Cece-in-MT

2010 Critical Legal Studies Conference

2010-09-27T19:16:00.001-06:00

While law school has narrowed my thinking about legal issues in many ways, I have also had the opportunity to look through the telescope of the law and envision the wider universe of possibilities in simply thinking about the law from another perspective. The person's perspective.

I. Am. The Crit.

Still alive, just going to school

2009-09-03T21:39:00.002-06:00

I remember there used to be this blogger named V, like a million years ago, over on the blog Left In the West. Then V got into law school in Missoula, and he just disappeared. Now I know why.

It has been an eventful year, but in some ways, it seems easier to update you all in reverse.

There is this Critical Legal Journal at the University of Idaho. Critical Legal Studies, or the movement, emerged in America in the 70s and thrived for a while, then basically died out in law schools across the country. A good friend of mine got a new Journal started again at the University of Idaho. And I submitted to 'write on' to the crit, and made it. That's right, I will be working on a law journal, which is a big deal in law school, and not such a big deal to normal folk. So check in from time to time and see what we are up to.

I also have been working quite a bit on LGBT issues. I am presently the Co-President of the Sexual Orientation Diversity Alliance (SODA), and Vice President of the ACLU chapter at the UofI. One of the really stellar projects that we have worked on is a "Wills Clinic". The idea came from an unfortunate occurrence up here in Moscow.

A woman died unexpectedly. And while during her life her family had been accepting and supportive of the fact that she was a lesbian, and with her partner, when she died, her family completely shut the woman's partner out of the funeral and all decisions. Not ok.

So what we do, is we meet with people, answer some questions, ask some hard ones, then provide an opportunity for them to get wills, powers of attorney, and medical directives drafted all in one day. While it won't solve the funeral problem, it will allow people in committed relationships to get some of the rights that they should have already, without question. We did one of these clinics up in Moscow this January, and just got back from doing one in Boise in the middle of August.

I also helped form the UofI's first Native American Law Student Association, and we did lots of cool things. One of the best things was having tribe elders and judges come up to the school, and give talks about the differences between tribal court and state or federal courts. The Nez Perce and the Coeur d'Alene tribes have gone out of their way, and invited us to learn about native issues in the law. And asked us for help on things like a voter's rights pamphlet (guess who put that together?).

I also managed to get Idaho residency, which means I now pay in-state tuition. I feel a little traitor like about not being a Montana resident anymore, but then I realized that Montana is something you carry in your heart, and I wear my heart on my sleeve.

In not so legal like news, I met a boy. I am in love. I will bring him to MT for Thanksgiving, if not sooner so that he can fall in love with the place I call my home. Which would be a good thing, because he will be living there with me for a long time.... once I finish school.

What I want to say about Prop 8

2008-11-13T12:25:00.003-07:00

I Voted!

2008-11-04T09:59:00.002-07:00

One of my favorite things about election day:

did you?

Get your HATRED out of my LAWS.

2008-10-28T09:51:00.005-06:00

In the past few weeks in the Moscow, ID/Pullman, WA area, 6 crimes of hate have occurred.

* On September 29, at the University of Idaho, there was anti-gay vandalism on a student's door in a residence hall.

* On October 12, at Washington State University (WSU), there was anti-gay vandalism on a student's door in a residence hall.

* On October 15, a student was physically assaulted by another individual while walking near the Scott-Coman soccer fields in Pullman. He was punched in the face and lost consciousness.

* On October 18, a transgender student was physically assaulted outside a Pullman business. He was attacked by three individuals wearing Halloween masks. They knocked him to the ground and kicked him. He was taken to the hospital where he was diagnosed with a collapsed lung.

* On October 20, a transgender student was physically assaulted by an individual in a parking garage at WSU. He was knocked to the ground and kicked. He suffered bruises and a bloody lip.

* After the WSU Senate passed a resolution condemning such activities, one of the Senators was followed home and harassed by a handful of men, and a threatening note was posted on the door to the WSU Senate offices.

What rational person on this planet thinks it is acceptable behavior to hit another person because they are different from you? Seriously people.

AND IN THE LAW SCHOOL, THE LAW SCHOOL certain clubs have had the audacity to post signs supporting a Constitutional Amendment in California which would ban gay marriage. Proposition 8's title is "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment". And people have the chutzpah to say it is not an initiative about HATE. Are you kidding me?

What possible reason is there for posting a "Vote Yes on 8" sign in Moscow, ID? At most there are about 5 people here who might be casting absentee ballots in California who are attending this law school. There are 444 people in this building everyday, with only 5 who might vote in CA, the only reason to post such a sign is because people HATE people who are different than them. It is the only possible reason.

AND in South Dakota, people are trying to put HATE into their Constitution. Initiative 11 is called the Abortion Ban Initiative. A change to the Constitution of South Dakota which if enacted, will not only make it virtually impossible for a woman to get an abortion, but will certainly end up in the Supreme Court for failing to protect people's rights.

I am tired of the hatred. If you don't like something, fine; just do it behind closed doors. I won't put my judgments into your laws, if you keep your hatred out of mine.

"Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality
and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense
of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the
beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse
the true with the false and the false with the true.
Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice.
Justice at its best is love correcting everything that stands against love."
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

NOW Sarah Palin Poll

2008-09-24T08:53:00.003-06:00

Well I got to law school today, and in my inbox was this email from the firecracker, who has been taking on Sarah Palin facts via email with a veracity I didn't see from her in the primaries. The best part about the poll, is you can vote however you choose, the scary part about the poll is as of my voting, 50% of Americans think Sarah is qualified to run. Seriously. Which is better than 54% yes, but participating in a poll like this does matter. Take a minute and click in your vote!

- Cece
*********
Please help control the Sarah Palin momentum by participating in this PBS poll.
Vote and share widely.

PBS poll: Do you think Sarah Palin is qualified to serve as Vice President of the USA?

Voting started at about 66% No, 30% Yes. It's now 'yes' at 54% and 'no' at 44%.
The right wing has an email campaign going to turn the results around.

Please vote.
This sort of thing can actually matter, unfortunately.
It's only a matter of clicking a radio button Yes, No, or Don't know.

http://www.pbs.org/now/polls/poll-435.html

After you vote, please send to others.

"Because Freedom Can't Protect Itself"

2008-09-03T09:49:00.004-06:00

I just might stop waxing on about law school sometime soon . . . no promises. Last night, at the "Welcome Back Picnic" I met my mentor, who just happens to be related to Murphy Fox, and anyone who went to Carroll College or grew up in Helena, probably knows Murphy. He is also a big supporter of S.A.V.E., one of the first organizations I got involved with when I moved back to Helena. S.A.V.E. is of course chaired by Matt Elsaesser, who is a good friend, and now a City Commissioner thanks in (very small) part to me freezing and waiving at people on my lunch hour. Matt just happens to be the son of an adjunct professor here at U of I, ahhh . . . it is a small world.

Anyway, we were signing up for clubs here at the school. And I wanted to talk about one in particular, the ACLU. I happen to be a card carrying member, and have been for the past two years, it seemed natural to sign up to be a member here at the law school. I was talking the other day about why it is I decided to take the next step and become a lawyer. Guess what swag I scored last night at their table?

A blue rubber bracelet, which states "ACLU: Because Freedom Can't Protect Itself"
Sounds to me like a pretty great summation of why I am here.

Obama Event, Blogging from Moscow, ID

2008-08-28T19:02:00.016-06:00

Well here I sit in the Kenworthy (sp?) Center in downtown Moscow, where we are watching the convention on a movie screen with popcorn and beer . . . my kind of event.

In my first on the scene blog ever . . . thats right, everything has been after the fact due to my lack of laptop. Law school and its requirements have given me the opportunity to harass people live. SWEET!

I am being introduced for the first time to many of the local politicials, which is nice, coming into this at a late date. LOL. Walt Minnick(?) wasn't born in Idaho, which isn't important, but worth mentioning here in ID, just like it is in Montana, all the work that he has done for this state overwhelms his serious lacking in place of birth.

********
There are some great Dem v. Rep jokes flying. "Republicans tend to keep their shades down, and Democrats probably should".
********

People are getting up and down faster than I can find links to their sites on the web. Right now Judy Brown is up, who is running for the State Representative of Latah County, she's funny.
*******
Dems are the party that are open to change, open to other ideas. It is a traditional American value that you respect the opinions of others. It is a traditional American value to tell the truth. Let's set the record straight. - no idea who that was, but he rocked.
******
Dems eat the fish they catch, Reps hang them on the wall.
*******
Latah county elected Dems for 16 years, and that is something to be proud of.
*******
Stash to a Rep is money in the bank, stash to a Dem is beer in the fridge
*******
Obama is just about up, now things get even more interesting

*******
False alarm, Biden is up.

We are going to get back up as a nation. Now we get to hear from some peeps who have been inspired by this campaign, and why this time we can do it.
*******

Roy Gross from MI - Teamster. A Union job. Worked there for 18 years. Then Bush came in, and many friends and co-workers have lost their jobs and homes. What we need is a renewed economy. Differences no longer matter, it is who will work for Americans that matters.
*******
Monica Early from OH. She got an email of "facts" about Obama, she decided to check them out, and she ended up on the stage of the DNC, someone who is ordinary can make a difference.
Einstein quote, oh the room here is in stitches. This is good stuff.
*******
Janet Lynn Monaco from NY, living in FL - (love the accent) What gets me angry, is that Bush and McCain have done not only havent helped, but make it harder to get things done today. Tired of taking care of the BIG corporations, time to take care of all of us. YES WE CAN MAKE A CHANGE!
*******
Teresa Asenapp from NM. Grandparents couldnt read or write, but today because of them, she holds a doctorate in education. Strong families raise strong students. (she's cute). 10 million a year in early childhood education. 4K for college students in a tax credit - I could use that now.
*******
Pam Cash-Roper from NC. WAIT TILL YOU HEAR WHAT IS HAPPENING TO ME, maybe it is familiar.(did they put these people in order of comedic skills?) Life long Rep, Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush, but I can't afford 4 more years of this. The whole place is laughing. Barack Obama is MY President.
******
Barney Smith from IN (?) - Today my job is done by a foreign worker. They sent my job overseas, we need a President who puts Barney Smith ahead of Smith Barney, (even Jim Leher is laughing his a** off)
*******
While we wait for the main program to show up, I just wanted to mention myself, that it was 40 years ago today that MLK gave his famous "I have a dream" speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. To realize what the people who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence all those years ago, democracy, and to make it happen.

One of the things we were discussing today in class, (Property, I think), is that by entering into the field of law, we are entering into the process which takes the ideals of our great nation and puts them into action, and defends those actions. Hopefully we are on the side of helping out our common ideals and to working on changing the laws that are against the principles of democracy, instead of turning on points of law that are outdated, and that deserve to be changed. Do you believe in those documents? In what they had to say, and the responsiblity that they entrusted us all with?

It (law) is a calling, and not one to be undertaken lightly. And to always always remember why it is today, that I chose to go to law school, why did I chose to shoulder this burden, what did I dare to dream I could do with my own life?

I'll leave Obama to be Obama, and be happy with the fact that I have such a choice in hope on my ballot in mere weeks.

*Signing off to enjoy this moment in history*

Respectfully yours;

Cece-in-ID

Obama makes Veep Choice . . .

2008-08-21T19:36:00.002-06:00

but is hanging onto it like my niece hangs onto popcorn. Rumor has it that he is making stops all over the country prior to his arrival in Denver. And even though I am immersed in being repeatedly welcomed to law school, apparently I still care about who gets chosen. I am cool with Obama holding his cards close to his chest, but like many more, I am certain that I will have some questions about who he chooses.

Normally VP's have a pretty minor role, really only stepping in in times of crisis. Gore and *shudder* Chenney changed the Vice Presidency drastically. Of course one could argue that Chenney was actually the president, but I digress. . .

What is everyone thinking? Do you care? Are you more patient than I am?

*Sorry to do a political post over here, I am having problems with my MontanaNetroots connection.

First week of law school

2008-08-17T12:26:00.002-06:00

Well it has been a wonderful and exciting week. I have now officially been an Idaho resident for 1 week. This is not to say my transition went without more than its fair share of bumps.

When we pulled into town last Saturday afternoon, I found out that the apartment that I have been paying rent on for the prior 9 days wasn't even clean or ready for me. With my cat sitting in the Uhaul, and my mother and older bro in tow, I insisted that the company take me around to all of their apartments, until I found one that was inhabital. Not perfect, but at least livable. So now I am paying more in rent, but I have a bigger space, and we were able to unload the Uhaul that evening. My family headed out the next morning, and I was left alone to try and get everything set up enough to manage my first week.

On Monday, I licensed the car and myself, transferred my car insurance to Idaho, got registered to vote, switched the utilities, got set up on the U Idaho wireless, bought the rest of my books, and ran around town like a chicken with my head cut off.

Tuesday morning, bright and early, my "law career" started. I was in classes with about 24 of my fellow 1L's, and we started learning some pretty cool stuff. This continued throughout the week. The same class taught by 2 different professors, to get the feel for how professors can approach the same subject matter from different directions. One class taught by the "loud" professor, which I actually really enjoyed, he was animated and passionate about the subject.

But the real kicker is that on Tuesday night, on my way to a barbecue at one of the professor's house, I got T-Boned in an intersection, and hauled off to the hospital in my first ambulance ride. YAY! The car is not totaled, but it is going to take 3 weeks to fix. In the meantime I get to deal constantly with rental car companies and insurance companies, and a little bit of whiplash.

At least I am still ticking. The lady was terribly apologetic, and I felt horrible for her, and we were all able to walk away from the accident, so that was a good thing.

I have already made some wonderful friends, and I am happy with this decision. It is going to be a challenge and a commitment to homework for sure, but I love discussing the law and cases much like we do on the blogs. The difference being, there is a moderator (ie professor) pressing you to back up your stance with evidence. This is going to be good.

This Tuesday the real orientation begins, and I get to meet the other 75 or so law students coming in for the class of 2011. If the Early Welcome people were any indication, this is going to be a bright, passionate, articulate and wonderful group of people to know.

Watch Out World!!

2008-06-21T21:54:00.002-06:00

Well, it has finally happened. I bought a laptop in Missoula today.
Thanks in no small part to my family and my own savings, I now have a computer for law school. Oh, we are all in trouble now . . .

Last Day at Center Stage

2008-05-31T10:13:00.004-06:00

Well here I sit, on my last day, after a couple of years working at the only remaining locally owned video store in town. I love this place. For the most part my co-workers are interesting and entertaining, and a joy to work with. The great majority of the customers are also wonderful.

I will miss torturing everyone with Muppet and Star Wars Marathons. The cheesy 80's Marathons. The Tibet marathons. The Earth Day Marathons. If only the LotR trilogy weren't rated PG-13 and above, I certainly would have had one of those as well. And yes, I am aware that one of the films in the above lists is PG-13, dont bust me like that. Rules are meant to be bent.

I will miss Deb, who gets upset when I am not here to reccommend which of the new releases are good. I will miss Vicki, who has been cheering the law school decision on for over a year now. I will miss Jack and Daphne who say that watching my reaction to the movies they select, actually predict if they will like the movies or not. I will miss Peggy and her brother who are just about two of the most charming siblings I have ever met. I admire their dedication to one another.

This store used to be a chain store called National Video, then back when I was a kid, they went independent and locally owned. There was a contest in town to name it. I remember slipping suggestions into the box. Some of these VHSs are the same ones I took home and watched with my family as a child. And rented with friends during college. How cool is it to buy the say "Listen to Me", which I must have rented at least 10 times as a teen, and now I own. *shrugs her shoulders* Call me a geek. I am a die hard Center Stage fan, always have been, and always will be.

Don't worry, I am sure I will be around. Some friends and I are actually making a film about the store this summer, and yes I will be in it. I am sure it will be available for rental late this summer.

In the blogger way

2008-04-10T20:34:00.002-06:00

Caught off Guard

2008-04-09T23:39:00.003-06:00

I was suprised tonight. And I realized something about myself. I have been living downstairs from my same neighbor, and elderly and vital woman, probably in her 70's for the past few years. And we have struck up a friendship, and "I will watch your backship" over time. Vital for single women, (or maybe I have lived in big cities for too long).

I shovel her walks in winter, so she can get her cart out to her car, and get the groceries she needs. When I was on crutches after my knee surgery, and just starting to blog, she stopped by and offered to get me anything I needed. When she had back surgery last summer, I let her 1 1/2 foot ball of energy and might, otherwise known as Barney, drag me around the block for a week or so. On Sundays, she throws down the paper once she has read it. And I recycle her plastic. I make her apple pies from time to time, and each Christmas I get a plate of cookies from her. I listen to make sure she is up and moving each day, and she watches to make sure I make it home each night safely. One day this winter I was home sick, and I saw her stuck in a driveway snow drift, and together we spent about an hour digging her out, jointly cursing the men who just looked at us and kept driving. We have keys to one another's apartments in case of emergency. A symbiodic relationship of sorts. We help one another out, and cheer one another on. It is not the first time I have had such a great neighbor, but every time I run across one, I am gobsmacked and in love with the experience.

Well I am running out of letters followed by stars to call someone, so lets call her Helen.

Helen has wanted to take me out for dinner since I first started talking about going to law school. She has offered up prayers in church to support me while testing, applying, and the nail biting while I waited to see if I was accepted.

Well, we went to dinner tonight, and talked a lot. We talked about her past, mine, and the opportunities that still lie out there for both of us. A couple of points.

As we were walking up to her car for dinner, I saw a bumper sticker (the only one) for "Elaine Sollie Herman". I said "Who is that?" And she explained, said that Elaine was a member of her church, and that while she normally voted straight down the ticket Democratic, that she would make an exception in Elaine's case. Helen had read Elaine's proposals, knew her as a hard working woman, and that she would vote for her.

I didn't stop dead in my tracks over the fact that she would vote to elect a friend that she knows and respects . . . I stopped because I had thought Helen was a Republican. I got into Helen's car, and thought about why I had made that assumption. I mean, every time I wanted to post a political sign in the yard, I have checked it out with my neighbors, because I live in a complex with four other households, and I didn't want to step on anyone's toes. Even then, I posted the signs in what I consider to be my part of the lawn. I sat back and listened to Helen. I asked questions, she asked me some, and I started to peel away at who I thought she was.

"You say there is an attorney in you".
"Kind of. I know I love the law, and I know I love people and am good with them. I think law would be a good opportunity to pursue, but I know it isn't the only way I can make a difference in people's lives."
"I know you are good with people, I have seen it time and time again. But Cece, if there is one person I know on this planet, who works for the common good through politics and the law, it is you. This is what you are meant to do, have the courage to scale that mountain."

Well it is not everyday you get a compliment like that.

Yeah, she caught me off guard; and I am better for it.

Quick, like a Band-aide

2008-03-12T10:56:00.005-06:00

No one likes to confess that they have to eat a little crow, but I know how supportive everyone has been on my decision to attend law school, and you deserve to know what I know.

This past Saturday, mom left me some file boxes for law school outside of my house, and I saw that I had mail, but I forgot about it until the following morning when I saw it as I left for work at the weekend job. I opened a letter from the U of M, and found out that I have been denied admission this fall (with genuine regret). Sunday was a tough day, as I spent time processing the information. I still have an application pending with the University of Idaho, and I am still working it out, what I will decide. I will, of course, let you know that decision when it comes through, and what my final decision is about it.

A simple fact is, I have a history with the U of I, attending what I call “brain camp” the summers I was 13 and 14. I spent a few weeks each summer building solar panels, rockets, and launching eggs out of airplanes in contraptions I built, and I saw both eggs survive. The U of I also has a program in immigration, and a chance to learn from yet another expert in the field. How many people can say that they have learned law from four of the best people in a special area of law?

I have known a lot of people incredible and genuine people who have applied to graduate school after years in the work force, like myself; and they are not always successful on the first try. I now know their experience first hand. Frankly, I am comfortable to be in their company, perhaps that is why I had a backup plan from day one.

Here is the positive side just in case I get another denial letter: I get to pay off my car. I would be able to spend another year bonding with my niece B*love. I would also be able to pay off my knee surgery, and pay down on a personal loan I took out to move back to Montana, all of which would result in lower overhead to worry about while in school. I would get to spend another year at the weekday job, which looks to be quite exciting with the cases that are pending, that I wasn’t quite ready to leave behind. I get to spend another election season reviewing the initiatives, and being involved in evaluating candidates for office for the masses (I know it sounds silly, but I do truly enjoy tracking them through the whole process, and being a reliable source of information for Montanans to count on). I also would be able to follow through on a project that Common Cause has already committed to, and working to getting proper funding and experience in to an office to enforce laws, and educate the public in a place that desperately needs it.

There are too many positives to enumerate, and sometimes things happen for a reason. It is in these things, and others, that I have found my peace with the U of M’s decision not to accept me this fall. In that spirit, I am not really looking for sympathy or sorrow at this curve in the road. I have been so humbled with everyone’s wholehearted endorsement of the choice I made, and thank you for the continuing support around the next curve.

In a Forrest Gump like move: “Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know whatcha gonna get.” The logical conclusion of that reasoning, is while this twist might be a coconut crème (eeeewwww), the next one just might be a dark chocolate caramel. I am still ready and willing to take the next bite.

*******

UPDATE!

As I was posting this, I received this in an email:

Congratulations! The University of Idaho College of Law takes pleasure in offering you admission to the Class of 2011.

Can you say roller-coaster? I am still shaking.

Let the nailbiting begin

2008-02-22T09:02:00.003-07:00

Well after months of gathering such obscure information as the day I registered to vote in Montana, finding mistakes on my college transcripts and getting them corrected, and having to write 3 very personal essays, the law school applications are in the mail. Last weekend I was talking with the ex-hubba, just catching up, and we were talking about the whole law school adventure. I was talking about my fear of what happens if I don't get in, and having to tell everyone I didn't make it. He reminded me that not getting in doesn't mean the end of the pursuit, just another year pursing it. Ah well, what's done is done, cross your fingers that I get into the school I want to attend, and that I will be moving in August.

