no charges filed, your attorney, Todd Glazier, is nonetheless moving to suppress everything. And, like rats abandoning a sinking ship (or, power boat), public officials in Flathead County elected to investigate, prosecute and adjudicate are scurrying for cover.

"Recuse" me?

Tomorrow Night: Full Frontal Feminism

by: Allyson

Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:19:08 AM MST

The Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

by: Matt Singer

Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 14:38:22 PM MST

Ironically, it is Roe that would also be the strongest safeguard against a One Child policy or other totalitarian ideas we could import from abroad.

And worth noting, at the heart of this struggle, is the difference between moral, legal, and policy ideas. The legal concept here is quite distinct from the moral reasoning. The legal concept is that the government is not a fit arbiter of the propriety of abortion. Given the divisiveness of the issue, it may be for the best that we keep our government out of it.

The policy aspects are quite distinct. It is possible to disagree with an action and still oppose making it illegal. In fact, I'd say this is probably the median position of the American public on abortion -- as evidenced recently in South Dakota. Once again, the voters are right. Even if abortion is a moral evil, from a policy perspective, the government should only intervene if it can end that moral evil. I'm not much of one for using the government as a purely moral actor. And evidence indicates that anti-choice policies do little to prevent abortion, but do a lot to make it more dangerous.

In more contemporary news, if you're in the Helena area and are pro-choice, I'd urge you to get on over to Benny's tonight -- NARAL Pro-Choice Montana is having a benefit (sugg. donation - $25).

Meanwhile, one of the few abortion-related bills in the Montana legislature goes to hearing tomorrow -- it's a proposal for parental notification of abortion. This would be a good time to contact your legislator on the issue.

I understand the reason for the strong feelings on the issue, but I think the real question people on both sides need to ask themselves is -- what will parental notification with a judicial bypass option actually do? My guess is three things:

1) A few more young women talking to their parents than would otherwise happen.
2) Women using the judicial bypass and having later-term abortions as a result.
3) More young women being thrown out of their homes or getting beaten by their parents when notified of what they are doing.

On net, I think that's a bad result. If we're going to reduce abortions, let's have a real discussion about how to do that.