In other news, I finally figured out how to bowl. And I figured it out at exactly the right time, during the Helena City Tournament, and I ended up with a 1st place finish in the women's all-event handicapped. Now I take it to state, and here's hoping I can repeat the performance.

Anyway, I figure it is about time to jump in and start reviewing the ballot initiatives. So hang onto your hats, I know at least one of these will be an interesting discussion.

OMG I have a day off.

2007-12-21T10:29:00.000-07:00

So earlier this month, I was writing down the part-time-job-2 schedule, and I was scheduled to open tomorrow. But then something weird happened. The schedule changed about a week ago, and my name disappeared from the 22nd. Now I didn't ask for the 22nd off, and seeing as I haven't had a day off in the last 6 months unless I specifically requested it, I have been feeling like I have fallen into a worm hole. I have (quite literally) checked that schedule everyday this week. I still don't believe that I have it off. I even held up the calendar and examined to make sure that my name really was erased, and someone else had been written in. I am going to take them at their word, and I am going to flee town this afternoon (maybe, the whole snow covering ice portion of the road report is making me nervous). Amazing, my very own Xmas present, a day off that I didn't have to ask for.

Lets see . . . yesterday I broke a personal record. I mail a lot of stuff during the course of my full-time-job-day. And somewhere along the line, I developed a desire to see how many pieces of paper I could cram into a business sized envelope without damaging the structural integrity of the envelope, and without having to add tape to hold it all together. Just a little thing I like to do. I have to have fun somehow. Anyway, yesterday I broke a long standing record of 15 pages, and accomplished cramming 19 pages into that envelope, which meant that the postage went up a notch, and I had to put 92 cents on that sucker. Oh the giddy elation and accomplishment that sang through my system, I am still glowing today. Envelope stuffing. Try it sometime. Its addicting.

Cece2 gave me a present this morning, and I am trying to be really good and not open it. It is sitting just at the edge of my vision, taunting me. (Random thought).

I also got a new (used) keyboard. I was so tired of losing my bluetooth connection with the wireless one, that I decided a cord wouldn't really make my desk look any more disastrous. It is one of those spacey new agedey split board ergonomic ones. A couple of things about it:

First off, I never had a typing class in my life. I was a hunt and pecker in my teenage years, until I spent so much time on the keyboard, that I knew where everything was and developed my own loose style of typing (somewhere around that C++ class in the high school geek lab). As a direct result of not being classically trained, I keep hitting the gap between the keys on this new fangled board with my index fingers when my right index inappropriately tries to hit a BGT, or my left index jumps for NHY.

Secondly, and this is the good bit, I feel like I am operating a computer on the bridge of the Starship Enterprise (on the front left, where communications sits I believe). I think they should list this as a feature on the packaging of these keyboards. I think it is a fine selling point.

Speaking of Star Trek, being a geek, and general things that I like and think you might too; I follow Wil Wheaton's blog. I have been reading it since it went by another name (WWdN). Wil is a wonderful storyteller. He cracks me up, he introduced me to a true geek comic XKCD, and he is indirectly responsible for some of the snarky t-shirts in my wardobe, because he introduced me to Threadless. Wil has an ability to write about himself so honestly and without an ounce of shame, that you remember how wonderful it is to revel in all of your own quirks (see everything, herein above).

About a month ago, I bought one of his books, The Happiest Days of Our Lives. These are stories that are from his blog, but it is nice to have it in a portable take it to your cabin in the woods version. Wil definitely had more Star Wars figures than I did as a kid, but I bet he doesn't have the Lego fridge magnet ones that I have now. There are a couple of great stories about being a geek dad, a great one about his intro to D&D, and one of my favorites about a certain someone stumpin' around the neighborhood. I can't say enough good things about this collection of stories, and I suggest you order one for yourself.

One last thing. My present from Cece2 is an electronic sudoku game, I lasted whole 4 hours. I think that is an improvement in restraint on my part.

Homebirths

2007-12-03T10:05:00.000-07:00

So I am sure that a few of you might have seen that the IR ran a story on home births this Sunday. Meet B-love, that precious baby girl is my niece, N-love is my sister(-in-law), and Katherine is my weyettohaveanameforourrelationship person.

I knew this article was in the works, and I am glad to see that it gave a fairly balanced view. (I also thought how cool that the women in our family have made the front page of the paper twice in one year.). Back on the day that B-love came into the world, I wrote an auntie's first hand impression of a home birth, and I wanted to write today, a little more about the issue.

I always wanted to have one too. I have yet to have children, but believe you me, if I can, I will be having a home birth. I hate hospitals. I know they are "places of healing", but when I hear about some of the horror stories about the care given, or not given, the mistakes made and the actions not taken; I know that for me, hospitals are a place to avoid, unless absolutely necessary.

And the thing is, giving birth is not an emergency, it is not an injury, it is not an illness; it is a natural process. In the great majority of cases the amount of medical intervention in a home birth are drastically reduced, compared to the amount of interventions that happen in a hospital. Just look up the figures sometime. Home births are as safe as hospital births, not to mention that they are better than hospitals in so many ways.

Yes, there are times that a hospital birth are necessary. Even a few instances in which a Cesarean section are necessary. But did you know that the World Health Organization considers any thing above a 15% Cesarean rate as risky? The benefits of having a Cesarean section rate above 15% are far outweighed by the possible risks associated with having one. 15% people. Where does the US stand? As of 2005, at 30.2%. 30.2 PERCENT. Even scarier, a close friend of a close friend recently asked a Montana hospital what their Cesarean birth rate was, and it was more than 15% North of 30.2%.

It is time to reconsider what giving birth means to you ladies. Is it an emergency? A medical disease? Is surgery required? Trust your instincts. Ask questions.

Here is the thing, and I consider it to be essential. You have to chose the birth method that is comfortable for you, and for your baby. The best possible scenario.

If you feel safer in a hospital, by all means, please, go to the hospital, I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from having a hospital birth.

I for one, feel about all of the benefits of having a child at home, rather than in the hospital if possible. Don't get me wrong here, if either the child or I were in distress, I would not hesitate to go to the hospital.

As for my experience with B-love's birth? I can tell you quite confidently, that I wouldn't have had the same time, connection, and presence at my niece's birth in any hospital.

P.S. The article mentioned that home births might not be covered by health insurance. I cannot deny that that is a true fact. Here is another one B-love was brought into this world for $2,500, half of which her parents insurance covered. None of my N-love, brother and pre-birth B-love's visits with their midwife lasted less than 45 minutes. I even attended one myself, and got to ask questions, and hear B-love's heartbeat. Better yet, I spent over 2 hours with my brother, my sister and my new niece on the day of her birth.

The bottom line is, that a home birth costs way less than a hospital birth, including your deductible, and is definitely more family centered and attentive. I would have paid $1,250 out of my own stretched pocket for that.

MISCELLANEOUS UPDATE

2007-10-26T16:03:00.000-06:00

To add to the already fast paced world that I inhabit, I have added two regularly scheduled things to my agenda.

Earlier this fall, I joined Cece2’s bowling team. Now on one weeknight, I can be found hurling a ball down a greased lane towards duck pins. Slowly but surely, my game has improved. A month and a half ago I wrote: “I don’t know quite how to put this, but I scored a 138 by some miracle of the bowling gods last night. My average is 74. That’s right 74, go ahead laugh, I laugh about it all the time. Thank goodness for handicap leagues. Looks like my new average will be somewhere around 81. My new goal for next week, is to get about 80 on each game. Baby steps people, baby steps.”

I was steadily improving, when I ran into a snafu. I had been bowling all along with a borrowed ball and rented shoes. Then two weeks ago, the ball I had used disappeared. *POOF* I checked all of the racks, the special hiding place, and even got a teammate in on the act. Ol’Coke Bottled Finch had disappeared. Needless to say, but my bowling sucked for air that night, as I ran around trying to find a ball that fit my fingers, and that I could actually lift. I was thoroughly depressed by the end of the evening.

So I spent some money. YAY! Last Friday my new ball, new shoes and new bag arrived. I went out to the pro-shop, had my fingers measured, and with a little bit of squeaky wheeling, this past week, I was able to bowl with my very own brand new ball. Roar on Peacock Finch, roll em down. Well now my average is 89, and my goal is to get 100 or above on each game. Last week I almost made it, with a 102-109-85 series (not bad for the first night with a new ball).

*******

On another weekday evening, I have enrolled in a pottery class out at the Archie Bray Foundation. I spend several days of the week playing in mud, and much to my delight, after at least 14 years away from the wheel, I am still able to center a glob of clay within a minute or so. Our teacher, David Peters, assigned us a series of anything our hearts desire. To make 5 of the same thing, pick our favorite, and then make 12 more of our favorite, exactly the same. MUCH easier said than done.

I have two goals, first is guacamole bowls, and the second is some modified goblets. Seeing as the guac bowls are basically the same shape but bigger of what I want the goblets to be, I decided on the guac bowls first. The first three bowls are too small for guac, but have the right shape, they will become B-Love bowls for when she starts needing bowls. The next three are taking forever to dry, and I threw three more this week. The LA contingency has expressed excitement over the perfect guacamole bowls, and I hope to heck they turn out like I want them to.

They have to be thicker than a normal bowl, so that you can mash up the avacodo, and prepare the guacamole in one dish. I hate doing dishes, given that I am the dishwasher, therefore, I dont want the perfect guacamole bowl to be some prissy thing. But something sturdy, serviceable, and washable. Thats the goal.

*******

In B-love news, she now is able to cry, with real tears and everything. "How pitiful are we, the instant we don't get what we want." Auntie promises to not laugh too long, to get you what you need, and for the record tears help. So cute, so long, so lovely; I am in love with my neice. Its been a while since I was in love with anything this deeply, and I am enjoying this experience.

Oh yeah, and the first spontaneous gummy grin? Today. I earned it today.

*******

This weekend? Off to judge some debates, do a corn maze, clean like mad, and get some law school reccomendation letter requests off in the mail.

New Life everywhere!

2007-07-24T21:47:00.000-06:00

Cece2 and I were talking today. Just before I became an Aunt for the first time, Cece2 learned she was becoming and Aunt for the idontknowhowmanyth time. Then she found out that another relative was going to be having a baby, which would make her and idontknowhowmanyth time, well, times 2.

One of the best things for me in this journey, has been watching Cece2's niece (L-love) over her first year. Every few weeks or so, we get a new picture, or a new video clip, and whenever I saw them (her and her brother), I laughed my ass off, and then thought to myself "Just think, 9 months from now you get to share the same kind of funny stuff with her. The overwhelming love, the pride, and the laughter. How Cool! This is a piece of me. Wow!"

And while Cece2 has been an Aunt many times, and a mother once, there is still a twinge. Which is interesting, seriously interesting.

I heard the door open and close, but I was working on getting a brief out. Out of the corner of my ear, I heard Cece2's papers drop, and she just went out to greet whoever came in the door. Then I heard cooing sounds, and internally I asked myself "what is going on out there?". I heard Cece2 say"Congratulations, OH HOW CUTE". That was my key to turn around and pay attention to what was going on.

Turns out that today, my niece, B-Love stopped in today with her Mom to the law firm. Cece2 didn't bother to inform me that B-love had shown up, she just gravitated into the next room. Cece2 is still in trouble with me and she knows it, but she doesn't care. (I don't really care either, I think it is cute, but it is fun to give her sh** over it.)

B-love's dad (my bro) said it might be unprofessional, but N-love, B-love's mom knows better, she has hung out at the law firm from time to time. N-love knows fully well that if I need time to get something done, that I will be straight with her, and I know she will respect it. Any other time is fair game, which is part of the reason I love where I work so much.

I got the honor of holding B-love, and showing her off a tad. Most of the attorneys were gone, but I got a chance to show her to everyone else. YAY!

Also coming are two Montanans, one Korean, soon to be Montanan, and a multitude of new life, if we just open our eyes. Yeah I know it is schmultzy, but what are we doing here if not getting excited about new life, and our connection and responsiblity to it. Enjoying it and reveling in it.

Ok, B-love? You made you Aunt a schmultz. I forgive you. ;)

Montana Blogs . . . One Stop Shopping

2007-07-20T09:13:00.000-06:00

Oh, and as a bonus? A picture of my B-Love, day 2 in the world.

Well it's been a crazy few months, sorry for the lack of posting, I swear I will stop saying that soon. ;)

On the day my little B-Love came into the world, I attended a late night online (of course) meeting with some of those wierdos known as bloggers. To try to help brainstorm some ideas for, well a blog about blogs, specifically, those of the Montana slant. Its been over a year since I actually started blogging myself, but I have been reading blogs for a couple of years. I have told this story before, but it is worth repeating.

I was really hungry for a pasty. Seriously, this is how I stumbled onto a blog actually written in Montana. Montana Jones, which to this day, remains one of my favorite local blogs. You will see him over there in the side bar. If you click my link to Montana Jones, you will see he has a list of blogs he likes, and I spent some time checking those out (pretty great stuff if you ask me). Now under the list of "Blogs I like to read" you will notice "A Chicken Is Not a Pillage", lordy, now there is a fun site, at least I think so. I was hooked.

And right now, that is pretty much how things work. We all link the stuff we like, the stuff we check in on, but what if you wanted to find out about poetry in Montana? How about some photography? How about an off the wall read about someone else's adventures? Wouldn't it be great to have a place to go that centralized information about all different kinds of blogs?

Well we have one now. And we are just getting started. We are trying to figure this whole thing out. So drop on by, and let us know what you think, what we could do, or just say hi.

To Peanut.

2007-03-16T17:13:00.001-06:00

I know I have been silent for a while. There has been much going on in my life, and not enough time or will to update everyone.

New life, getting older life, and realization life.

Me first. My bro and sis (in-law) are having a baby. And while I am overjoyed, it also puts into perspective that at the same time that my chance to have a baby is slipping away, especially given my plans for my own future. I still want to go to law school, and that is in 2008, which puts me at 2011 before I can even consider a child, much less the cost of one in my life (not to mention school loans). I know that by even desiring law school, I have cut my chances to have a child (celebrate conservatives). And that is a hard realization. One I struggle with on a daily basis.

I was hanging out with another Cece lately, and she told a group of friends about how when she grew up, all she really wanted to be was a mother. And how her friends might have put her down for those thoughts. She is happy now, the proud mother of a beautiful child, working part time, and living her dream. I look at her, and I know that I wanted the same things, but my life, and my choices have not lead to that dream.

There is no time perfect to have a child, there will always be bills, wants and desires standing in the way. But I have seen the spark that a child coming can create, and the changes that happen because of them.

The Firecracker, although I am loath to admit it, is getting older with each passing day, just as I am. More and more she wants to talk about this process with her children, and more and more we brush the challenges away. I know this is a natural reaction, on both our parts, but in the past year I have come to the realization, with the passing of my father, that some things just can’t be ignored. Time is to be cherished.

I will be the first to admit that at times the Firecracker can drive me nutso, but then I sit back and remember the good times, which clearly make up the majority. Then I rue the day I taught her about the www, linking, and searching.

The Firecracker and one of her good friends (whom I love dearly, and said in a reference letter for me when I was 19 said “she has an overblown sense of justice, that she should grow out of someday”. HA! Not yet MA, just wait for it . . . or maybe you have changed your mind . . .) , sent me a link. I double dog dare you not to tear up. http://parentswish.com/site01/small.html

Then there is the new one. The little one, who carries some, definitely not all of my genes forward. He/She has not arrived yet, but I love them so much.

I read somewhere sometime, that when a new little one arrives in a family they celebrate him or her, but that at the same time, the little him or her that didn’t arrive passes into memory, and we grieve them.

So many of my thoughts turn to the next generation. So much of my love, and who I am becoming today is for her or him. Peanut, I love you.

I am so happy and eager to greet you. I just can’t wait. And I know you will sleep most of the time when I first meet you, but I tremble with joy knowing that we will have that time. Oh, don’t get me wrong, I know you will spit up on me, but I know that is natural. I also know sometimes Mom and Dad will have better arms and comforting skills than I do, but I am willing to learn. I am looking forward to that first gummy grin, the charging after you to make sure that you are safe when you first learn to crawl and walk.

I am looking forward to you.

And isn’t that what it is all about? New life I am creating for me, the getting older life of myself and my mother, and realization life of the Peanut, and the changes happening to my bro and sis (in law).

Life is good. For all of us.

To Rubber Button and Sparkly Button

2007-01-30T02:29:00.000-07:00

When its been 10 years since you have seen an old friend, you are eager to see if he is the same, how his life has changed, and especially, to meet the person with whom he has chosen to spend his life.

There was a good part of the time spent talking about people that she didn’t even know, “what about so and so, what happened to them?” and “wow I haven’t thought of that person in years”, etc.

I was blown away. I couldn’t think of a more perfect person for RB to settle down with if I tried.

They greeted me smiling at Union Station on Friday night/Saturday morning as if I hadn’t put a crimp in their step by arriving around midnight. Sparkly Button stepped out of the car, came right up to me with a huge smile on her face, and welcomed me. RB got his chance second. RB and I tried not to jump right into the “who is who and where are they” stuff right away, and although it was WAY past her normal bedtime, we had a great conversation. I noted she has the same painting hanging in their bedroom, as I have hanging in my living room . . .instant connection.

Early on Saturday morning, (early for me), we were all up and about, RB made SB and I breakfast while we chatted (nice to be waited on). Turns out I am a “real coffee drinker”, as I take mine unembellished, without such things as cream or sugar. I got a nice bfast, RB dropped me at the Metro, and I was off to the March on DC.

They were so good about my schedule, especially given how unscheduled it was. When I finally made my way back to their neck of the woods after the March, RB picked me up, we rendezvoused at their home, and headed out for a great Spanish dinner. It was a treat and a half! I loved it.

Sunday morning I woke up tired and sore, but determined to get to some internet access. They tracked down a couple of places that might have a terminal for me, and I trekked all over the city trying to find one. I was unsuccessful, but laughing the whole way. I made my way into DC, went up in the Washington Monument, which had been closed both of the other times I have been to DC, and snapped some shots of where I had been the day before. When I made my way back again, we gathered for dinner, (Jitterbug must have had something going on, and was unable to attend), and went out for really fresh Cali-Mexican, which was also wonderful.

The Margaritas might have been too strong though, about ½ way through the first one, I misspoke, and said I might want to be a Republican instead of saying I might want to be a Representative. While I eyeballed the margarita, and RB laughed and said “Now you’re talking!”

How wonderful to see an old friend so comfortable in love. Laughing so much, and so equally supported in love.

Go Rubber Button and Sparkly Button! I am proud and happy for the two of you! Good catch on both your parts.

26 v 34

2007-01-09T20:43:00.000-07:00

Ok, this is about the 15th time I have tried to post this post. I will not get aggravated.

This is a slightly delayed post regarding turning 34 recently. Some friends of mine, who know me, but not my age, thought I was turning 26. I love that thought. It reminds me that age is just a number, and nothing to get too worked up about, and that I seem to be doing well with that whole not taking myself too seriously thing.

Oh, and one more update:

Anime Andrew.

2007-01-09T18:17:00.000-07:00

So as many of you know, I have friends in the artistic community. My buddy Andrew and his friends have got a new online show started up over at MyFilmU called Anime Andrew. I laughed my ass off a couple of times, but then I know Andrew and his humor well.

Check it out, have some laughs, and let us know what you think.

Cece’s year 2006 in review

2007-01-01T20:36:00.000-07:00

Well it was an eventful one. My year really started on Christmas Eve 2005. That was the fateful night of the last straw tear on my ACL.

January. I spent most of the month hobbling around, icing, getting to and from doctor appointments, trying to figure out when to have the surgery, so that my health insurance would pay for their fair share, mostly I was in a ton of pain, and just wanted to get it done, but I had to be smart about it.

February. My surgery was on the 2nd, and I remember sitting in the tub, looking down at my left knee, knowing that it would be the last time I would look at it without seeing scars. What a strange feeling and knowledge to have. I spent the week after the surgery going to PT, sleeping and going stir crazy. I was so eager to get back to work the following week, that I found out the hard way that you really need a lot of time to get your strength back after ACL and Meniscus repair. Oh I kept going in to work each morning, but by early afternoon my strength would flag, and no matter how much my spirit wanted to be there, my body just wasn’t ready.

March. By the time March rolled around I was good and peevered off at my knee brace, and more than a little sick of the crutches. To make things worse, at the time I was working a second job, and I was supposed to be in the main office, but I somehow got shuttled off to the weekend shift in a Kiosk in Walmart. I would get so bored out there by myself that I thought seriously about releasing the big bouncy balls from their display several times, just for entertainment.

April. In April I got involved with blogging. I know how it happened, I am just not to sure about why I did it, and why I ended up liking it so much. The second job’s season ended, (thank goodness), I bought a new bike with my tax return, and started to feel human enough to want to date again. Well trying to ask Gola out got me nowhere, except to the realization that he probably wasn’t right for me.

May. In May several things happened. I went and helped with the bundling of recyclables that SAVE had gathered here in Helena. While it was fun, it also was horribly messy. I still wasn’t too sure on my knee yet, so I was crawling around in the muck on the floor, kicking in bottles, instead of trying to stand on the slippery surface. I came out of there covered in crud, and happy as a clam.
My biological father also passed away. He died from a blood disease that they haven’t linked to families yet, but both he and his sister died from it, so at the very least I should get tested for it. I haven’t had the guts to go yet though. Big John was a part of my life until I was 4, then essentially not involved at all. When I got older, I wrote a postcard to my grandmother, and he wrote me back, and asked if it would be ok if we would talk again. I thought about it for a while, then told him I would be open to trying out a friendship, but that he had walked away from his chance to be my father.
So for a few years, we sent cards and letters from time to time. Talking about things, clearing the air, and learning about one another. In September 2005, he came to visit me here in Montana. Neither of my brothers were interested in seeing him, and I can understand where they were coming from, but I will be glad to my dying day that I spent time with him, even though I wasn’t ready to.
Then he died. Not without warning to people in Michigan, but he never told me he was getting worse, and he never called, and that still hurts.

June. I started a different second job, the one I still have, and really liked it. It did however, take up a lot of my spare time, so this ended up being the month that felt most like simply surviving of the whole year. Well other than getting involed with a women’s health pedometer challenge that was a part of my rehab, as well as trying to walk viturally from Alaska to Hawaii.

July. I got involved with politics, in particular the initiatives, and that is when my blogging took off. All of a sudden, here was something that intrigued me, got me riled up, and something I wanted to talk about. I spent a lot of time learning about the initiatives, getting out to rallies and talks, and learning about the whole process. My friend YV also came up to visit for a long weekend from LA. It was her first time in Montana, and just spending time with her revitalized my whole person. I love that girl.

August. I started writing about the initiatives in depth, I wrote about Burns in the newspapers and online. I was spending a lot of time writing, reading and researching, and loving every second of it.

September. My blogging had become a full time 3rd job. I was attending debates all over the state, meeting other bloggers, taking time off of work to file complaints and to go to the State Law library. I emailed with a political cartoonist, called into radio shows, and went to hearings on the initiative challenges in court.

October. I don’t think I slept in October. I was running around like a chicken with my head cut off. I worked the Benton Avenue Cemetery clean-up, and made sure to plant bulbs on the graves my mother and I adopted. The initiatives had their supreme court challenges going on, went to another debate or two, guest blogged on a friend’s site, got information passed along to investigators, went on the radio, oh and met someone. I was exhausted but happy.

November. I was so glad to see the end of the tunnel approaching. I got out, knocked on doors and talked to voters. I went to the Democrat’s return party and met up with some bloggers there. We talked about the concept for MontanNetroots, and got it up and running within a few days of the elections. My Cece-in-MT blog turned decidedly more personal, with the exception of the voting fraud allegations going on on the reservations of Montana. The thing with that someone didn’t really work out. And the biggest news of all, I found out I was going to become an aunt in the summer of 2007.

December. My lil bro graduated from the police academy, and if you have never seen a tape of what those guys go through, whew, it is impressive. I got nominated for a weblog award, got involved with a new organization, got schnookered by my whole family for Christmas, and came in second on the awards. Near the end there, I got entangled in some freedom of speech mess, but I even found that invigorating.

How do you think 2007 will shape up?

Well we’ve got the Legislature convening, people declaring their intent to run for the nomination of their party for who will be running for president, the LSAT comes up in June, then scholarship applications, school applications and visits, I am heading down to LA to see my friends in February, I will become an aunt, and there are rumors of a family camp in the early fall back near Lewistown, where we first lived when we moved to Montana. Should be interesting . . .

On the Eve of the Results

2006-12-28T21:01:00.000-07:00

I wondered for a while about posting something like this, but had I not, I would have violated (IMO) the spirit in which I created this blog.

When I told my family and friends that I was nominated for a Montana Weblog Award for all of the work I did on initiatives, turning legalese into English, pointing out the faults in the initiatives, and pontificating my own opinions, my family was genuinely happy for me. Lord knows that it took time away from them.

I can remember several family and friend functions that I attended when I was literally itching to get home and post. A thought became clear, and I knew I had to write about it. Or the results of a case had come in, and I felt like people were waiting for my take on it. These things might have been real or imagined, but I still felt a responsibility to get home and post. So I did.

Either way, what a huge honor and validation to be nominated for an award after only 5 months of serious blogging.

“SHAZAM! You are coming into focus.” (movie anyone?)

People have long told me that I should write, I just didn’t have enough confidence in my voice to put it out there. This April I tentatively dipped my toes into the waters, and by August I was in full swing. I admit that I live for comments (although there are too few) and “hits”, I learned about site meters, and recently seemed to have figured out posting pictures (knock on wood). I redesigned my blog off of a template to more accurately reflect my personal tastes, but I am still jealous of people with pics in their byline (think Montana Jones, Intelligent Discontent, Watermark). Most importantly, I know that people like my writing, even if it is sprinkled with legalese.

I met some friends, raised some eyebrows of strangers, got one Representative wishing he hadn’t answered the way he did, changed one newspaper’s question of the week, talked to a couple of newspaper editors, filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, appeared on the airwaves, and run into people who knew of my writing before I knew them. Wow.

So Cece-in-MT is officially becoming personal, and I will leave the political stuff for the posts over at MontanaNetroots.

Thanks to all the readers, you have encouraged me (and that means so much). Thanks to the MSM, (yeah I know), for beginning to realize that we just might have a better more in-depth take on things. Thanks to the Trolls, for helping me learn how to deal with a challenge. Thanks to my employers, for understanding that there were a couple of days when I just couldn’t be at work, because I had to get out there and do my thing.

Most of all, thanks to my family and friends, for not only learning to recognize that gleam in my eye, but for respecting it, and for your unconditional support of my passions.

Christmas Questions

2006-12-28T11:15:00.000-07:00

I saw this over at Craig’s, and I know I am two days late, but I don’t care, I am bored and want to do it, its up to you whether you read it or not.

1. Wrapping paper or gift bags? Both, generally. This year with the whole gift of time things I had to carry the coupons in a gift back so as to not lose them. But in years when I give traditional gifts, I actually like spending the time wrapping and ribboning presents.

2. Real tree or artificial? None, but when I do, always real. Its been a couple of years since I have bothered to put up a tree, at least since moving from LA to Montana, which seems faintly ironic. I even bought a tree tag last year, then never went and got one. Laziness like that is only topped by the fact I bought a wreath for the front of my car this year, and it is still sitting on my kitchen counter.

3. When do you put up the tree? When I put one up? Tradition is to go tromping through the snow on Thanksgiving morning while the turkey is cooking, saw one down, then put it up and decorate it the day after Thanksgiving.

4. When do you take the tree down? The day after my Birthday, so in the second week of January.

5. Do you like eggnog? Blech. None of that Tom and Jerry’s carp either.

6. Favorite gift you received as a child? Well with Christmas and my birthday being two weeks apart, sometimes it is hard to distinguish exactly what I got when. I do recall one Christmas when my younger brother pretended to still believe in Santa Claus so that he could ask for a big present and get it (even though mom and dad were having a tough financial year that year, and we kids had agreed to ask for small gifts), and he got a BMX bike. The little crud, I was good and mad at him for two weeks, until on the morning of my birthday I woke up to find a blue ten-speed bike leaning against my radiator, which I promptly named Tinfoil, and would ride around the neighborhood yelling “HI HO TINFOIL, AWAY!” Yeah, I was a nerd too.

7. Do you have a nativity scene? Nope, not really into the whole nativity thing. That being said, I do want to inherit the Nativity Scene that is a wooden puzzle, that the family has always struggled to put away after displaying it year after year. I like that thing.

8. Hardest person to buy for? My younger brother, I am not saying he is picky, lets just say he is particular, and sometimes it is just easier to get him a gift certificate than it is to try to find the exact special thing that I think he will enjoy. (Although I haven’t seen that knight lighter I got him two Christmases ago, and I though that one was a score!)

9. Easiest person to buy for? My big brother, I just go out and buy him exactly what I want, and he loves it.

10. Mail or email Christmas cards? Uhhhh, oh yeah, I had better get cracking on that, I email mine.

11. Worst Christmas gift you ever received? Well it was still a gift, so it wasn’t bad, because I returned it and got what I wanted. My ex-Dad had a theory, all he had to do was walk into a department store, buy the gaudiest thing on the rack, and I would love it. Erm, no. Well one year he came home with a black velour sweater, with HUGE paisleys all over it in multi-colored rhinestones and glitter and carp. Basically grandma-wear. I raised an eyebrow, thanked him, returned it the next day, and bought a watch with Goofy on it that ran backwards. I still have that watch to this day.

12. Favorite Christmas movie? I think it is the legal side of me coming out, but its “Miracle on 34th Street” both the old and new versions. Also, “Christmas Story” which gets me laughing every time, and usually ends up with me snorting spiced cider out of or into my nose.

13. When do you start shopping? All year long. If I see something that is perfect, I snag it and hang onto it.

14. Have you ever recycled a Christmas present? Not that I can recall.

15. Favorite thing to eat at Christmas? Cheese balls. Mom makes the best.

16. Clear lights or colored on the tree? Little clear twinklie lights everywhere.

17. Favorite Christmas song? I’ll be home for Christmas.

18. Travel at Christmas or stay home? Traveled 8 blocks to Mom’s place.

19. Can you name all of Santa’s Reindeers? Comet, Cupid, Donner, Blitzen, Rudolph, ummmm, Dancer, Dasher, cripes . . . wait, PRANCER and VIXEN.

20. Angel on the tree top or a star? A politically correct angel (that’s what my ex called her).

21. Open the presents on Christmas Eve or morning? Morning, despite all the years of trying to get to open one early.

22. Most annoying thing about this time of year? I am going to take a chance and be honest here, cute couples everywhere. Christmas and Valentines day hands down make me the most depressed about being single.

23. Do you have Jebus in your heart this Christmas? No, but I like saying Bjebus.

24. What would you like for ~~Christmas~~ your Birthday? A salad spinner.

Added Bonus? I got the Leia picture working . . .

My votes on the 2006 Montana Weblog Awards

2006-12-26T18:56:00.000-07:00

Before I get around to telling you who I voted for and why, please understand that my votes are just my personal preferences. I am not saying one is better than the other, just usually that I enjoyed one more than the other. I was simply delighted to be involved in this whole Weblog Award season, not only as a nominee, but also learning how many blogs are out there in Montana that I didn’t even know about, which in turn has lead to me finding more sites to love and check into.
I still believe this in the bottom of my heart: Anyone who has the gumption to post about themselves, their daily lives, their gaffes, and their opinions out on the world wide web for the enjoyment of others, is someone that I admire. So thanks for all the hard work, the insights, the laughter and the outrage sparked blogging this past year. I for one appreciate it.

Best Left Leaning Blog:
Left In The West, now there was a blog that I work on that was nominated in this category, but I was thinking in terms of the whole year, not just the last couple of months, and LitW was my homestop until MontanaNetroots got started, so they get my nod for best left leaning blog.

Best Right Leaning Blog:Electric City Weblog, believe it or not, I do have a conservative side. And there is nothing I like better than a blog that gets me fired up and wanting to post an opposing opinion, it takes all kinds, I just happen to prefer rational ones. :P

Best Independent or Libertarian Blog:
Pragmatic Revolt, part of my favorite brother team in the Montana blogging world, not only does Moorcat present a feisty but thought out argument, but he has me laughing and nodding along. Recently he has begun an investigation into city government, which will be sure to have me stopping by for regular installments. Keep it up!

Best Political Blog:
Intelligent Discontent, I was going to say that Pogie, Jason, and Dave are not always the quickest at posting, but then all those mornings that I have found something interesting, and considered blogging on it, I check out what is going on over at ID, and sure enough, they have scooped me, and written it better than I would have. Thank you for all the great points that have helped to clarify my own opinions over the past year.

Blog That Had The Most Impact on the Elections of 2006:
4 & 20 Blackbirds, I would have to say that Jay scoops this one. Jay is on a bit of a time delay, but man, that time delay allows for the percolating of some fine thoughts and analysis.
Another reason I have to give this to Jay, is because of the great way that he influenced and encouraged other people, (including yours truly), to speak up and talk about what they knew, find out more info about what they didn’t know, and then open it up to a public forum. Some of my favorite times this political season where when I was with Jay and/or Shane, and not at a keyboard, sharing ideas, getting in spirited debates, and knowing that there were other people out there just like me, dedicated to getting the real information out to the public, instead of that drivel that the mass media calls coverage of an issue. Thanks Jay, for all you did online, and offline.

Montana Blog that best represents popular culture:
Thoughts From The Middle Of Nowhere, I guess I was looking for that unique Montana slant, the one that tickled my funny bone, good stories, poems, all the essence of what I consider to be Montana. Way to go Sam.

Best Montana History Blog:
A History of Montana By Kodak, I was looking for something with information and stories and some pictures, I found it at Kodak’s site.
Blog That Best Represents a Montana Lifestyle:
Goodness, this is a hard one, I like two of them, mainly because they have an opinion and are not afraid to express it. I am more familiar with Wulgar’s work, but was delighted to find another cranky cuss out there, for some reason I just love em. I am going to have to go with A Chicken Is Not Pillage but I am looking forward to reading more of What I Think (as if you give a damn).

Most Creative Montana Blog:
Watermark, poems, pictures, writing, humor, a community. Wonderful. What more could be said? Well how about I might never have found it if not for these Awards.

Best Photography:
Bitterroot and Bergamot, quite simply took my breath away. I wish I had that kind of talent with picture taking, not to mention being able to upload a picture.

Best Written Montana Blog:
4 & 20 Blackbirds, on so many topics Jay can speak from the heart, and speak well.

Most Humorous Montana Blog:
A Secular Franciscan Life, not one of the ones I nominated, but one that I found through the awards. What a wonderful addition to my laughing skills.

Best Post:
Do Religious Leaders On The Right Have a Political Agenda?, Wrong Dogs Life. Shane gets a nod on this one, not only did he blow my mind early in the morning, but it is a concept that has come back to me time and time again since he posted his take. Shane was under nominated in my opinion, but that is not the reason he got my vote here. He opened my eyes about possible prejudices that I held, and helped me to look at my own beliefs in true democracy, and the founding principles of this country.

Best Series of Posts:
The Political Dictionary, Rebels Are We. I personally enjoyed Colby’s adventure into the alphabet, and look forward to future installments. Again, he helped open my eyes and opinions about words that I fling around carelessly. As much as it could possibly be rewarding to vote for myself, I decided that Colby had a good hook, where as my posts could be somewhat dry to someone not looking for cold hard facts, ok with a liberal spicing of Cece opinion. Way to go Colby!

Oh, and my favorite blog not nominated? MontanaJones

Blackbird Pie

2006-12-25T21:02:00.000-07:00

Merry Christmas.

I don’t know quite where to start this story, and readers of my blog might remember that I was somewhat apprehensive about the gift giving this Christmas.

You see, a couple of months ago, my younger sister (ok to be technical, sis-in-law) suggested that seeing as we are all adults, to save us all some credit card debt, that we should all give each other “gifts of time”.

Now to be fair, when this idea was suggested to me, I got a little peevered off. I look forward to Christmas, my birthday (a couple of weeks later) and presents all year long, and I admit to being somewhat tied to the idea of presents. And to be honest, I didn’t really know what a gift of time was.

So over the past couple of months, I have been working and not working on ideas of “gifts of time”, pouting, scheming, making a list to buy everything that I was wanting for myself with the money I would have spent on my loved ones. I have also complained to Cece2 from the office, gotten smart-assed, and basically vented to people who might not report back to my family exactly what I was saying. I called my big bro and talked with him at length about it, asked him how he was doing on his gifts of time. You get the idea. Basically, I was going to go along with the plan, but I was fighting it.

I giggled to myself, as I tied coupons for my gifts of time to plastic bubble gum watches I bought from the party favor isle. Oh I was going along with the idea, but I was going to get some laughs.

So this morning as we were sitting in Mom’s living room opening our coupons, everyone was enjoying their gifts of time, thanking each other for the thoughtfulness, and looking forward to the promises of help on projects, monopoly games, cooking, movie going, there was a good buzz going on. *Cue internal dialogue*

*Maybe this is a good thing, I kinda like it. I am still getting that salad spinner though.*

Another skill my family seems to have developed over the past year, is the fine art of the surprise, the thrill you get from being in on the secret, and the stories that will go down in family history that come from it, not to mention the reenactments. So far this year we have gotten mom good on mother’s day, and almost got younger bro on his graduation from police academy day. Today? My turn.

Lil Sis stood up when we were done opening our gifts and said “Now Cece, we know you were a bit disappointed with the whole gift of time plan for this Christmas, (seems like blogs make it harder to keep our feelings a secret), and we all went together and got you a material gift.” She walked into my mom’s bedroom, and picked up two presents. “Now don’t feel guilty or anything, its more symbolic than anything else.”
My first present was one of those plastic outfitted tool boxes, that you keep in an apartment. “For the tools you need when going to law school.”

Then there was a note.

“Cece- We know you were a little bummed about this whole gift of time thing, but it was all a part of a master plan. The family – your family – decided to pool our resources and get you a collective gift from all of us. This present is to let you know that we support you to the fullest on your journey through the law school process. This gift can be added to when you are able, and possibly by us for other special days, and it can be used whenever you are ready. And if you decide that law school is not for you, it is still something you will use and enjoy. Just know that no matter what you will always have the love and support of the five people who are staring at you right now. Love – Your Family.”

Who wants to know what was in that second box?

A savings account, with a tidy sum deposited. The money that my family would have spent on Christmas presents to each other, was deposited into an account for my benefit. Also in the box was a slew of materials about laptop computers. Including some info on best buys that my uncle had looked up for me from afar. Later in the day by my other aunt and uncle added to the balance of the account.

“You can get it now, and use it for your blogging, you can blog on location or in exotic places, or you can wait until you head to law school and get one then. Even if you don’t go to law school, this is our gift to you.”

As you can imagine, I was balling my ass off, and calling myself a sh**head. All the moments of disappointment, of rebelling against the idea, of trying to think of things that would be meaningful to my family members, when the whole time it was one huge surprise for me.

A slice of humble (blackbird) pie with that?

They gave up their presents, to help make my dream come true. Does it get much better than that?

I know I am loved.

Merry Christmas to all. Here’s a story to share and reflect upon.

Oh, and the pictures that big sis (ok, to be technical, also sis-in-law) was snapping? Apparently I was crying and looking a mess, and didn’t turn out so great.

Hey you pipe down out there Leia!

2006-12-13T18:40:00.000-07:00

So here is something that has been on my mind for a while, and I figured it was time to write it up. I am still deciding on whether to post it on MontanaNetroots (as political), or on Cece-in-MT (as personal).

Recently I joined an organization, Common Cause’s Montana Branch. Common Cause was established back in the early 70’s as a non-partisan organization, to help keep our government in check, and to advance the cause of the “everyman”.

Well someone asked recently, and I still haven’t sorted out why (I have my suspicions), “Are you sure YOU (*raising an eyebrow*) want to join Common Cause?” Well yes, I am sure. Why do you think I shouldn’t join?

So this post is about my suspicions, and I might have gotten the person’s intentions in asking the question wrong, but it triggered this response in me: People can be very judgmental.

My present title is “Legal Secretary”. I have done about a lot of jobs outside of that title at this job, and have held what others might consider a loftier title of “Paralegal”, but I have also been a cashier at a fast food joint. In the past I have noticed when people looked down their noses at me for being a mere “Secretary”. I must have the IQ of a gnat if all I do is answer the phone all day. Well guess what? I bet you would be pretty hard pressed to find a secretary out there who only answers the phone.

And that’s saying that answering the phone takes little or no talent or brainpower. I beg to differ. I often call myself “the first line of defense”, and just in case you were wondering, you always want to be on good terms with the person answering the phone at any establishment. If you treat them badly, how seriously do you think they will take your problem or urgent need? But I digress from the original point . . .

The thing about a democracy (or at least as one should be) is that it doesn’t matter what your IQ, job title, education level, or paycheck amount to, and the only thing that really matters is that you are a citizen, and have the right to express your opinion.

Now I have to admit that I can be judgmental at times. I do however tend to only voice those opinions in the privacy of my own home and mind, with friends who think like I do, or on occasion, in an argument when I know darn well that the other person has the right, and probably will be judgmental about me as well. I wouldn’t ever publicly and personally suggest that someone doesn’t have the intelligence to join an organization, or express an opinion. Now I will tell them I think they are misinformed about the subject, and probably point them to some information that I have, and have a discussion.

But to come right out and ask someone if they are sure they want to join, because they couldn’t possibly know the implications or to be smart enough to join . . . well that just tells me something about your intelligence, now doesn’t it?

Why the Leia quip? Well I was being my usual sarcastic self, and Cece2 from the office and I were kidding around, and she got all personal on my choice of hairstyle today. Fortunately I found it hilarious. Or as I would say HA-larious. How about you?

Sorry about the missing image, once again I am being messed with by the blogging gods, and they are refusing to post the pic, trust me, it was a good one.

Imagine being confident enough to sport a Liea hairstyle while writing this post.

The answer would be yes, I know my own mind.

2006 Weblog Awards. Sponsored by Wulfgar!

2006-12-07T00:01:00.000-07:00

I thought I should make it easier for people to view the pieces that I was nominated for, and put links all in one post.

I know this might not ring true, but it is. I am so honored just to be nominated in the category of Best Series of Posts, that I thought I would compile them in one place. I was nominated, (TY) for my work on the Initiatives on the Ballot for November 2006 in Montana.

July 2006

Montana Political Ballot Committees

August 2006

31 Changes

September 2006

Thoughts on CI-97, CI-98, and I-154

Tough Day CI-97

CI-97 Debate

Tonight’s CI-97 Debate on Yellowstone Public Radio

The Truth About CI-98, Citizen’s Right to Recall

Initiatves Thrown Out, Ci-97, Ci-98, and I-154

The Taint of Fraud!

The Constitutionality of CI-97, SOS, today’s hearing in Helena.

CI-97 Ruled Unconstitutional!!!!!!!!!!

CI-97 Decreed Unconstitutional.

Absentee Ballot Voting in Montana
Initiative No. I-153, Montanans for Clean Government

Initiative No. I-151, Raise Montana.

October 2006

*Chirping Crickets*

HOLY SCHNEIKEES

The Trio of Doom in the Supreme Court (Part 1)

The Trio of Doom in the Supreme Court (Part 2)

Just one more thing tonight.

Ok, I lied, two more things.

The CI-97 Supreme Court Challenge.

That Being Said . . . Not In Montana’s Response.

Americans for Limited Government, Interesting Factoids.

Justice.

INTRODUCING OX (part of it anyway)

Da OX.

2006-12-06T22:59:00.000-07:00

I feel like I owe an update. Things between the Ox and I didn’t work out as we hoped.

He is a great guy, he makes me laugh, makes me think, I enjoy the time that I spend with him, but it just didn’t work out.

Sometimes you meet someone who you think meets all of your “qualifications” in a man. Then you spend time with him, and despite all of the goodness, he just isn’t him. And you learn more about yourself. How can that be a bad thing?

The best part is I am just off the best conversation we have had in a month. The tension is gone, and I think it is because we were honest with each other. He might be just a tad NY for me, and I might just be a tad unique for him.

Man I love his sense of humor, evil, twisted, FUN.

I love his intelligence. He thinks as fast as I do, but is even wittier, and more articulate.

Things are headed in a good direction for us. We get that we have something to learn from one another, and have yet to find out what it is. We are open to that opportunity. We are headed to a great friendship.

“Maybe when you take two people who are so strong headed about things, it is a tough match, no matter how their opinions match up.”

Best yet – “You know Edison tried over 10,000 times to create a light bulb. Someone asked him, how could you try 10,000 times to make light, fail, and keep going? No, on the 10,000th try, Edison got it right. He didn’t fail, he just made light the last time he tried.”

Bless the Ox, I do love him, in my own way. Which is good enough for the both of us.

Butterflies

2006-12-06T21:04:00.000-07:00

I wrote this to my gang of good girlfriends almost a year ago. And tonight I thought I would share it with you. Many people who have met me over the past year might have noticed my butterfly necklace, well this is where and why it came about . .

*******

I was talking with my mom this weekend about
gifts and the holidays, and it included this
relationship theme. I kind of get one crack a year at
getting gifts (my birthday is two weeks after Xmas to
the day, Jan 8), and I like being able to say that so
and so bought this for me, isn’t it cool? People who
are in relationships have the tendency to have more
times to get little tokens, V-day, their anniversary,
hell even being taken out to dinner every once in a
while is a gift. Now I am not saying that I don’t get
taken to dinner and little things, but I really look
forward to my Christmas/B-day presents all year long,
its my day, my time of year to get tokens from loved
ones. So I have been a tad reluctant to give up the
whole holiday gift giving tradition.

I also really enjoy shopping for people. I
usually head out with a list of things that I want to
obtain for each person, but every once in a while I
find something that is even better than what I had
planned. It is fun for me to spend that time each
year thinking about my loved ones, and looking for
that thing I think they will love, and knowing that
they will get a little smile on their face when they
say to someone, or think to themselves my
daughter/sister/friend got this for me, isn't it
great? I think I look forward to their reactions as
they open their gifts as much as I look forward to
opening my own.

I could run out and buy almost anything my little
heart desired, but it will always hold more meaning
when it came from someone who loves me, than had I
bought it for myself.

Speaking of buying things for myself, I have been
on a quest for years to buy one thing, and because I
am so fussy about how it looks, it would have been
impossible to ask anyone else to buy it. Well, I
finally found it after about 7 years of looking. (Had
I not been out getting Sis-in-Law's present, I would have
never found it because it was in a store I hardly ever
go to, so thank you).
When I was younger, I was on swim team with my brothers.
My brothers were always better at it than I was. I would consistently
almost win a ribbon, but never actually take one home.
So at some point I decided that I would specialize in the
butterfly, it being the stroke that was most hated and
rarely swum. My logic was, that if I could get good
enough at it, I had a passing chance at taking home a
ribbon. Somehow I got this little ceramic pendant
with the impression of a butterfly on it, that hung
from a leather thong around my neck, and that little
pendant kept me going as I tried to get strong enough
in the stroke to place in a meet. I did end up taking
home some ribbons in butterfly, a couple in
breaststroke, and one or two in long distance
swimming, and that made me a happy little swimmer.

However, somewhere along the way I lost that pendant,
which lead to me wanting to find a butterfly pendant
to wear again.

This desire didn’t really take on form until the
past several years when butterfly pendants came into
vogue. I started looking at ones that I saw while
shopping, but they didn’t speak to me. Too silver,
too frilly, too big, it is sideways (blech), what are
those extravagant antenna all about, too expensive . .
. you get the idea. Well now I can hardly pass a
jewelry department without taking a hopeful look at
the pendants, and last week, my patience paid off.

There in a little stack of jewelry boxes was a
butterfly pendant, no antenna, gold with a little
silver, face on, with pave diamond chips, and hardly
any frills EUREKA!!!!!!!
Now came the critical moment. . . I slowly turned the
box over (*cue internal dialogue o meter*)
*ACK $60 bucks, its ok Cece, look for sale signage*.
I turned the box back over, looked longingly at the pendant,
and raised my eyes to the top of the rack. Sure enough,
sale signage *whew! ok, find where $60 is,
follow it across . . holy cow!!!
66.666% off, its $20 bucks YAHOOOOOO!! This is so
mine, wait, now why did I come in the store again? Oh
yeah, Sis, gotta go get her present.

Clutching my pendant, not even putting it in my cart,
I went back and patiently got Sis's present, and got in line to
pay. The clerk had another surprise for me, it was
during "sale hours" and I got an additional $2 off,
bringing the grand total to $18 for this beauty of a
pendant, so long desired. As I am sure you know, I
didn’t even wait until I got home to put it on, right
there in my freezing car trying to get the clasp to
work, I put it on and admired it in my rearview
mirror. At last I had found it.

LOL, I can run off at the keyboard sometimes.

*******

At last I had found it, the chain broke once this year, it got caught up in my volumes of hair, and I got frustrated and tugged it out. Got a new chain, and it is as good as new.

Sometimes it is the simple things that mean so much.

Warm Fuzzies

2006-11-29T18:25:00.000-07:00

First off the biggest and best news: I found out on Thanksgiving day that I am going to be an auntie. This is the first baby from our generation, and I am completely stoked that I get to warp the mind of a child that has some of my genetic traits. I am sure I will probably bore the heck out of some people with little person stories in the future, but I figure it is my turn. J

Then there is this: sometimes someone you admire says something wonderful about you, and today was one of those days. One of the attorneys that I work for was talking about how much better his life was now that he is married, and how much better it was than being single. ( I work in a great office). I asked him if I should run right out, grab a guy and get married, he laughed and said I should.

“But what kind of guy would want to get married to me, knowing that he would have to pick up and move to Missoula with me while I go to law school?” *Forehead smack* ( I was going to keep it on the down low at work until I had my LSAT scores in hand, and then break the news).

“Are you really going to do that? Are you really going to go to law school?”

“Well I figure I have been doing law now for almost a decade, and I still like it, so yes, I am going to go.”

He smiled at me and said “Well I like your politics. You can take over my [area of practice omitted]. You would be good at it. Montana needs more attorneys who think like you do.” With a smirk on his face he turned and walked away.

*Warm Fuzzies*

Its not everyday that someone pays you that kind of compliment, and I think that this one will have to be filed in my “I really can do this” memory file.

TV Land's 100 Greatest Catchphrases

2006-11-28T08:43:00.000-07:00

Just of the AP Presses. Read the list and tell me which ones are missing, several have sprung to my mind already.

****************************

TV Land Lists 100 Greatest Catchphrases
Tuesday November 28 9:36 AM ET
Sometimes it takes only a word, or just a few, to become immortalized in television history.

The TV Land cable network has compiled a list of the 100 greatest catchphrases in TV, from the serious Walter Cronkite's nightly signoff "And that's the way it is" to the silly: "We are two wild and crazy guys!"

The network will air a countdown special, "The 100 Greatest TV Quotes & Catch Phrases," over five days starting Dec. 11.

"We have found that television is such a huge part of baby boomers' DNA that it makes sense that so much of America's pop culture jargon has come from TV," said Larry Jones, TV Land president.

The greatest number of moments, 26, come from the 1970s. TV Land identified nine moments from this decade. Ten are from commercials, and 28 from comedies, including six from "Saturday Night Live."

In alphabetical order, TV Land's list:

_"Aaay" (Fonzie, "Happy Days")

_"And that's the way it is"

_"Ask not what your country can do for you ..." (John F. Kennedy)

_"Baby, you're the greatest" (Jackie Gleason as Ralph Kramden, "The Honeymooners")

_"Bam!" (Emeril Lagasse, "Emeril Live")

_"Book 'em, Danno" (Steve McGarrett, "Hawaii Five-O")

_"Come on down!" (Johnny Olson, "The Price is Right")

_"Danger, Will Robinson" (Robot, "Lost in Space")

_"De plane! De plane!" (Tattoo, "Fantasy Island")

_"Denny Crane" (Denny Crane, "Boston Legal")

_"Do you believe in miracles?" (Al Michaels, 1980 Winter Olympics)

_"D'oh!" (Homer Simpson, "The Simpsons")

_"Don't make me angry ..." (David Banner, "The Incredible Hulk")

_"Dyn-o-mite" (J.J., "Good Times")

_"Elizabeth, I'm coming!" (Fred Sanford, "Sanford and Son")

_"Gee, Mrs. Cleaver ..." (Eddie Haskell, "Leave it to Beaver")

_"God'll get you for that" (Maude, "Maude")

_"Good grief" (Charlie Brown, "Peanuts" specials)

_"Good night, and good luck" (Edward R. Murrow, "See It Now")

_"Good night, John Boy" ("The Waltons")

_"Have you no sense of decency?" (Joseph Welch to Sen. McCarthy)

_"Heh heh" (Beavis and Butt-head, "Beavis and Butthead")

_"Here it is, your moment of Zen" (Jon Stewart, "The Daily Show")

_"Here's Johnny!" (Ed McMahon, "The Tonight Show")

_"Hey now!" (Hank Kingsley, "The Larry Sanders Show")

_"Hey hey hey!" (Dwayne Nelson, "What's Happening!!")

_"Hey hey hey!" (Fat Albert, "Fat Albert")

_"Holy (whatever), Batman!" (Robin, "Batman")

_"Holy crap!" (Frank Barone, "Everybody Loves Raymond")

_"Homey don't play that!" (Homey the Clown, "In Living Color")

_"How sweet it is!" (Jackie Gleason, "The Jackie Gleason Show")

_"How you doin'?" (Joey Tribbiani, "Friends")

_"I can't believe I ate the whole thing" (Alka Seltzer ad)

_"I know nothing!" (Sgt. Schultz, "Hogan's Heroes")

_"I love it when a plan comes together" (Hannibal, "The A-Team")

_"I want my MTV!" (MTV ad)

_"I'm Larry, this is my brother Darryl ..." (Larry, "Newhart")

_"I'm not a crook ..." (Richard Nixon)

_"I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV" (Vicks Formula 44 ad)

_"I'm Rick James, bitch!" (Dave Chappelle as Rick James, "Chappelle's Show")

_"If it weren't for you meddling kids!" (Various villains, "Scooby Doo, Where Are You?")

_"Is that your final answer?" (Regis Philbin, "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire")

_"It keeps going and going and going ..." (Energizer Batteries ad)

_"It takes a licking ..." (Timex ad)

_"Jane, you ignorant slut" (Dan Aykroyd to Jane Curtin, "Saturday Night Live")

_"Just one more thing ..." (Columbo, "Columbo")

_"Let's be careful out there" (Sgt. Esterhaus, "Hill Street Blues")

_"Let's get ready to rumble!" (Michael Buffer, various sports events)

_"Live long and prosper" (Spock, "Star Trek")

_"Makin' whoopie" (Bob Eubanks, "The Newlywed Game")

_"Marcia, Marcia, Marcia! (Jan Brady, "The Brady Bunch")

_"Mom always liked you best" (Tommy Smothers, "The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour")

_"Never assume ..." (Felix Unger, "The Odd Couple")

_"Nip it!" (Barney Fife, "The Andy Griffith Show")

_"No soup for you!" (The Soup Nazi, "Seinfeld")

_"Norm!" ("Cheers")

_"Now cut that out!" (Jack Benny, "The Jack Benny Program")

_"Oh, my God! They killed Kenny!" (Stan and Kyle, "South Park")

_"Oh, my nose!" (Marcia Brady, "The Brady Bunch")

_"One small step for man ..." (Neil Armstrong)

_"Pardon me, would you have any Grey Poupon?" (Grey Poupon ad)

_"Read my lips: No new taxes!" (George H.W. Bush)

_"Resistance is futile" (Picard as Borg, "Star Trek: The Next Generation")

_"Say good night, Gracie" (George Burns, "The Burns & Allen Show")

_"Schwing!" (Mike Myers and Dana Carvey as Wayne and Garth, "Saturday Night Live")

_"Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy" (Lloyd Bentsen to Dan Quayle)

_"Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids" (Trix cereal ad)

_"Smile, you're on `Candid Camera'" ("Candid Camera")

_"Sock it to me" ("Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In")

_"Space, the final frontier ..." (Capt. Kirk, "Star Trek")

_"Stifle!" (Archie Bunker, "All in the Family")

_"Suit up!" (Barney Stinson, "How I Met Your Mother")

_"Tastes great! Less filling!" (Miller Lite beer ad)

_"Tell me what you don't like about yourself" (Dr. McNamara and Dr. Troy, "Nip/Tuck")

_"That's hot" (Paris Hilton, "The Simple Life")

_"The thrill of victory, the agony of defeat" (Jim McKay, "ABC's Wide World of Sports")

_"The tribe has spoken" (Jeff Probst, "Survivor")

_"The truth is out there" (Fox Mulder, "The X-Files")

_"This is the city ..." (Sgt. Joe Friday, "Dragnet")

_"Time to make the donuts" ("Dunkin' Donuts" ad)

_"Two thumbs up" (Siskel & Ebert, "Siskel & Ebert")

_"Up your nose with a rubber hose" (Vinnie Barbarino, "Welcome Back, Kotter")

_"We are two wild and crazy guys!" (Steve Martin and Dan Aykroyd as Czech playboys, "Saturday Night Live")

_"Welcome to the O.C., bitch" (Luke, "The O.C.")

_"Well, isn't that special?" (Dana Carvey as the Church Lady, "Saturday Night Live")

_"We've got a really big show!" (Ed Sullivan, "The Ed Sullivan Show")

_"Whassup?" (Budweiser ad)

_"What you see is what you get!" (Geraldine, "The Flip Wilson Show")

_"Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Willis?" (Arnold Drummond, "Diff'rent Strokes")

_"Where's the beef?" (Wendy's ad)

_"Who loves you, baby?" (Kojak, "Kojak")

_"Would you believe?" (Maxwell Smart, "Get Smart")

_"Yabba dabba do!" (Fred Flintstone, "The Flintstones")

_"Yada, yada, yada" ("Seinfeld")

_"Yeah, that's the ticket" (Jon Lovitz as the pathological liar, "Saturday Night Live")

_"You eeeediot!" (Ren, "Ren & Stimpy")

_"You look mahvelous!" (Billy Crystal as Fernando, "Saturday Night Live")

_"You rang?" (Lurch, "The Addams Family")

_"You're fired!" (Donald Trump, "The Apprentice")

_"You've got spunk ..." (Lou Grant, "The Mary Taylor Moore Show")

Marriage.

2006-11-16T23:50:00.000-07:00

I have only spent 4 years of my life committed by choice to another person. 4 years legally wed locked, many more in thought and reflection. I know I might offend some people who have spent longer, but this isn’t their perspective, it is mine.

You are born into a family, and I for one, believe that you chose it. You chose your challenges, your happiness and your barriers, your successes and failures. That is a different kind of love and awakening.

The choice you make, to love someone, to live with them, to cherish and honor them for the rest of their lives, is one of the biggest commitments that you will ever make to another separate entity. A commitment not to be taken lightly.

I have to be honest. Had I not taken those vows and made that commitment to him, there would have been many times that I would have walked away from the whole thing. There is something about standing up in front of others and saying, “this is the one, I chose him”, that leads to a certain commitment. Be it 2 people or 200, the commitment is the same.

To be honest, I still love him. Not in the way that you are thinking, but in a more detached, “I hope he does well” sense of the meaning. I loved him, and I won’t apologize for that. I learned so much about myself, through trial and error, through laughter and loving, tears and pain, through heartache and disappointment; I learned who I truly am. God bless him for those gifts in my life.

Now for the first time since him, I am challenged again. (Don’t read more into this than what I am saying).

I am learning patience (ACK), trust, and fear all over again. The likelihood is that I will fall flat on my face again, but there is a small part of me that wishes and hopes that he will see the true person that I am, and love me despite of my temporal failings.

Whether or not I chose to be challenged, to compromise, to learn and to laugh; well, that is my choice, isn’t it?

Announcing Montana Netroots

2006-11-11T17:17:00.000-07:00

Well, the elections are over, and taking time for a breather, Shane from Wrongdog and I got to discussing a collaborative blog. Shane designed the whole thing, and he did a wonderful job, I have earned the title of consultant, more on the direction we foresee for the blog, other than actually having the hutspah to get the thing going.

So check it out! Montana Netroots is a collaborative blog, with differing viewpoints, by multiple authors. We are going for a peaceable place where people can exchange thoughts and information, without being bogged down by trolls.

If you have something to say, something to add, or a question to ask, please join in. We will be working to discourage people who are not interested in open discourse, or who attack people (authors and commentators) instead of the ideas that they present.

Enjoy! Let us know if you want to add or subtract anything, we are open to suggestions!

MoveOn.org Offers Reward for Evidence Leading to Voter Fraud Conviction

2006-11-07T19:25:00.000-07:00

Perhaps this is something to consider regarding the voter fraud on the reservations today . . .

MoveOn Offers $250,000 Reward for Evidence Leading to Voter Fraud Conviction

11/7/2006 5:21:00 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: National Desk, Political Reporter

Contact: Trevor Fitzgibbon, Laura Gross or Alex Howe, 202-822-5200, all for MoveOn.org Political Action

WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 /U.S. Newswire/ -- MoveOn.org Political Action is offering a $250,000 reward for new material evidence leading to a felony conviction for an organized effort of partisan voter suppression or electronic voting fraud.

Throughout the day accusations of election fraud and voter suppression incidents have been flooding into state and federal authorities throughout the country. In Virginia, the FBI has launched a criminal investigation into charges of voter suppression. In 20 Congressional districts, NRCC robocalls appearing to come from Democrats harassed voters with repeated calls in an apparently coordinated campaign to suppress the vote.

Complementing an earlier reward for whistleblowers, MoveOn's reward is being offered to anyone who provides this information.

http://www.usnewswire.com/

-0-

/© 2006 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/

Voter Suppression on Montana’s Native American Reservations

2006-11-07T18:35:00.000-07:00

UPDATE -

Call the ACLU's hotline and report abuses until 11 p.m. Eastern Time, which I believe is 9 p.m. Montana Time

1-877-523-2792

*****************************************

This just in, from a very reliable source, while every blogger I know was out today canvassing and knocking on people’s doors, a huge violation of campaign laws was occurring on Montana’s Native American Reservations.

Apparently teams of lawyers (or people posing as lawyers), were dispatched to the reservations and told residents that they would not be allowed to vote without a Driver’s License or a Passport.

Now is the time to get organized about this. If it happened to you, please write down in as much detail as possible, what you were told, by whom, where and when. Hang onto that information.

I am working on getting the word out right now to the media, and will do what I can to get this going asap. Anything that anyone can do would be much appreciated.

I will update this as often and as quickly as I can.

Where is Left In The West?

2006-11-06T18:05:00.000-07:00

I got a comment asking me if I knew what was happening with Left in the West. Well I do. In case you haven’t heard www.leftinthewest.com is down and out currently, and probably can’t be resurrected until after the election.

In the meantime, Matt Singer is graciously being hosted by Touchstone, over at 4&20 Blackbirds and to the best of my knowledge, Shane Mason is back posting like a fiend on his blog Wrong Dog’s Life Chest.

There should be regular updates to the election day goings on at these sites, along with many fine lefty blogger sites around the state. Here is a severely short and non-comprehensive list of the bloggers I have met, or had associations with while on the campaign trail this season:

A Chicken is Not a Pillage

Liberal Wacko

Rebels Are We!

Intelligent Discontent (one of my favorites)

Buzztail

Big Sky Democrats

Missoula dot net

Well presently that seems to be the active crew, I am sure others will join in. Hope that helps until LitW is back up and running!

Don’t forget to VOTE!

Cece

INTRODUCING OX

2006-10-30T19:15:00.000-07:00

Some of you might have been asking yourselves, where the hairy heck did Cece get to?

Well the truth is, I have gotten a little burned out on the whole blogging thing. So at first, I was just getting sick of coming home every night and updating everyone, so I suppose that I should do that now.

Presently there are three statewide initiatives left on the ballot for next Tuesday. C-43, the proposal to change the name of the state auditor to the insurance commissioner; I-151, the initiative to raise the minimum wage; and I-153, the initiative to require a 2 year waiting period for certain state officials and their staff, prior to applying for a license to be a paid lobbyist.

**********
Here is how I voted on everything, because I know people have asked me:

C-43 – Against. No one has been able to explain to me why this is important enough to do, so I voted against it.

CI-97 – Against. Huge shocker there huh?

CI-98 – Against. You know why.

I-151 – For. Believe it or not, this was a tough one for me, I had to do a lot of research before I felt comfortable with the annual cost-of-living adjustment, but in the long run, a hike in the minimum wage is LONG overdue, and if the Feds won’t do the right thing, then I will.

I-153 – For. Again another struggle for me, as I am not sure that we have the level of corruption in Montana that would necessitate such an initiative, but overall, I think it is a good idea, so I voted for it.

I-154 – Against. I know a lot of Montanans who think this is a good idea, and intend to propose it in 08, and if they do, I sure hope they do their research, and get it right this time.

Tester v. Burns – Tester. I might not agree with everything the man says, but I know he will listen to my concerns or disagreements far more readily than Burns would. I have met him, shook his hand, and I trust him. I also know he knows that we bloggers will hold his actions as accountable as we have Burns.

Lindeen v. Rehburg – Lindeen. Again, I don’t always agree with everything she says, but she has listened and talked with me. An honest, straightforward hardworking woman. She doesn’t pull punches, and she gets the job done. She is a far superior candidate to that Dennis guy who runs from a discussion and tries not to stir up controversy by talking about REAL issues that face Montanans everyday. Monica is my candidate.

One to the Supreme Court Justices. I voted to retain both Warner and Rice. That’s right, the liberal blogger voted to retain two conservative judges. Why? Well I asked around, I have read some of their opinions, and while I might not always agree with the outcome of the cases, I very strongly believe that both Warner and Rice apply the law fairly, even if they are conservatives.

**********

Ok, so that ends our “How did Cece vote” segment of the program, and onto the nitty gritty.

The truth is, I met someone, who I am in serious like with, and I have been investing a lot of my time with him. He is the first and only person I have ever discussed their nickname prior to slapping it on for my blog readers. So everyone welcome Ox.

There are a lot of wonderful guys in Montana, unfortunately, most are married, refer to my 10 year theory. Married men are ones I steer clear of, well that is unless I am married to them. So that leaves younger men, a few stragglers, or people who have come from the same kind of past as I have, that being: I had fun, run around the map a little, ok so maybe that first marriage didn’t work out, but now I am 30 something and it is time to get serious about my real relationship, the one I want to be in for the rest of my life. Ox is like that.

The weird thing is how much we have in common, and I don’t think either of us wants to jinx the magic that has been happening for the past few weeks by jumping the gun, we are just taking it slow, checking it out, and loving the moments that happen.

One of the things I really like about Ox, is he has access to the Native culture, that I have never had. I am part Native, but I don’t really know a whole bunch about it, but I am proud of it. So I get to learn things, which is always a huge plus in my book.

Then last week after a wonderful discussion about books, what we like, what we hate, and what we admire, we stumbled across the “what we read once, but have forgotten the title of” category. There is this one book, that I have been looking for since I was in college, and I mentioned it, Ox asked me about the plot, the character’s names, and I’ll be gosh danged if he hadn’t found the whole series in under 8 hours, including sleep time. I have rarely been so caught off guard, and wonderfully surprised by someone. (So there you go guys, dating lesion 101, courtesy of Ox, find something she is passionate about, and get it for her, works every time).

There are things that I am not ready to share about this thing it is that I am involved in with Ox; but I gotta say it has been a while since I have been this bleary eyed and bushy tailed, and I am loving it.

Oh, and for my hair stylist who asked, “Don’t you find men intimidated by your knowledge of politics?”, well I found one who not only isn’t intimidated, but loves the fact that I do get fired up about these things, he calls me challenging, with a big smile on his face.

Ok, that should keep all you gossip mongers buzzing for a while.

Cheers.

Justice.

2006-10-26T20:23:00.000-06:00

Well by now you have probably heard that the Montana Supreme Court upheld the District Court’s decision to throw CI-97, Stop Over Spending, CI-98, Citizen’s Right to Recall, and I-154, Protect Our Homes Montana off of the ballot. YIPPPPPPEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

A couple of things that I wanted to highlight from the Decision.

Montanans for Justice, et al. v State of Montana, et al., 2006 MT 277

The cast:

Montanans for Justice: Vote No On CI-98; Not in Montana: Citizens Against CI-97; and Property Owners Against I-154, Plaintiff-Respondents,
(hereinafter Opponents)

v.

State of Montana by and through Brad Johnson in his capacity as Secretary of State, Defendant-Respondents,
(hereinafter State)

Montanans in Action, a Montana Corporation, Citizens Right to Recall Montana, Protect Our Homes Montana, Stop Over Spending Montana,
Political Ballot Committees and Trevis Butcher, Defendants-Appellants,
(hereinafter Proponents)

Kendall Cox, Ervin J. Hansk, and Robert G. Cooper, Individually, Intervenors-Appellants.
(hereinafter ignored)

**********
[paraphrasing and some good quotes]

“Was Opponents’ claim barred by laches?” No. Why?

1. Latches is an affirmative defense, and the Proponents were required to raise it in their Answer to the Complaint in District Court.
2. In light of the fact that the Opponents complied with the law’s narrow 30 day window for filing suit, it cannot reasonably be argued that Opponents waited until their claims had grown stale before asserting them.

“What about violation of due process rights of the Proponents, were they violated?” No. Why?

1. Montana law requires a shortened timeline that all parties must abide by, for pre-election initiative challenges. The Opponents and the State abided by them, and the Proponents ignored their chances to file any pretrial motions, thereby waiving their right to claim due process violations at a later date.
2. Proponents claim that they had no notice of the claims brought against them. *cough**BULLARKY**cough*. The Supreme Court didn’t agree; the claims were in the Complaint, further that the Secretary of State had notified the Proponents of complaints about signature gathering early in the process. AND the Supreme Court held that the Proponents hired the signature gatherers, and therefore were in the best position to contact them to refute any claims of signature gathering abuse.
3. The Proponents claimed that they were denied a meaningful hearing because they weren’t allowed access to the discovery process. The Supreme Court disagreed. “The record shows that Proponents failed to utilize the time allocated by the court to conduct whatever discovery time allowed, or to avail themselves of the procedural remedies available to them.” Also, significantly, at trial the Proponents failed to make an opening statement, a closing argument, or to present witnesses (other than Trevis Butcher, who did more harm than good to their case, IMO) to refute any of the established facts that the Opponents had brought.

“We conclude that any deprivation of a meaningful hearing here was more the construct of Proponents’ own failure to act than it was a function of the District Court’s denial of more time for trial preparation.” BOOYAH!

Was the fraud alleged in the signature gathering process really pervasive, and did it have a pattern and practice of fraud associated with it? No. Why?

1. The Proponents misconstrue the meaning of “assisted in”, in fact in 2003 the legislature changed the language from “circulated”, to “gathered”, to make signature gatherers “more accountable”. “We construe the statutes as written” . . . “As a result, we conclude that in order to lawfully swear under oath, with personal knowledge, that the affiant “gathered or assisted in gathering” signatures, and to swear that the affiant believes that the signature are genuine and the signers knew the contents of the petition before signing it, the affiant must be present at the time the petition is signed.”
*Note, this language has repercussions for the I-153, Wage Increase in District Court in Great Falls today.
2. False addresses. “While we do not conclude that the statue necessarily requires an affiant to provide a residential address, we do conclude that the purpose of the address requirement in the stature is the provision of a legitimate contact point so that when questions regarding the petitions arise, the person who gathered those signatures can be reached.” . . . “Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that a signature gatherer must provide an address on the affidavit where he or she can be contacted throughout the collection and certification process.” (*Note: not during the election process.)
3. Bait and Switch. “Once Opponents established that Proponents’ signature gatherers were engaging in deceptive practices, it became the Proponents’ burden to produce evidence to the contrary. Section 26-1-401, MCA. They failed to do so.” Enough said.

In summation, this was offered by the court;

“We acknowledge that many voters feel strongly that they should have the opportunity to vote on one or more of these initiatives, and that these people will feel disenfranchised by our decision. This is extremely regrettable. The fact remains, however, that if the initiative process is to remain viable and retain its integrity, those invoking it [the initiative process] must comply with the laws passed by our Legislature. We can neither excuse nor overlook violations of these laws, for to do so here would confer free reign for others to do so in other matters. We must enforce the law as written and as the Legislature intended.” (Clarification added.) [/paraphrasing and quotes]

**********

Well said. If you are angry that these initiatives are off the ballot, I suggest you direct your anger at Trevis Butcher and the “members” of Montanans in Action; it is their fault, and their fault alone that your signatures on the petitions were ruled invalid. The courts merely upheld the laws. If you don’t like them, change them.

That said, YAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!

*Happy dancing ensues*

YEEEEEEEEEEHAWWWWWWWWW

2006-10-26T16:58:00.000-06:00

*Skips around the room!*
More later

Americans for Limited Government, Interesting Factoids

2006-10-25T17:57:00.000-06:00

Seems like my buddies over at The Center for Public Integrity have uncovered something very very interesting.

It has been uncovered, that Americans for Limited Government (ALG)

Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White revoked the nonprofit’s certificate of authority to do business in the state on February 1, 2006, citing its failure to file an annual report as required by law. The organization’s authority to do business in the state was not reinstated until September 22.
“Upon the issuance of the certificate of revocation”, Illinois law says, “the authority of the corporation to conduct affairs in this state shall cease and such revoked corporation shall not thereafter conduct any affairs in this state.”

Uhh ySo. So ALG, based out of Chicago, lost it's non-profit status and the authority to do business in Illinois, from Feb 1 until Sept 22.

Right, so when was money exchanged between Trevis Butcher and ALG? Well on April 8, Trevis emailed John Tillman, the President of ALG and Paul Jacob of Citizen's In Charge, got the routing numbers and got money moving.

I am not surprised, just a little gleeful that Americans for Limited Government has been caught in yet another underhanded dealing.

A Couple Of Updates.

2006-10-21T20:57:00.000-06:00

First off, whew. Ok the radio was fun, but next time it would be nice to know what we were discussing in advance. Its all good. And Captain did a much better job of talking about I-154 than I could have.

Next up would be the Supreme Court decision on the Trio of Doom. I know that it will be released prior to the election (at least I am fairly certain), but it is still very very important that people vote on these issues, as if their votes will be counted on November 7.

An update on I-151 and I-153 getting challenged in court by Montanans for Equal Application of Initiative Laws. Montanans for Clean Government, I-153 (Lobbyist) issue has been dismissed from the complaint. That is, such clear and convincing evidence was presented as to clear the Initiative from any sort of TAINT OF FRAUD. That’s right, just as I predicted, I-153 stepped up to the plate, and knocked the baseless accusations out of the park. Well done. Look for I-151 to follow.

Apparently Mudslinging doesn’t work in Montana. Good for us.

I also received Resodyn’s answer to my complaint with the Federal Elections Commission today in the mail. It appears that Resodyn has come out saying something along the lines of [paraphrasing] “we paid the Motherlode, not a campaign” [/paraphrasing].

Uhhhh no. You paid the Standard, who gave you complimentary seats, then you required people sitting in your seats to be Burns’ supporters, ejected people from “your” reserved seating, and now are trying to spin doctor the thing.

I am not saying that an offense was committed by Resodyn Corporation in sponsoring a debate. Well that is if you had a checking account that your employee’s contributed to, and paid for the seats out of that account, rather than your Corporate one.

But mainly, when an event is billed as first come first served seating, then as a favor for money, seats are reserved for a Corporation, THEN that Corporation requires people sitting in those seats to be a supporter of one campaign or another . . . well that is a violation. Clear and simple.

I have no doubt that if someone was looking for a seat, and had asked someone in the Tester camp to give up a seat, one would have been willingly given. Those are the kind of people I want representing me. Not ones who violate my freedoms.

P.S. If anyone witnessed Resodyn refusing people seating based on their political decidedness or un-decidedness, please contact me at ceceinmt@yahoo.com. I will help you get your voice heard.

Cece on the Air?

2006-10-20T20:56:00.000-06:00

Well I have been asked to call in and join a radio show tomorrow afternoon on KMMS 1450 out of Bozeman. Apparently, the show is only local, but they are working to try to get it out to the web. Lady Di and Captain will be on, as will Wulgar!

It should be interesting, and I hope people call in and get involved. 406.587.0171.
Talk to you tomorrow!

Wanna find me? I know you do.

2006-10-19T20:46:00.000-06:00

Contact me here. ceceinmt@yahoo.com

That Being Said . . . Not In Montana’s Response

2006-10-19T19:50:00.000-06:00

This is the best one yet.

I hereby admit that I ripped this off from the brief, and I love it.

****************************

“Expressed in a different way, all of its [CI-97] components are not necessary to its primary purpose.

• It may be possible to enact a spending limit. CI-97, sections 1, 2, 3.

• It may be possible to enact a voter referendum as an override to the spending limit. CI-97, section5.

• It may be possible to enact one or more exemptions to the spending limit. CI-97, section 6.

• It may be possible to give courts of competent jurisdiction the authority to amend the Constitution by adding other revenue sources or expense categories to exempt categories. CI-97, section 7.

• It may be possible to give anybody living or doing business in Montana standing to enforce the spending limit and to award him or her his or her costs and attorney fees if successful. CI-97, section 8.

• It may be possible to specify how courts are to interpret the spending limit. CI-97, section 9.

It is just not possible under Article XIV, section 11 and Marshall to do all of these things in a single amendment on the basis of a single vote.”

****************************
There are many other wonderful, pertinent and intelligent points in the Respondent’s, Not In Montanas, Brief, but the above sums it up nicely.

Each of the points can be voted on separately, and despite what the Proponents say, (that they must be voted on as a whole), think about it. We presently have a spending limit build right into our Constitution.

• So, I think that the State should be able to override the budget in the Constitution in the case of a Natural Disaster, and allow us to go into a little debt to fight some massive wild fires, so in 2008, I propose an initiative to that effect.

• I am feeling ambitious in 2008, so I also propose an initiative allowing anyone doing business in Montana to be able to sue the state to enforce the spending limit already in the Constitution.

• By 2010, having gained confidence in my last two initiatives passing, I tackle a bigger issue. I think that we should exempt certain categories of spending from the spending limit in the Constitution. I think that Education, Healthcare and ummm . . . Tax Rebates should be protected from the spending limit. So that is 3 initiatives, wow I am good at this initiative stuff.

• Well by 2012, things aren’t working out quite as I expected, so I propose 2 more initiatives. One that says judges from courts of competent jurisdiction can add spending and revenue categories, and one that says how courts should interpret the spending limit. Well I lose out on this one, apparently, allowing Judges to insert things in the Constitution is frowned upon in Montana, not to mention being illegal. Dang it, I wanted that one. But Montanans are in favor of restraining growth in the spending limit, so they pass that one.
****************************

Get it yet? These are SEPARATE INITIATIVES. I am currently blue in the face, and while it compliments my eyes, I don’t like walking around looking like a Smurf and trying to coordinate my outfits to match.

CI-97 is nothing but bad news. Logrolling, multiple changes to the Constitution, signature gathering fraud, and back by out of state money and thought.

If you vote for CI-97, you are voting for every single amendment to the Constitution. Every one. And in my opinion, are a person who spits on the Constitution and the protection of Montanan’s rights written into it. You are someone who condones fraud, someone who believes that there is no need for single amendment initiatives, and someone who doesn’t know how to think for themselves. I have no respect for you.

The CI-97 Supreme Court Challenge.

2006-10-17T21:03:00.000-06:00

I think part of the reason I am having trouble getting fired up about posting about this, is because I have covered it before, in my coverage of the hearing in District Court. The difference being, that in Court, you have definitely prepared, but you don’t always state things as clearly as you would want to. So a Supreme Court challenges allows the parties the opportunity to hone their words and arguments. It is important to note, that this is the way that arguments are supposed to go in the Supreme Court, not introducing new arguments as they did on the Trio of Doom.

Here we go.
*******
In the Supreme Court of the State of Montana. No. DA 06-0645

Not In Montana: Citizens Against CI-97, a Political Ballot Committee,
Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v.

State of Montana, by and through Mike McGrath, in his capacity as the Attorney General, and Brad Johnson, in his capacity as the Secretary of State.
Defendants and Appellants,

and

Stop Over Spending Montana, A Political Ballot Committee,
Intervenor and Appellant.
********

State of Montana’s Brief

Both the State and SOS spend a lot of time talking about how each of these proposed changes are required to support the others, and that the subsections are interrelated.

The State brings up in its Argument (pg 5), that the District Court “ . . . applied an unduly restrictive “implied amendment” test that this Court has never endorsed.” Basically saying that if each initiative were subjected to the kind of scrutiny that CI-97 has endured, nothing would ever make it to the ballot.

I object. CI-97 has to quite possibly be the most wordy and complex amendment to a Constitution that I have ever seen. Things this complex, should be broken down into their parts, and voted on independent of each other. But I have covered that before.

The State says the issues can be presented to the court as two issues:

1. The Origins and Interpretations of the Separate Amendment Rule.
2. CI-97 does not contain Separate Amendments.

Uhh, read it. Honestly, I am disappointed that the State does not understand the fact, (although others are argued), that if a “judge of competent jurisdiction” decides to add or subtract a spending category, WELL THAT CHANGES THE CONSTITUTION. That is it. Simple. No more needs to be said. Arghhhhh I am tired of pointing this out. Never before, and never should be such a power granted to a Judge sitting on the bench. This is a separate amendment to the Constitution. Morons. Enough said.

Stop Over Spending Brief

Sigh. SOS says that CI-97 would only amend Article 3, Section 9 of the Constitution, and therefore is a single amendment. Whatever. If two of the subsections creates a change to the Constitution, then THAT IS LOG ROLLING. More than one subject, more than one change.

This is not as simple as CI-43, changing the title of State Auditor to State Insurance Commissioner. That is all CI-43 does, nothing more. Honestly, who cares how you vote on CI-43? Not me.

I do care about CI-97. I worry that people don’t understand what it is that they are voting for. They think “spending limit” great idea. Sure it is, but WE ALREADY HAVE ONE.

Obviously, I don’t have the patience to break CI-97 down again. I have before. But I wouldn’t have nicknamed this as one of the “Trio of Doom” if I didn’t know what I was talking about, if I hadn’t done the research, and pointed out the problems.

Discuss . . .

My Apologies

2006-10-15T23:44:00.000-06:00

Sorry about the lapse. I know I promised review of the briefs from the SC for CI-97, and I know that the oppositions position is due Tuesday, So I will try to get them published asap.

I had two goals this weekend.

1. Take a nap.

2. Change my bed linens to my flannel sheets and down comforters.

I didn't accomplish either. So now I am freezing at night, and I need more sleep. Honestly, I know the elections are upon us, and there is still so much information that should be shared.

I had dinner with a lobbyist this weekend, a nice discussion and exchange of ideas, and I am rethinking my views on I-153, Montanans for Clean Government, the "two year cooling off period for officials before getting a license as a lobbyist" thing. I am not so sure that corruption exists in Montana, as this initiative calls to reform. More discussion on that later, I learned some new things this weekend.

Anyway, I promise to get back to these thoughts and some new ones tomorrow. Just after I return from the Laundromat, seeing as the heater thing has called it quits on my dryer, and I am too lazy/busy to get it fixed right now.

How weird is it that I think of a trip to the laundry mat as a treat?

DANG IT, ok three things.

2006-10-11T22:59:00.000-06:00

I had a dream last night that Scott from Wacko Lib me and said “Where the hairy heck is you coverage from the debate this weekend in Bozeman?”

Ehh, here it is Scott.

First off, it should be said, Shane from Left in the West and Wrong Dog and I met up to drive down to the debate together. 5 car hours later, we are still friends, but it came to light that we might be running against one another when a vacancy opens. LOL. It was amazing, if you have never spent 5 + hours in the presence of another blogger try it out, we had to keep notes on things we wanted to go back and discuss. Thanks Shane, I loved it.

Notwithstanding the ditching of our fellow blogger, on accident, it was a great evening. I duked it out with some young Republicans for our seats and won. There was a guy sitting in front of Scott who I couldn’t help wonder if he had the Burn’s sticker slapped to his shoulders as a joke, then talking with people who actually recognized me before I introduced myself, topping it off with some spirited debate with comic relief.

Burns v. Tester v. Jones

The debate contained a lot of things I had heard before. I think that I have attended more debates than any other blogger in Montana, and I might be wrong, but I still feel compelled to go. Bozeman was a prime example of why. (And why I am going tomorrow night).

Whew! Ok Stan, I have to say this, boy you cracked me up. But I am proud that I live in a country which invites all viewpoints. And good for you for standing up in front of us all and expressing them. That being said, I am going to comment on your presence. {paraphrased}

Which of the 34 pork barrel spending projects would you oppose?

Jones: ALL OF THEM. Pork barrel bills only bring money into the state in re-election years. They are unconstitutional. The Feds shouldn’t spend any money on transportation, it is a state issue.

What about renewable energy?

Jones: Nuclear power cost 5 cents per kilowatt hour. The plants that create this energy are the safest, cleanest and most efficient. Montana is rich in coal, we should exploit this. The government over regulates energy production.

OK, how about the raising cost of tuition in Montana?

Jones: Conrad, you borrowed a libertarian phrase, shame on you. Who said you can spend my money better than I can? Why is there a $40,00 raise in college professor’s pay (sounds of discontent). Home schooling only costs $200.00 per student, and they get a much better education than at the university which costs $7,000 per student. The cost of higher education is in the Unions and Teachers. We don’t need it. (*cece wipes tears of laughter from her eyes*)

What about impeaching Bush?

Jones: As I said in my opening statements, Bush should be impeached, he has committed many impeachable offenses. The Patriot Act was passed without one person reading it. (good point).

What about the millions of dollars we pay everyday in the deficit in interest alone?

Jones: Elimate the Department of Education, eliminate the Department of Energy, the Department of Housing and Development, the Department of Welfare, these are state issues not federal. They are all OUTLAWS! (I am laughing so hard I can’t take good notes and might have missed a few departments).

Do you support the Kyoto Accord?

Jones: There has been a slight global warming since the little ice age. (?) In 500-1000 A.D. temperatures where much higher. This is just a natural recovery from the little ice age, and it is mostly effecting the Northern Hemisphere, nothing to be worried about

What about Warrentless Wire taps and Executive Authority?

Jones: Impeach the President, he is violating our 4th amendment rights. The President is a terrorist (hard to disagree). If I am arrested, I have to prove my innocence, you have wire taps, how can I defend against that?
(*Checking my phones for taps*)

Summaries:

Jones: Thank you, I don’t often get invited to these things (you should be). I might sound like a loony here, but the fact is there are secrets organizations that are forming our government into a communist one. Think about it, there is one currency in Europe, the euro; there are secret trade agreements that our president has agreed to in NAFTA, we are headed to a North American Union. We will all be spending the Amero soon. (*LOL*). The Soviet Union constitution takes away rights granted by the government, and they will take away ours soon. There is a National ID which is required by the government, which have a radio chip embedded in it, required by May 2000. (*Shane and I look at each other, you have one? No. You?)

{/paraphrasing}

Oh man, I love you America. While I might agree with an idea or two that you presented, you are off the deep end my friend. Best of luck though, and once again thank you for having the courage to stand up for your convictions.

Ok, I lied, two more things.

2006-10-11T21:45:00.000-06:00

I have recently come into possession of the opening briefs for the Supreme Court challenge of Judge Honzel’s decision, which I covered here and here. I know the waiting is cruel, but I need time to process them, as I hope you are all taking.

I am planning on writing them up on Friday, but I might get swept away by tomorrow night’s debate in Helena.

Just one more thing tonight.

2006-10-11T21:21:00.000-06:00

I haven’t really had the chance to comment too much on the fact that a new lawsuit has been brought against initiatives in Montana. I suspect if you have been reading and watching the news, you are aware of the fact, but let me fill in those who are living in a bubble.

I have a copy of the complaint, and one answer in my hands. (Man I am persistent).

On October 3, Montanans for Equal Application of Initiative Laws, a new group out of Eastern Montana filed a Complaint against the State of Montana, Raise Montana (I-151), and Montanans for Clean Government (I-153).

The Complaint argues exactly what is currently being challenged in the Supreme Court on the Trio of Doom, that some illegal signature gathering went on. Whatever. As I have mentioned before, I have no doubt that Raise Montana and Montanans for Clean Government will be able to defend these baseless allegations.

Someone with knowledge of these matters, tells me this is not a new tactic. What I hope will happen, is that Montanans will see this tactic for what it is.

Sour Grapes. Retribution. Saving face. Ehh, you call it what you will, but these allegations are way off base.

In fact, it might occur to you that it is an election strategy. I know it has occurred to me. Think about it. Challenge the other initiatives, call them into question, make Montana voters doubt them, that will lead to them not voting for them.

Let me ask you a question: do you honestly believe that initiatives sponsored by Montanans, for the good of Montana, would actually participate in the pervasive taint of fraud that was committed by the signature gatherers of CI-97 Stop Over Spending, CI-98 Citizens Right to Recall (Judges) and I-154 Protect Our Homes Montana (eminent domain)?

Wait and see.

I should point out that just as the District Court did for the Trio of Doom, the Court has ordered an expedited trial scheduled for October 23, 2006 on the issues presented in the Complaint, along with the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Montanans for Clean Government. What do you think will happen?

Heh.

The Trio of Doom in the Supreme Court (Part 2)

2006-10-11T20:38:00.000-06:00

Alrighty, sorry for the short break between posts, I had a debate to go to, work to accomplish, and well here I am again, enjoying a night off by filling it up with blogging. Back to the briefs:

Brief of Respondent (State of Montana, et al.)

The State’s brief is structured much differently from the others, but I will try and make it fit into the format I have used with the others.

Summary of Arguments:

1. The District Court applied the correct legal standard to the record before it.
2. Proponents (MIA) have no legal excuse for their failure to rebut the proof of deceptive election practices.

The State describes the process for qualifying and certifying an initiative for the ballot, and the Secretary of State’s role in the complex process. The meat, or at least what knocked me off my seat was the following:

“The courts must act quickly. Once the general election is held, “[t]he sufficiency of the initiative petition shall not be questioned” and Opponents’ claims become moot by either the approval or rejection of each ballot issue by the general electorate. Mont. Const. Art. III § 4(3) . . .”. “Thus the Montana Constitution provides that “[a] preelection challenge to the procedure by which an initiative or referendum qualified for the ballot . . .shall be given priority by the courts.” Mont. Const. Art. IV, § 7(2)”.

Maybe it is best to resort to favorite quotes:

“But the fact remains that nearly 60,000 validated signatures were procured by five signature gatherers alone, each tied to unrebutted evidence of deceptive election practices.” (Emphasis added)

“Once a challenger brings forth evidence that a signature gatherer or group of signature gatherers has engaged in fraud, even in a few representative instances, “the law permits a trier of fact to draw unfavorable inferences about testimony against the party best equipped to call the witness by who fails to do so.” Citizens Comm. For the D.C. Video Lottery Terminal Initiative v. D.C. Bd. Of Elections and Ethics, 860 A.2d 813, 817 (DC2004)”

“an officer who betrays his trust in one instance is shown to be capable of the infamy of defrauding the electors, and his certificate is therefore good for nothing.” Lloyd v. Sullivan, 9 Mont. 577, 24 P.218 (1890)”

The State brief then moved on to timing, latches and due process arguments raised by MIA. The State points out that MIA failed to dispute that MFJ filed their complaint within the time provided for by Montana law; that MFJ correctly applied to expedite the hearing; MIA failed to attend discovery depositions; that MIA failed to even answer the Complaint filed against them, failed to file discovery requests, indeed only filing one pleading in the whole process, a Motion for Substitution.

As for due process, the State points out that MIA failed to argue due process rights in District Court, and that scheduling issues were only mentioned in passing. The state points out that the Secretary of State did indeed inform MIA of the fraud allegations in early June, that newspapers in the state published the allegations, which were the basis for the Complaint filed in August against them.

Finally, the State points out that “even now Proponents do not challenge the evidence supporting the district court’s findings as to the five signature gatherers whose 60,000 suspect signatures disqualified the Initiatives. . . the number of valid signatures submitted by the five named signature gatherers- -all linked to specific fraudulent tactics- -exceeds the qualification margin for each Initiative”

Basically, MIA fell down, heck laid down on the job, in my opinion, and by not defending or asserting rights in District Court, they can’t expect them to be considered now at the Supreme Court level. Not to mention the fact that the findings of the District Court are supported by evidence on the record, and that MIA’s findings are supported, well, by nothing.

Let’s see what they have to say for themselves.

Appellants’ Reply Brief (Montanans in Action, et al.)

Summary of Arguments:

A. “Petition Circulators did not use deceptive tactics or schemes in gathering the required number of signatures”
B. Signature gatherers signed affidavits that complied with the plain meaning of Montana law.
C. Evidence does not support that the signature gatherers provided false addresses.
D. “The isolated instances in evidence do NOT support a conclusion . . .that would merit discounting the signatures of 140,394 Montana voters.”
E. Not afforded due process.
F. Guilty of laches.

Is it just me, or do A and D directly contradict one another? They didn’t, oh wait well in these instances they might have?

Argument A, starts off with the heading “Petition Circulators did not use deceptive tatics or schemes in gathering the required number of signatures to qualify CI-97, CI-98 and I-154 for the November 7, 2006, general election ballot.” What MIA is trying to say here, is because only a “few instances” of signature gathering tactics were witnessed or reported, that it shouldn’t taint all of the voters who didn’t report the fraud. Uhh add me to the list, too late, I didn’t get a complaint into DISTRICT COURT so it won’t count now.

Argument B says that the signature gatherers in question “believed” that they “assisted in” gathering the signatures, that is what they swore to, and therefore no fraud occurred. MIA goes on to say “When a statute is equally susceptible to two interpretations, like here, construction favoring constitutionally granted natural rights versus statutory derogation of such rights, the correct interpretation is one favoring natural rights. MCA § 1-2-104.” What MIA is saying, is even if some fraud occurred, if you question it, you have to err on the side of caution, and decide that fraud didn’t occur. Pfffftttttttt. I have no question in my mind.

Argument C says evidence doesn’t support that the addresses on the affidavits were fraudulent. Oh? Well then why didn’t you present evidence in District Court that the signature gatherers could be contacted at the addresses listed? Better yet, why didn’t you use some of Howie Rich’s money and get them tickets to Montana to attend the trial and rebut the evidence that WAS presented at trial? Hmmm? Nothing? Didn’t think so.

Argument D says that only the signatures that were actually witnessed being gathered fraudulently should have been invalidated. And that MIA took steps to make sure that people were not participating in bait and switch tactics. Montanans have the right to vote on this issue. Blech, sorry, but way more instances of fraudulent gathering went on than were reported or witnessed. And the simple fact that they were reported and witnessed calls into question every single signature that that signature gatherer gathered. What about the guy who claimed he worked for the state? I mean come on, the carbon copy was not the only tactic used.

Argument E, amazingly, argues laches again. What chutzpah. “Plaintiffs argue over and over that Proponents knew of the allegation against them, that really isn’t true.” Well I knew it, does MIA exist in a bubble? “Inherent in due process is the ability to conduct meaningful discovery and having time to prepare for trial.” What MIA fails to mention is that they had access to the affidavits in question longer than anyone else in this whole process. Complaints were filed with the Secretary of State, and at that point they should have started being careful with their whole signature gathering process. Not on August 15th when the Complaint was filed in District Court, not on August 28th when they were served with the Complaint, but back in late May and early June when they were first alerted to fraudulent practices. It boils my blood that they argue ignorance now. Maybe I should have been a part of MIA, I would have reigned it in, and made sure that I didn’t submit those affidavits and signatures in question. I would have read the signature gatherers the riot act, fired them, and their company. How can ignorance possibly be something that MIA thinks is a valid argument?

Ok, whew, shake it off.

Argument F, we are back to laches. Back to claiming that MFJ, et al. were negligent in asserting their rights. Whatever. They followed the law, did the work to bring a meaningful and fact based complaint. MAN, I am sick of the MIA whiners. Honestly. Blargh.

I have to mention this, because I have pointed it out to several people in the last couple of days. MIA sums up with an interesting argument.

“If this Court concludes fraud affected the qualification of these measures it should take note that in all alleged instances any bait and switch, I-154 was in fact the initiative measure each voter wanted to have on the ballot. At the very least, I-154 should remain on the ballot.”

Ummm no. What evidence has MIA presented that I-154 was the petition on top of the clipboard in every instance of implied, witnessed non existent (as they would argue) or every gatherer’s clipboard? None. Just as they presented no evidence, no rebuttal, and no fight against the District Court.

I will be shocked if MIA’s arguments get a majority in the Supreme Court. But you probably knew that. You probably also know that I am still voting on the Trio of Doom initiatives because you never know what will be found.

University of Richmond Interviews John Watson

2006-10-11T18:27:00.000-06:00

As I was warming up to blogging this evening, I saw that the University of Richmond's Megan Cumming's conducted an interview with Montana's Political Cartoonist, John Watson.

I am really happy, when I first contacted Mr. Watson about posting his cartoon, he was excited, and glad that I would want to post it on my blog. In his interview with Megan, he mentioned his concern that political polarization has jeopardized free expression in the state's papers. He couldn't be more correct.

Ok, I am off to the SC briefs I swear, I just wanted to congratulate Mr. Watson.

The Trio of Doom in the Supreme Court (Part 1)

2006-10-09T13:39:00.000-06:00

Boy, I don’t know if you have ever tried to digest 4 Supreme Court briefs in a couple of days, but you should try sometime. It took me until the end of last week to get them all, but I am going to summarize them here for you, and if you want to, follow the links to the briefs themselves.

The cast:

Montanans for Justice: Vote No On CI-98; Not in Montana: Citizens Against CI-97; and Property Owners Against I-154, Plaintiff-Respondents, (We will call them MFJ)

v.

State of Montana by and through Brad Johnson in his capacity as Secretary of State, Defendant-Respondents, (we will call them State)

Montanans in Action, a Montana Corporation, Citizens Right to Recall Montana, Protect Our Homes Montana, Stop Over Spending Montana, Political Ballot Committees and Trevis Butcher, Defendants-Appellants, (MIA)

Kendall Cox, Ervin J. Hansk, and Robert G. Cooper, Individually, Intervenors-Appellants.

The mostly agreed upon timeline:

Signature gathering fraud allegations – June 1
Signatures certified for the ballot – July 21
Complaint by Montanans for Justice- August 15 or 16
Complaint served on Montanans in Action – August 28
Motion to Continue Proceedings (verbal MIA) – September 5
Motion to Continue Denied (verbal, Judge) – September 5
Motion to Substitute Judges (MIA) – September 7
Motion to Substitute Judges Granted – September 8
Hearing – September 8, 9:30 am

Appellants’ Opening Brief (Montanans in Action, et al.)

Summary of Arguments:
1. “Plaintiffs waited until the last minute to file.”
2. “Proponents’ due process rights were violated because of the hasty scheduling at the District Court.”
3. “The District Court’s Findings of Fact were not based on the evidence presented and were based upon incorrect interpretations of Montana law.”

In argument 1) “Plaintiffs waited until the last minute to file.” Montanans in Action, et al. (hereinafter MIA) asserted Latches. Which is basically a doctrine used by Courts, to bar a legal claim, because of undue delay or failure to assert a right in a timely manner. So MIA is saying that because the alleged signature fraud occurred in late May or early June, and Montanans for Justice, et al. (hereinafter MFJ) waited until August 15 to file a complaint, the court should find that there was an undue delay in asserting rights. In the brief, in my opinion, there is a lot of creative counting on the days passed since this occurred or that occurred. Sometimes MIA uses calendar days, sometimes business days, and always to their advantage.

In argument 2) MIA argues that Montanans have the right to vote on these issues; that MIA was denied the due process of law (again creative calendaring); and that they were not allowed access to the Discovery process. Now some people might think that MIA was denied due process, but had I been a member of MIA (*shudder*), I know that I personally would have tracked down the people accused of improper signature gathering back in June, put a stop to those actions, and not submitted the signatures that they gathered to be certified. Is that common sense or is it me? Additionally, I would have gone out of my way to keep tabs on all of my signature gatherers, and know how to reach them, should questions arise regarding their work. Yet MIA failed to present even one of their signature gatherers at the trial, not even one.

In argument 3) MIA alleges that the District Court erred in their definition and application of a signature gatherer’s address; that the affidavits submitted with the signatures, adhered to Montana’s standards; that the District Court improperly grouped all out of state signature gatherers together; and that the “Bait and Switch Tactic” was not supported by evidence presented at the hearing. MIA suggests that signature gatherer King could have been contacted at the address he listed, Butcher’s sister’s address. Well now if this is true, then why didn’t Butcher contact King, and get him to the hearing?

Plaintiffs/Respondents’ Answer Brief (Montanans for Justice, et al.)

Summary of Arguments:
1. The District Court was correct in invalidating all signatures tainted by or associated with fraudulent gathering.
2. It is the Proponent’s burden to demonstrate the validity of the signatures in question, once fraud has been proven.
3. Three distinct violations occurred; 1) “bait and switch”, 2) false swearing on personal knowledge of facts, and 3) false addresses on the affidavits.
4. Proponents bring new arguments to the Supreme Court, never claimed in District Court, latches and due process relief.

MFJ points out that several people testified or submitted affidavits regarding being tricked into signing all three petitions. All of that evidence was presented at the hearing, it was not refuted by MIA, and was admitted without objection from MIA. MIA did not deny the number of signatures gathered or certified by King, Cook, Meyer, or Schumacher; and courts have held that the affiant must have personal knowledge of the facts he/she is attesting to. MFJ assert that “far more than isolated cases of illegal activity with regard to signature gathering” occurred, and that courts in the past have found that it was appropriate “to strike whole petition sheets associated with that impropriety.” Citizens Committee for D.C., 860 A.2d at 818.

MFJ also point out that MIA makes several new arguments for the first time on appeal. This isn’t allowed. Why? Because if truth is found in new allegations raised at the Supreme Court level, it is unfair to fault the District Court for not considering them. So MIA’s latches and due process arguments are therefore invalid. The brief notes: “Proponents make the paradoxical argument that latches . . . bar Plaintiff’s claims not because too much time has passed since the alleged illegal acts occurred, but conversely, because they did not have sufficient notice of Plaintiff’s claims”, and that is one example of the use of creative calendaring. MFJ notes that a lawsuit must be “well grounded in fact”. Time was needed to research and examine the bull of MIA’s signatures, which were turned in just days prior to the June 23rd certification deadline. MFJ also points out that “at no time prior to their appeal brief did Proponents ever assert that they were prejudiced in any way by the procedure in this case”. If you don’t argue it at the District Court level, you can’t at the Supreme Court level.

Finally, MFJ addresses MIA’s allegations of Due Process violations. Here I am just going to quote some of my favorite points:
“Plaintiffs, themselves, did not conduct any discovery. The only discovery that occurred in this case were three perpetuation depositions of Plaintiffs’ witnesses, whose identity and testimony was already known to all parties, as their affidavits were attached to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Hearing. These depositions were all admitted into evidence without objection at the hearing.” The brief goes on to say, “Moreover, these depositions were arranged at a time when Proponents’ attorney, Mr. Gallus, indicated he could attend. Despite this, however, Mr. Gallus waived his right to attend and did not attend the depositions”. Wait it gets better, “Mr. Gallus even declined to cross-examine Plaintiffs’ main witnesses” at the hearing. Wait for it, here comes the slam dunk, “Furthermore, Proponents’ argument is ironic in that all of the information they needed to refute Plaintiffs’ claims was already in their possession. Plaintiffs’ had no information about the paid signature gatherers – these people were recruited and employed by the Proponents.”

AH HAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAA! Sorry, but man I love that.

Ok, I have to run, I will do part two on Wednesday probably, where I will summarize the State’s brief, and MIA’s Reply Brief. I am off to go pick up Shane, and we are headed down to the debate in Bozo. Seeing as the debate is going to be shown and heard live in multiple places, I will probably just post on impressions, rather than a blow by blow, but then again, I have said that before . . .

See those of you I see in Bozeman!

HOLY SCHNEIKEES

2006-10-06T00:29:00.000-06:00

Ok, I am still wading through the 4 briefs filed in the Supreme Court on the ousting of the Trio of Doom ballot initiatives, but I had to tell you this now. (Thank you State Brief).

Article 4, Section 7 (2) A preelection challenge to the procedure by which an initiative or referendum qualified for the ballot or a post election challenge to the manner in which the election was conducted shall be given priority by the courts.

Meaning? The district court had to give priority over all other cases to the challenges brought to the bench. No question, it is right there in the Constitution.

(Brace yourself)

Article 3, Section 4 (3) The sufficiency of the initiative petition shall not be questioned after the election is held.

Meaning? Now or never. The Plaintiffs had to bring the complaint in district court when they did, and it has to be decided by the Supreme Court before November 7, otherwise, no challenges can be raised. Does that strike a chill down your spine, or is it just mine?

Chirping Crickets

2006-10-04T19:18:00.000-06:00

For those of you who are wondering where the heck I am, its been a busy week, and I have been to the Supreme Court once, and twice to the Law Library to try and round up the materials for my next big post.

I have in fact been working up blogs for a buddy of mine who is on vacation, Touchstone over at 4&20 blackbirds and you can see the results there.

First off, I welcomed a long awaited project, Takings Initiatives to the blogosphere.

Secondly, I almost got in an accident with Trevis Butcher, while listening into the latest development in the Initiatives on Yellowstone Public Radio.

Last but not least, I poked around about the filing, found out some information, had some time to chat with some people, and think about it myself.

So there you have it, I am working on the next initiative installment, a review of the Supreme Court challenge of Jude Sandifur’s decision, which tossed the Trio of Doom Initiatives off the ballot, (ok, from not being counted, not actually off the physical ballot). I will get it up here just as soon as I can.

Initiative No. I-151, Raise Montana.

2006-09-30T15:51:00.000-06:00

I have to admit, by the time I finally laid my hands on the language in Initiative 151, I was beginning to get skeptical. At first glance, my suspicions were confirmed, logrolling, multiple changes to the Constitution in one Initiative.

Why did they refuse to answer over three emails requesting the language? In fact, I was spouting off today about logrolling, and how I couldn’t in good conscience support this initiative, just as I don’t support CI-97, Stop Over Spending Montana for the same reason.

Then I got my hands on the language, did the math, and worked it through.

************************************************************************
Section 1. Section 39-3-409 MCA is amended to read:

“39 - - 3409. Adoption of minimum wage rates – exception.
(1) the ~~commissioner shall adopt rules to establish a~~ minimum wage ~~that~~, except as provided in subsection ~~(2)~~ (3), must be the ~~same~~ greater of either:

(a) the minimum hourly wage rate as provided under federal Fail Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206 (a)(1)), excluding the value of tips received by the employee and the special provisions for a training wage-; or
(b) $6.15 an hour, excluding the value of tips received by the employee and the special provisions for a training wage.

(2) (a) The minimum wage is subject to a cost-of-living adjustment, as provided in subsection (2)(b).
(b) No later than September 30 of each year, and adjustment of the wage amount specified in subsection (1) of this section shall be made based upon the increase, if any, from August of the preceding year to August of the year in which the calculation is made in the consumer price index, U.S. city average, all urban consumers, for all items, as published by the bureau of labor statistics of the United States department of labor.
(c) The wage amount established under this subsection (2):
(i) must be rounded to the nearest five cents; and
(ii) becomes effective as the new minimum wage, replacing the dollar figure specified in subsection (1), on January 1 of the following year.
~~(2)~~ (3) The minimum wage rate for a business whose annual gross sales are $110,000 or less is $4 an hour.”

************************************************************************
The first change brought by this Initiative is simple: raise the minimum wage to the greater of either $6.15 (variable, see below) per hour, OR the Federal minimum wage.

Section (2)(b) is where the meat is, it gets complicated, but I did the math, you just have to follow: (Because I can't figure out tabs, you get a picture, lucky you.)
(I am having a devil of a time getting a picture posted too) I will post this anyway. Here is the link.

Total difference over 10 years given that the Feds don’t raise the wage from $6.15 to $8.10 = $1.95, based on the last 10 years of change in the CPI.

Please hear me loud and clear, I do not support initiatives that put more than one decision into a single ballot. It has taken me hours to deconstruct the language in this Initiative, and it is unrealistic, in my opinion, to expect that your average Montanan would, and vote on the multiple changes with full understanding of the language contained in the Initiative that they are voting for. I am ashamed that such a presumption would be made or imposed on Montanans, and this one should have been challenged in Court. Yeah, I said it. And I stand by my opinion.
However, having run the figures, I find that I agree with this one. $1.95 raise in wages over 10 years does not seem unreasonable at all to me. Of course, the figures above would change, should the Federal Government change the minimum wage, I was only able to project changes based on the last 10 years, and therefore my formula is flawed. I can’t predict the future. Go figure. (Unless you want a headache from the figures).

Initiative No. I-153, Montanans for Clean Government

2006-09-29T18:16:00.000-06:00

I thought it might be time to discuss some of the Initiatives out there for the November election, that were proposed by Montanans and when I posted this earlier, a reader pointed out that I had made a HUGE error, in quoting the wrong section of the Constitution.

I have reworked this post, and have double-checked my sites, and am reposting it.

*********************************************************************************
Statement of Purpose:

This measure prohibits former state legislatures, appointed officials, department directors, elected officials and their personal staff, from becoming licensed lobbyists within 24 months after departure from state government.

The Text:

NEW SECTION. Section 1. Prohibition of lobbying by former government personnel. (1) An individual may not be licensed as a lobbyist and a principal may not directly authorize or permit lobbying by an individual, if during the 24 months prior to applying for a license that individual served as a state legislator, elected state official, department director, appointed state official, or a member of a certain personal staff*, as defined by 2-18-101, MCA.
(2) The probation in subsection (1) does not apply to an individual who seeks a license to serve as a lobbyist as part of the individual’s responsibilities as an employee of state or local government.
NEW SECTION. Section 2. Codification. Section 1 is intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 5, Chapter 7, part 3**, and the provisions of Title 5, chapter 7, apply to section 1.
NEW SECTION. Section 3. Severability. If a part of this act is invalid, all valid parts that are severable from the invalid part remain in effect. If a part of this act is invalid in one or more of its applications, the part remains in effect in all valid applications that are severable from the invalid applications.

*********************************************************************************
For the people who really want the nitty gritty (everyone else can skip):

* 2-18-101, Montana Code Annotated: (definition of personal staff)

(19) "Personal staff" means those positions occupied by employees appointed by the elected officials enumerated in Article VI, section 1, of the Montana constitution or by the public service commission as a whole.

Article VI, Section 1, Montana Constitution Officers:

(1) The executive branch includes a governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general, superintendent of public instruction, and auditor

Ok, so personal staff means positions occupied by employees of those offices, who were appointed to their positions by the elected officials or by the public service commission as a whole.

** And Montana Code Annotated Title 5 (Legislative Branch), Chapter 7 (Lobbying), Part 3 (Prohibitions - - Enforcement).

*********************************************************************************

All-righty then, lets discuss this initiative.

Basically, this measure was proposed to put the kybosh on senior state officials (and appointed employees) going from an elected position of power and influence, and parlaying the contacts made while in office, into a pay off from special interest groups, by being hired to lobby for them.

If enacted, this would require those elected and senior state officials (the governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general, superintendent of public instruction and auditor, and their personal staff) to cool their heels for 24 months, before being able to apply for a license to become a paid lobbyist. At the same time, the lobbyists that are hired to represent special interest groups will then have to persuade the legislature for funding based upon the merit of their cause, rather than relying on well known or placed former officials to sway current legislators votes. Finally, it would be a step towards insuring that when you send your senior state officials to represent you, that your they will really be working for your interests, and not looking to make contacts with special interest groups, so they can lobby for them when their term limit is up, or they leave office.

Check out this article in the Montana Standard.

Along with pointing out that I had made a mistake in my citations, a reader also pointed out some things that have made me take a step back and look at this initiative from a different point of view. Which is in fact the whole reason that I post these things. To bring the language out to the public, and to create a forum in which they can be discussed. I think one of the best things we can do is discuss our opinions, and hope that we all come out of it a little more informed.

So let’s discuss away!

ACL’s and the Stick Shift.

2006-09-28T20:20:00.000-06:00

To whoever it was who googled “can I drive a stick shift after ACL surgery”, this post is for you.

I had ACL surgery and Meniscus repair on Feb 7, 2006. First off, plan on being laid flat on your back while doing Physical Therapy exercises for at least 10 days, and you will get bored off your ass (get some movies, books and a good long distance calling plan), and after that, having to go home early from work for another 7 days. It all depends on how fit you are, and how committed you are to your health. I graduated PT in record time, because I busted my ass, even when I was uncomfortable with pain, because I wanted to get back to my life. Also, wait to take the pain pills until you are in pain, rather than as a preventative measure.

I was lucky, my younger bro lent me his van, and I traded him my Mazda (stick shift). We were in the heart of a Montana winter, ice and snow everywhere. I carried a bag of ice and sand with me, attached to my crutches, for walking, and another bigger bag in the car for anything that happened on the road.

One thing being on crutches does, in a HUGE knee (whole leg) brace, is restore your faith in humanity. Doors were opened, groceries carried, assistance offered, and smiles bringing hope given. Complete strangers, and I never may see them again, so thanks to all of you who contributed to my healing.

That being said, after about a month, I switched cars back with my brother, (after a boinker on my part, and a dead battery on his part). You have to trust your own feelings of security on your knee. Trust your feeling, your doctor and your PT. I had to take the brace off of my upper leg when I was driving the stick shift at first, then when I progressed to a smaller brace, I was able to drive the stick with ease. Your knee will feel weird, remember to put it in neutral, and wait for the light change before you put it back in gear, but you can do it. In fact my PT guru Don, said he thought everyone should have to drive a stick shift after an ACL surgery, it certainly helped me.

I am now almost 8 months out from my surgery, and one thing that I wish someone had said to me prior to the surgery (or I had heard them saying it) is that your knee will lose some feeling, (they have to cut some nerves to get to your hamstring or ligament), it will feel weird to kneel, you will mistrust your ability to get down on the floor, you will be afraid to pick up kids and play with them for fear that your knee will give out, and you will become somewhat hypersensitive to it, at least in my opinion and experience.

Here is the hope factor, every day that goes by, I am more confident. I am no longer wearing the smaller brace under my jeans, even when I walk 12 miles per shift at the second job, or when I go out in a crowd of people (who are unpredictable in their movements around you). Yes it is still uncomfortable at times, but I am not in the kind of pain I was from the initial injury in April 2005, then re-injury in December of 2005. I don’t know how I got through those days of constant pain, but I am happier, healthier, and on my way back.

Next summer? I will be brave enough to put my kayak on my car by myself and get out on the water that I love.

And that is what you want right? Get back out there, get away from the pain. Go for it, and listen to your own body, trust yourself, push yourself, and you will be back in action before you know it.

Hope that helps. If it doesn't, or you have more questions, please contact me, I will help as much as I can.

Break a leg! Just kidding . . .

Absentee Ballot Voting in Montana

2006-09-28T19:00:00.000-06:00

So now that my attention has turned from my FEC complaint, and my brain was freed up, I wanted to turn my attention to Absentee Ballots, and with good reason.

The ballots going out in the mail now, were printed prior to Judge Sandifur’s decision on September 13th, and Judge Honzel’s decision on September 19th.

Judge Sandifur, as you might recall found that the signature gathering process for CI-97 Stop Over Spending Montana, CI-98 Citizen’s Right to Recall, and I-154 Protect Our Homes Montana was “permeated by a pervasive and general pattern and practice of fraud”. Montanans for Justice, et al. v. State of Montana, et al., Cause No CDV-06-1162(d), Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, 2006.

Judge Honzel, found “The court concludes that CI-97 violates Article XIV, Section 11 of the Montana Constitution and therefore, it does not qualify as a constitutional initiative to be submitted to the voters. Because the ballots may already have been printed and because absentee ballots soon will be available to the voters, the Court concludes that the secretary of state should be enjoined from counting any votes on CI-97”. Not in Montana v. State of Montana, Montana First Judicial District Court, County of Lewis and Clark, Cause No. CDV-2006-553, 2006.

Now that both of these decisions have made their way to the Supreme Court, (both have been appealed, but I don’t think both have actually been received from the District Court yet), it is possible that both decisions could be overturned.

If these decisions are overturned, the votes for CI-97, CI-98 and I-154 will be counted. For people who support these initiatives, now is your chance to show that you support them. For the people who do not support these initiatives, now is the time to vote them down.

These initiatives are still in legal limbo, and despite what you personally think about them, it is important, extremely important, to remember to vote your opinions on these initatives.

For those that support them, imagine your horror should the decisions be overturned, and knowing that you failed to mark the boxes on your Absentee Ballot.

For those that oppose these initiatives, imagine your horror should the decisions be over turned, and they end up getting voted into our Constitution and Law, because you failed to mark the boxes against these initiatives.

The problem about not speaking out about being sure to vote on these initiatives can be argued and felt by both sides. You might not like them, you may love them, but please please, remember to vote on them.

FEC Complaint filed by a gasp Blogger!

2006-09-27T16:06:00.000-06:00

Sorry I have been MIA for a while, ever since I volunteered to file a complaint about the debate in Butte this last weekend, I have been spending any free moment researching, writing and re-writing, compiling and filing my complaint. Now $69.96 lighter in the wallet, an many hours of lost sleep later, oh and one vacation day taken, it is now winging it’s way to Washington D.C. as of 2:15 this afternoon. Should be there by tomorrow at noon.

First off, some thanks are due to the guy who called for action, Justin, and then jumped on the research keyboard for me. Big thanks to those who provided exhibits, wittingly, Pogie, and unwittingly; the newspapers, the State of Montana website, and BigSkyDemocrats. Oh and for those rascally editors, you know who you are, thanks for the insights, time and encouragement.

In delving into these issues, it is important to say, that I think there are a lot of issues that can be argued. Personally, I chose to focus on one aspect.

A Corporation chose to co-sponsor a debate, held in Butte this past weekend. This Corporation wrote a check, or some how gave money to other sponsors of the debate. This is not illegal, as long as that check was written on an account that had been established and contributed to by the Corporation’s employees. Oh and there are more than a few regulations that have to be met with establishing and using such an account. That aside, Corporations themselves are prohibited by both Montana and Federal law from contributing to or making an expenditure in connection with any election to any political office.

Furthermore, 15 U.S.C. § 79 (h)(2) provides “The term “contribution” as used in this subsection includes any gift, or deposit of money or anything of value, and includes any contract, agreement, or promise, whether or not legally enforceable, to make a contribution.”

In my opinion, those people who were told they couldn’t sit in Resodyn Corporation’s reserved section unless they wore a Burns sticker or t-shirt, valued those seats that were taken from them. In my opinion, those seats were reserved were in-kind contribution by Resodyn Corporation. And, in my opinion, if Resodyn Corporation issued the check to the Montana Standard, rather than a check from their employee contribution account, then Resodyn Corporation has some explaining to do.

But that’s just me. Or is it?

Our Daily Laugh

2006-09-27T14:56:00.000-06:00

My new favorite cartoonist sent me along another gem. Enjoy!

Montana Political Cartoon, by J Watson

2006-09-25T14:54:00.000-06:00

I saw this yesterday morning as I was breaking my fast at the No Sweat Cafe. I loved it.

Reminder: Monica Lindeen on YPR tonight

2006-09-25T13:57:00.000-06:00

Just a quick reminder, Monica Lindeen will be on Yellowstone Public Radio tonight, for their coverage of the 2006 Election. Email questions for Monica to jackie@ypradio.org.

FEAR MONGERING

2006-09-24T19:40:00.000-06:00

My mind keeps swirling around the same thing.

Last night at the debate in Butte it was brought up that Terrorists rule Americans by using fear.

Well correct me if I am wrong, but some Politicians, when backed into a corner, bring up instances in our history like September 11, Katrina, Weapons of Mass Destruction, getting bombed while out to the movies.

At the very same time Americans are being told by the Politicians “not to change our daily living patterns, to go about our normal business, go to work, don’t let the Terrorists win by changing you”.

Well wait a carping minute. Which is it? Be afraid? You need us in office to protect you because others will kill you at any minute for no reason, and we know how to handle it. Or is it be calm, collected, and don’t let the Terrorists win by letting them jumpstart your fear?

Which one?

Who tries to inspire more fear in you on a daily basis? Terrorists? Or Politicians?

Ok, figured that one out?

Which Politicans are in your head right now?

How will you vote?

Will you be terrorized?

Butte Debate BLINKs: Tester v. Burns

2006-09-23T22:54:00.000-06:00

Seeing as there is such excellent coverage going on out there about the debate from all the beautiful people; Touchstone (if there are errors in his post, it is quite possibly my fault for elbowing him as I took notes), Left in the West, Intelligent Discontent 1, 2, & 3 , I thought that I will waste a little of your time with observations, and *BLINK*s, rather than a blow by blow. (or at least I will try).

*******
Let’s start with a joke:

My mother, The Firecracker, attended this debate with me, before things got going, she was looking around trying to figure out how many people were Burns supporters, suddenly she turned to me and said, “I see a Burns guy in an afro.”

“WHAT?!?!” I said, craning my neck to see. “A guy with an afro? Where?”

“No Cece, I said ‘I see a Burns guy in the next row’”.

Ba dum bum.

*******

So as we were walking down the aisle to find seats up front, Touchstone, The Firecracker and I noticed that there was a huge section reserved up front center by some of the sponsors of the event. The sponsors were The Montana Standard, Resodyn and Rhodia. These seats were later filled with a pack of Burns supporters, (I estimate about 75 or so). Interesting huh?

Anyway, onto the *BLINK*s

*******

In Burn’s opening statement, right at the end, he stated something along the lines of “Tester is all about taxation and spending. I am just the opposite.” *BLINK*

In a nicely pointed question, Burns was asked directly to answer his and his staffers association with Abramhoff, and to explain the nature of the relationship.

Burns: Here we go again. I have answered all of this a year and a half ago *BLINK*, and people just won’t let it go. What does answering this question have to do with jobs? Dodge, run, scurry. I had nothing to do with it, nothing! (Touchstone shushs me at this point, I must be making involuntary noises) These are baseless untruths and the worst sort of politics.

Tester: (Steps in front of podium, away from the microphone, and addresses audience, perhaps this is why it came across softly on the radio) Several members of Congress have gone to jail over these allegations, and Senator Burns took more money from Abramoff than any of them, and he changed his vote. The people of Montana expect integrity and honesty. We need a change.

Burns: Baseless accusations, all innuendo.

Another great exchange was on the next question. To Tester, how can you ensure American safety, given that you don’t support the patriot act?

Tester: The Patriot Act takes liberties from Americans, it has very little to do with safety. We have to be diligent on the war on terror. We should investing human intelligence, special forces, secure our borders, and go after the terrorists where they are. Let me just say the in the War on Terror, our troops have been marvelous especially given that they are following a President without a Plan.

Burns: The Patriot Act did provide safety to Americans, all it does is provide Law Enforcement with the same tools they already have. *BLINK*. The Patriot Act is for going after King Pins and the Mafia. *BLINK*. Americans should be able to go to the movies or out to tonight’s football game, without the fear of anyone blowing you up. *BLINK*. Tester doesn’t understand terrorists, he wants to weaken the Patriot Act.

Tester: Let me be clear, I don’t want to weaken the Patriot Act, I want to repeal it. The Patriot Act takes away freedoms, (hushes the crowd) the Terrorists win when we take away our own citizen’s freedom.

Things get interesting again when Tester asks Burns why he would support a National Sales Tax.

Burns: I don’t necessarily support it, maybe I saw something else in the questionnaire that caught my eye. What about you? Your didn’t fill out that Vote Smart form. I support tax reform, look at the system, I am amenable to tax reform as long as it is fair. Everyone should pay their fair share. *BLINK*. You have to read the fine print.

(Sorry I have to interject on this one. Is it just me, or did Burns first say that maybe he checked the wrong box regarding a National Sales Tax, then turn around and tell people to read the fine print and be careful about what they are voting for? Burns burned himself!!!)

Explain how the National Debt has gone from $2,500 per capita share to $30,000 per capita share, not including the costs of the war in Iraq on your watch.

Burns: No doubt spending is a problem. *BLINK*. There was September 11, airlines went under, we had to gear up the military, the terrorists did it, they ruled us by fear. How many people got on an airplane on September 12th. *BLINK*. (Uhhhh no one except maybe a couple of government planes that flew, BECAUSE THE FCC GROUNDED EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING, it was fun to watch the audience members shake their heads in disbelief.) We have kept the Debt to Asset Ratio in line. *BLINK* (When did the US get 8 trillion in assets? Where are they, lets sell them off to pay for this war!) We inherited a recession, gave tax cuts to make the economy grow, when the economy grows, we will get out of this debt, the spending is beyond belief *BLINK* growing the economy will save us.

Tester: Burns is teaching me New Math. My mother was a teacher, and she couldn’t teach it to me, but Burns is. What about fiscal responsibility, what about prioritizing the budget like we do here in Montana? The economy is growing, but Washington is spending money at twice the speed of the growth that has happened.

Burns: How would you change it.

Tester: Elect me. (YAY!)

Burns: I am afraid to. You have to grow the economy, stem spending . . .something about 3 years.

************************************************************************
It was a riot, another slam-dunk for Tester. If you haven’t gone to one, get to a debate.

Taking the Initiative, NOW on PBS

2006-09-22T14:13:00.000-06:00

Just a quick reminder, tonights showing of NOW, (9 pm on Montana PBS) will be focusing on Howie Rich and the Initiatives that he proposed around the country, and the people fighting back against them. Check your local listings.

Too Good to Pass Up: Remarks of Senator Barack Obama

2006-09-21T20:31:00.000-06:00

If you haven't heard of Senator Barack Obama, you will. I read and reread this speech (as prepared for delivery) over and over. Perhaps you have time to do the same.
************************************************************************************

Energy Independence: A Call for Leadership
Wednesday, September 20th, 2006

Now that summer’s over and gas prices have finally come down a bit, there’s a temptation to put any discussion about energy on the back burner until the next crisis arises. Gone are the days when the President would make sweeping pronouncements in his State of the Union about America’s addiction to oil – today there is far more political mileage out of questioning Democrats’ commitment to fighting terror than by affirming America’s commitment to energy independence.

But as the President may or may not have learned by now, simply ignoring a problem doesn’t make it go away. Because while headlines about price gouging and gas lines have temporarily faded from the news, new headlines have emerged that should have us every bit as concerned about the addiction we just can’t seem to shake.

In just the last week, two in particular caught my eye.

One is from the Detroit Free Press, and it talks about how Ford Motor Company plans to cut 30,000 hourly jobs, 14,000 salaried jobs, and close sixteen plants by 2012.

Now, there are plenty of reasons for Ford’s financial troubles, but one of the most glaring has been their inability to compete with foreign counterparts by transitioning to the fuel-efficient and hybrid vehicles that represent the future of the auto industry.

200,000 of these hybrids are driving around China today, a country that already has a higher fuel economy than we do. Over in Japan, Toyota is doubling production of the popular Prius to sell 100,000 in the U.S. this year. But at Ford, there are plans to make only 20,000 Escape Hybrids in 2006, and GM’s brand won’t be on the market until 2007. Meanwhile, the waiting lists for a hybrid car in this country get longer by the day.

These foreign auto companies are out-innovating and out-competing us, and if we do nothing to help U.S. carmakers, tens of thousands more jobs and billions in business will be heading overseas in the months to come.

Unfortunately, job losses and foreign competition are just the half of it. Because the second headline that caught my eye was in Saturday’s New York Times, and it read, “Suicide Attacks Foiled at 2 Oil Sites in Yemen.”

This news is disturbing, but not surprising. For years, Al Qaeda has been trying to attack Middle Eastern oil refineries as a way to wreak havoc on the U.S. economy. Osama bin Laden himself has said, “Focus your operations on oil, especially in Iraq and the Gulf area, since this will cause them to die off [ontheirown]." In the past, even minor attacks have caused global prices to jump $2 per barrel in a single day. And a former CIA agent tells us that if terrorists ever succeeded in destroying an entire oil complex, it could take enough oil off the market to cause financial catastrophe in America.

More than anything else, headlines like these represent a realization that goes far beyond the temporary rise and fall of gas prices. It’s a realization that for all of our economic dominance – for all of our military might – the Achilles heel of the most powerful country on Earth is the oil we cannot live without.

The President knows this. That thousands of autoworkers are losing their jobs. That we spend $18 million on foreign oil ever hour. That our climate is changing and global temperatures are rising.

And yet, for someone who talks tough about defending America, actually solving our energy crisis seems to factor pretty low on the President’s agenda.

And that’s because as much as George Bush might want to defend America, he also needs to defend his vision of government – and that’s a government that can’t, won’t, and shouldn’t solve great national challenges like our energy dependence.

That’s why the President’s funding for renewable fuels is at the same level it was the day he took office. That’s why his budget funds less then half of the energy bill he himself signed into law. That’s why billions of tax dollars that could’ve been used to fund energy research went to the record-profiting oil companies instead.

And that’s why it’s time to stand up for a new vision of government this November.

You see, it’s this timidity – this smallness – in our politics that’s holding us back right now. The idea that some problems are just too big to handle, and if you just ignore them, sooner or later, they’ll go away.

But that’s not where the American people are. They still believe in an America where anything’s possible – they just don’t think their leaders do. They still dream big dreams – they just sense their leaders have forgotten how.

There’s a reason that some have compared the quest for energy independence to the Manhattan Project or the Apollo moon landing. Like those historic efforts, moving away from an oil economy is a major challenge that will require a sustained national commitment.

During World War II, we had an entire country working around the clock to produce enough planes and tanks to beat the Axis powers. In the middle of the Cold War, we built a national highway system so we had a quick way to transport military equipment across the country. When we wanted to beat the Russians into space, we poured millions into a national education initiative that graduated thousands of new scientists and engineers.

If we hope to strengthen our security and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, we can offer no less of a commitment to energy independence.

With technology we have on the shelves right now and fuels we can grow right here in America, by 2025 we can reduce our oil imports by over 7.5. million barrels per day – an amount greater than all the oil we are expected to import from the entire Middle East.

We start by producing cars that use less oil. The auto industry has not been asked to raise fuel economy standards in seventeen years, and lately we’ve just stopped asking them to.

Today, we have no choice. Starting in 2008, if we raised CAFÉ standards a modest 3% a year over the next twelve years, by 2020 passenger vehicles would average 40.5 mpg and light trucks would average 32.6 mpg. This is by no means a dramatic increase – five years ago, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that raising CAFÉ to 33 mpg for passenger cars could easily be done without compromising passenger safety.

Not only would this reduce America’s oil consumption, but it would increase profits for the auto industry. Yesterday a University of Michigan report came out that said if the Big Three automakers took proactive steps to increase the fuel-efficiency of their vehicles, they would stand to gain up to $2 billion more in profits per year. But if they continue on their current path, they could stand to lose up to $3.6 billion in profits.

Of course, auto executives are right when they say that transitioning to these more fuel-efficient automobiles would be costly at a time of sagging profits and stiff competition, and that’s precisely why the federal government shouldn’t let the industry face these costs on their own.

We should strike a grand bargain with the Big Three automakers where the government picks up part of the tab for their retiree health care costs – a tab that ran almost $6.7 billion just last year – in exchange for the car companies using that savings to invest in more fuel-efficient cars.

Beyond raising CAFÉ, however, it’s time we replace oil altogether as America’s fuel of choice. This doesn’t just mean singing the praises of ethanol and hoping that it finds its way into our fuel supply on its own. It means taking major steps now to put a national biofuel infrastructure in place.

Already, some cars on the road have the flexible-fuel tanks necessary for them to run on E85, a cheaper, cleaner blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. But millions upon millions of cars still don’t have these tanks.

It’s time for them to install those tanks in every single car they make, and it’s time for the government to cover this small cost, which currently runs at just $100 per car. We should also make sure that from now on, every single automobile the government purchases is a flex-fuel vehicle.

It’s also a time to start making E85 fueling stations more available to the public. Currently, only 681 out of 170,000 fueling stations in America offer E85 pumps. This is not acceptable. Every American should have the choice to fill up their car with E85 at any fueling station. And oil companies should stop standing in the way and join us in making this happen. If the big oil companies would devote just 1% of their first quarter profits this year to install E85 pumps, more than 7,000 service stations would be able to serve E85 to hungry motorists.

Finally, we should reduce the risk of investing in renewable fuels by providing loan guarantees and venture capital to those entrepreneurs with the best plans to develop and sell biofuels. And we should create a market for renewable fuels by ramping up the renewable fuel standard and creating an alternative diesel standard in this country that together would blend 65 billion gallons of renewable fuels into the petroleum supply each year.

In the days and months after September 11th, Americans were waiting to be called to something bigger than themselves. Just like their parents and grandparents of the Greatest Generation, they were willing to serve and defend their country – not only on the fields of war, but on the homefront too.

This is our chance to step up and serve. For decades, we have heard President after President call for energy independence in this country, but for decades, we have fallen short. Well it’s time to call on ourselves. We shouldn’t wait for the next time gas hits $3 a gallon – and we shouldn’t accept any more headlines that talk about a dying auto industry or a terrorist plot to use oil as a weapon against America. We should act – and we should act now.

Now is the time for serious leadership to get us started down the path of energy independence. Now is the time for this call to arms. I hope some of the ideas I’ve laid out today can serve as a basis for this call, but I also hope that members of both parties and all levels of government can come together in the near future to launch this serious quest for energy independence. Thank you.

Source: MoveOn.org
*************************************************************************************

So what can you do? How about voting for the guy who has pushed energy independence in the legislature of Montana; or voting for the gal who is campaigning around the state in a bus powered by biofuel?

Signage

2006-09-21T13:18:00.000-06:00

A quick update - I was trying to get my hands on a Monica Lindeen and a Jon Tester yardsign, by signing up on the websites.

Well I have been beginning to see some around town and wondered where mine was. I called around, and found out that they are not really planning on putting them out in yards until 45 days prior to the election.

So keep waiting patiently, if you signed up, you should be getting your signage in the next week or so.

:)

CI-97 Decreed Unconstitutional

2006-09-19T23:27:00.000-06:00

Well, another nail was put into the coffin of the trio of Initiatives proposed and backed by Americans for Limited Government, and Howie Rich.

Today a Memorandum and Order was issued by Montana’s First Judicial District Court, in the County of Lewis and Clark by Judge Honzel, who heard arguments in the case last Thursday morning from Not in Montana (Plaintiffs) v. State of Montana (Defendants) and Stop Overspending Montana (Intervenors).

Not in Montana challenged the proposed Initiative on the basis that it would violate Montana’s “single subject” requirement for initiatives. The single subject rule requires that each initiative must be legally sufficient (ie complying with the single subject rule) and must be qualified for the Ballot by the attorney general.

“The court concludes that CI-97 violates Article XIV, Section 11 of the Montana Constitution and therefore, it does not qualify as a constitutional initiative to be submitted to the voters. Because the ballots may already have been printed and because absentee ballots soon will be available to the voters, the Court concludes that the secretary of state should be enjoined from counting any votes on CI-97”

Not in Montana v. State of Montana, Montana First Judicial District Court, County of Lewis and Clark, Cause No. CDV-2006-553.

“Here, it is not necessary for the Court to analyze each part of Section I of CI-97 because subsection (7) by its very terms would amend Article XIV of the Constitution”. (Id.)

That’s right, Judge Honzel went right for the section 7 in CI-97, which would provide for judges from “courts of competition jurisdiction” to amend the constitution themselves. Who guessed it?

********************************************************************************
Since most of you have seen the decision by now, there is no need for me to highlight anything further.

Certainly, we can count on the opposition, Stop Overspending Montana, to mount a Supreme Court challenge of Judge Honzel’s memorandum and order. Indeed, he specifically issued a decision in a timely matter, to allow for just such a challenge.

I have to say I am thrilled. If you have read any of my posts regarding these initiatives, I doubt you are surprised by my reaction.

It is important to keep in mind, that although the voters of Montana have mounted two successful challenges to these initiatives, that the Supreme Court might overturn the decisions.

We still have the complaints filed with the Commissioner of Political Practices, regarding the Trio’s and their backer’s failure to comply with Campaign Finance transparency in reporting of their moneys and their expenditures. I am looking forward to the decision there as well.

More importantly, a lot of people seem to like the ideas proposed in I-154, Protect Our Homes Montana, (eminent domain) and are seeking to perhaps change a few of the sections, but would like to revive it in the next election cycle, 2008. There will be a debate on the issue next Thursday on YPR at 7 pm. I for one will be listening, and perhaps submit a question or two.

Also on YPR, next Monday, Monica Lindeen will have an interview on her ideas and positions. Check in!

All in all, now that these initiatives are in their coffins, I will sleep easier. I will of course cover any Supreme Court challenges that are submitted, but for now, I will move on to live issues.

Thanks for all the support, and the time that each of you has taken to become more informed on these initiatives, and for trusting me to deal with them even handed, and for challenging me when you thought I was incorrect.

Sleep tight Montanans!

CI-97 Ruled Unconstitutional!!!!!!!!

2006-09-19T14:27:00.000-06:00

Judge Honzel in Helena just ruled that CI-97 violated the Constitution of the State of Montana, and enjoins the Secretary of State from counting any votes cast for CI-97!!

I have not had a chance to read the ruling, and *alas* I am working tonight, I will try and get a post up late late tonight, or early tomorrow!

Of course MIA will take it to the Supreme Court, but this is strike #2 against CI-97!

Tonight’s interview with Dennis Rehberg on YPR.

2006-09-18T22:21:00.000-06:00

Well I tuned in again tonight at 7 pm, for the interview with Dennis on YPR. The highlights:

My favorite question, was of course my own. And throughout the debate I wondered whether or not they would ask it. They saved it for last.

I emailed YPR this afternoon with my question. “Why is it that you refuse to debate your opponent, Monica Lindeen in a public format? Don’t Montanan’s have the right to have their questions answered by their candidate? Or are you afraid of having to defend your ideas public?

Dennis: We have to correct those blogs. And we will have to deal in the future with blogs, they can say anything they want.

(Last I checked, in a format that is one sided, you can say anything you want without being backed up by facts, unless someone takes the time to disprove you, See the following)
(If you look Dennis, you will find that we back up our ideas and thoughts with research)

Dennis (cont.): I debated Lindeen in the primary (true). There is a debate that we have scheduled in Bozeman for October 17, and will be heard here on YPR. Jaime should call up whoever fed her that question, and get angry with them. We are in the process of negotiating another debate, I asked my campaign manager if I had ever refused a debate.

Jim: That’s right, there will be a debate here on October 17, heard live on Yellowstone Public Radio.

Dennis: (in the background) When have I ever run from a debate? (has the floor again) I will be in Bozeman on October 17, debating my opponent Monica Lindeen. I am tired of being criticized for running from a debate, I never have.

Well perhaps, Dennis, the reason that you are tired of being criticized for running from debate opportunities, is because you have been running.

Montanans are going on the third debate between Conrad and Tester, and you finally got the 1st on scheduled?!? Congratulations on debating Monica in the primary. Good job, you got the nomination, how about the job?

No one fed me the question. I am working one full time job, two part time jobs, I blog, and I make the time to be available for live interviews, debates, and court hearings on this November’s election. Perhaps you should take that to mean that I actually bother to be informed about the elections, and the power of the people of Montana’s vote and my vote. Perhaps you should understand that I think it is important to point out to people what is wrong with what candidates claim to be the truth, instead of letting yet another lie slip by. Or perhaps you secretly appreciate our blogs, for pointing out the consistent holes in your stated priorities vs. your actions. (Personally, I know it is the latter.)

Get a handle on this Dennis.

Immigration: If you honestly believe that security of our borders is your number on priority, how can you realistically argue that, fences, barbed wire, dogs and electronic monitoring have not served us on the Southern borders, how could they possibly work up here? I worked in immigration for years, I have more experience than you do, and I know the system and its failures. Maybe it is time to take a look at the system and enforcement, instead of building walls between our neighbors. To be fair, it sounds like you have at least been introduced to these concepts, now get familiar with them.

Universal Healthcare: Scares you to death. Yet you also admit that Healthcare is complex and expensive. For Veterans, and Medicare, tax payers pay as a part of the process. And these services provide healthcare on a timely basis, as needed.

Someone who has to pay her own insurance premiums is doing what she can for herself to lower premiums by investing in a Healthcare Savings Account, which she uses for Healthcare costs. But cost shifting occurs from people who are uninsured to people who are insured, that is the way it works, but it isn’t necessary. (Well how, how are you going to correct it?)

Then you take of on a tangent, a totally unrelated one, healthcare is sticky isn’t it?

Dennis: My two main goals over the next ten years are for 1) Energy Independence, and 2) that every American would have healthcare insurance that isn’t tied to their jobs, that the person would own in individually. (Sounds like Universal Healthcare to me).

We have to dream big, like JFK did. The people will become the negotiators of healthcare costs, not the insurance companies controlling it. (Sounds like Universal Healthcare to me).

Either embrace it, give us a plan that leads to it, or quit claiming it as a goal.

Kyoto Treaty: Uhhh, check your facts Dennis, India and China are not the only nations that have failed to ratify the Kyoto treaty.

Talking about an example that we set to the world in Iraq? Great rhetoric, how about actual action, ¾ of the globe recognizes their contribution to global warming, why doesn’t the United States? Don’t tout something that the United States fails to participate in itself, as something that other nations are doing wrong. DUH!

Oh yeah, Dennis? Justify how you chose to raise your own pay (you didn’t deserve it), voted in the military’s right to a raise in pay (yes they deserved it), yet voted against the rest of America getting a raise in minimum wage. Minimum, that is minimum wage, which today can’t pay for what it paid for in 1947.

Get a handle on that why don’t you?

The Constitutionality of CI-97, SOS, today’s hearing in Helena.

2006-09-14T21:05:00.000-06:00

Rather than do a blow-by-blow like I did for the Hamilton Debate, I will cover the highlights.

James Reynolds, attorney for Not in Montana: Citizens Against CI-97 started off the hearing. Jim started off explaining who Not in Montana (the Petitioners) were, and quickly progressed into their argument regarding the legality of the proposed amendment.

Marshall v. State, 199 MT 33, 293 Mont. 274, 957 P.2d 325 (1999) was the agreed upon authority, regarding single subject amendments, for all of the parties arguments.

Mr. Reynolds stated that the Petitioners, Not in Montana, had submitted only 35 pages (limits imposed by law) of briefs to Judge Honzel on this subject, and as to the difficulty of paring down the sheer number of amendments to the Constitution of the State of Montana proposed by CI-97 in the briefs.

Mr. Reynolds citied the Constitutional Convention's transcripts regarding the delegates intentions behind the duties and responsibilities of the legislature to appropriate money, and that their intention was to lay the power to appropriate money solely in the hands of our elected representatives, the legislature.

Mr. Reynolds progressed into a discussion of how CI-97 would amend the constitution in more than one way. He mentioned several times how, when reading the petition, and breaking it down, they gave up counting the changes to the constitution once they reached 30 changes. There were however, 6 significant separate distinct amendments to the Constitution.

1. The formula that was involved in actually imposing a spending limit upon the legislature. (Sections 1 through 3 of the Initiative).
2. The realignment
3. The amendment that gives power to the judiciary to change the constitution, and the "court of competent jurisdiction" wording. (Section 7)
4. The series of exemptions on revenue expenditures from the formula, which involve 22 categories. (Section 6)
5. The fact that by granting power to the judiciary to amend the exemptions, that the people of the State of Montana would have no power to ratify the changes to the Constitution.
6. The fact that anyone doing business in the State of Montana has the power to bring legal action against the State to enforce the application of CI-97.

However, my favorite part was when Mr. Reynolds' mentioned that ironically, CI-97 grants power to the judiciary to "legislate from the bench", while at the same time, Montanans in Action were also supporting an initiative, CI-98, which as been promoted as a way to eliminate activist judges. I got a good chuckle out of that one, seeing as I mentioned it earlier.

Mr. Reynolds also hammered home that for the first time in the history of Montana, the Judiciary would have the power to amend the Constitution of the State of Montana without involvement of the Legislature or the People.

He stated that this is not a case about whether or not CI-97 is a good idea or a bad idea; rather it is about how the people of Montana go about changing their Constitution, and the laws in place to protect Montanans interests. Mr. Reynolds urged Judge Honzel to strike CI-97 from the ballot as an unconstitutional proposed initiative, that would radically change the citizens of Montana’s right to govern themselves.

Anthony Johnstone Assistant Attorney General represented the State of Montana from the office of the Attorney General.

Mr. Johnstone quickly brought up the point that the Attorney General held a "gate keeping" role in qualifying an initiative for the ballot. The office's job was to assess the legal sufficiency of the language of the petition for the ballot, and were barred from considering the merits or application of the amendment to the Constitution should the people of Montana chose to vote in the change.

The Attorney General's office must decipher if each part of an initiative would be a separate amendment to the Constitution, or whether the proposal had a significant relation between the components, and therefore must be voted on as a whole, rather than in pieces.

Mr. Johnstone mentioned that the Petitioner’s, Not in Montana, were quick to complain about "courts of competent jurisdiction" and "does business" in the state of Montana sections of the Initiative; yet this Initiative was so lengthy in an attempt to provide a definition of the spending limit that would be imposed.

Mr. Johnstone also said that if each portion of the Initiative would have to be proposed as a separate initiative, then you would have CI-100 through CI-121 on the ballot. (was that a concession or is that just me?)

He stated that the vote of the people to override the spending limit of CI-97, wouldn’t make sense as a stand alone initiative.

When Mr. Johnstone unwittingly meandered into the judicial power portion of the Initiative, Judge Honzel came to life. "This doesn’t limit the court", "[this is] a whole lot of authority [to give to the judiciary]". The court would have the right to amend the constitution without guidance, no criteria as to what should be exempt from the spending limit and as to what shouldn't be exempt. "Some of these are constitutionally based, but some aren't", referring to the list of exemptions in Section 6 of the Initiative.

Mr. Johnstone replied that the Attorney General interpreted it as a savings clause. That an argument in court would have to be presented, and citing authority to provide a judge with the power to amend the Constitution. And that the electorate could vote to strike the clause without throwing out the rest of the provisions in CI-97.

Judge Honzel replied that the provision of CI-97 doesn’t say that. He pointed out that the provision leaves the decision completely up to the Judge, and his decision would be added to the constitution, that CI-97 provided for no override of a judicial exemption.

Mr. Johnstone reverted to the idea that each portion of the initiative was a part of an integral whole, and that the provision the Judge was pointing out could not be voted on as a separate provision of CI-97. (Concession #2)

Mt. Johnstone went on to argue about TABOR. That TABOR created spending limits, taxation limits, and election process deadlines. TABOR gave the power to the localities to cancel state funding, and created a mandatory reserve of moneys to the state. And those four provisions, had they been proposed in Montana, would have certainly violated the single amendment rule.

Mr. Johnstone drove home the point that the provisions of CI-97 could not be voted on as separate Initiatives, because they would be meaningless as stand alone changes to the Constitution.

Christopher Gallus, for Montanans In Action, the Defendant Intervenors, stood up and took the podium next. Mr. Gallus wanted to provide the court with a context of the drafting of CI-97, and their adherence to Marshall v. State, (Id.), which ended up limiting significantly the provisions of CI-97 as proposed (*BLINK*). Mr. Gallus mentioned the Great Falls decision, and brought it to Judge Honzel’s attention. To which the Judge replied, "It was pretty hard to miss."

Mr. Gallus came right out and said that CI-97 was complex and lengthy, including 9 Sections and 22 Sub-sections, but that all of these sections were "reasonably related" to the single purpose of a state spending limit. He stated that the association between the sections are not artificial, and were drafted with compliance with the Constitution in mind. The length of the proposed initiative resulted from compliance to the Constitution and Marshall v. State. (*BLINK*)

Mr. Gallus also stated that he drafted CI-97. He knew that the initiative would lead to political unrest, and that it would be subject to challenges, and therefore took caution in drafting the provisions of CI-97.

Mr. Gallus then turned to explaining how he had carefully drafted CI-97 to comply with the Constitution and the law:

1. Sections 1 through 3 were basically the formula for creating a state spending limit.
2. Section 4 was needed to be able to transfer moneys between the state and localities, so the language was needed and logically related.
3. Section 5 was included to provide for an ability of the voters to exceed the spending cap.
4. Section 6 was reasonably related and included for obvious reasons; to avoid conflict with the Constitution of the State of Montana. That the state spending limit could not logically include money provided to the state by the federal government. (Section 6 is the portion with the famous 22 exemptions from the spending limit)
5. Section 7 addressed adjustments to the spending limit by the judicial branch. That the flexibility in the spending limit was necessary.

Judge Honzel sat up and questioned Mr. Gallus. {paraphrasing} "I see a lot of cases in court, things about overcrowding in prisons, I see educators in here about funding for schools, and we make decisions on those. If the Court were to make a decision on a spending exemption, that category would be imposed on the Constitution. It would make a 23rd exemption, wouldn't it?"

Mr. Gallus squirmed and looked around. (Consession #3) The intention of the provision of the Constitution would be a determination of the Court. The Judge was trying to talk about the implications of passing CI-97, instead of the constitutionality of the provision. It *mumble* be an amendment to the Constitution, but the spending limit would be adjusted accordingly.

Judge Honzel leveled Mr. Gallus a look.

Mr. Gallus moved on.

6. Section 8 of the petition would provide an enforcement mechanism, and that the provision for attorney’s fees and costs were not new to the Constitution. People raising a challenge should not have to bear the expense. And that the same would provide for a deterrent to people for bringing frivolous lawsuits to challenge the provisions of CI-97, because they would have to bear the cost of the lawsuit should the challenge fail.

7. Section 9 of the petition would assert the intent of the voters who enacted CI-97, by requiring the legislature to adhere to the spending limit and its interpretation.

Mr. Gallus maintained that CI-97 was an Initiative with a single intent, to impose a spending limit on the legislature. He echoed the Attorney General Office's assertion that all of the sections were an integral whole to the Initiative, and that they could not be voted on separately.

The people of the State of Montana should be allowed to vote on this Initiative.

James Reynolds, attorney for Not in Montana: Citizens Against CI-97 was allowed a change to rebut the Defendant and Defendant-Intervenor’s arguments.

Mr. Reynolds stated that he had a few comments.

First, regarding the assertion that the Initiative could not be voted on separately. CI-75 (the subject Marshall v. State) amendments were amendments that the court ruled were separate amendments to the constitution, and therefore violated the single subject provision of the Montana State Constitution.

{Paraphrasing} "CI-97 has at it's core a provision for a state spending limit, then it tacks on how to get around the spending limit, how to bring a lawsuit to enforce the limit, and grants power to the judiciary to amend the Constitution of the State of Montana by granting the Judge the power to change the Constitution without consulting the legislature or the people of Montana."

Marshall v. State’s interpretation of the single subject provision was very narrow, to prevent the Constitution from being amended haphazardly, as was the intention behind the provision in the Constitution.

Section 6 of the proposed petition is log rolling, plain and simple. (tacking on many amendments to the constitution under the guise of being a single subject amendment.)

TABOR brought Colorado to it’s knees, and has put them in a catch 22 situation. TABOR was passed by the citizens of Colorado. When the citizen's realized the implication of multiple provision initiatives, they passed a single provision amendment to their Constitution. Now the citizens of Colorado are stuck, being unable to remove the provisions of TABOR as a whole, because it is a multiple subject amendment to the Constitution of the State of Colorado.

Mr. Reynolds recognized that the Colorado cases had no precedence in Montana courts, but sited it as the only authority that exists in relation to a multiple subject amendment to the Constitution of a State. Mr. Reynolds said “This is exactly what we in Montana are trying to avoid”.

Judge Honzel deemed the matter submitted.

The Judge said he had a trial starting Monday, but that he would get a decision out next week so that the challenges to CI-97 might be addressed at the same time by the Supreme Court.

THE END.
*********************************************************************************

There you go, that is what happened, and I ended up doing a blow by blow despite my best intentions.

It is important to note: Judge Honzel needs only to find that there are two separate amendments to the Constitution of Montana, to declare CI-97 unconstitutional, despite the multitude of amendments included in the Initiative.

Which proposed provision do you think he will chose as the 2nd?

Just in case you need it, I know I referred to it in the writing of the post, here is my analysis, line by line of CI-97.

THE TAINT OF FRAUD!

2006-09-13T20:05:00.000-06:00

OOOOeeeeee! I think I hurt my knee again when running to my computer, shoving co-workers and chairs out of my path, upon hearing that CI-97, CI-98 and I-154 had been removed from the ballot.

Here is my favorite quote:

“ . . .contrary to the politically-provocative rhetoric that is certain to follow [this decision], invalidation of the signature gathering process does not result in disenfranchisement of the people who support the Ballot Initiatives. As a matter of law and reason, the people who support the initiatives have no political or legal right to vote on them until Proponents (SOS, CRTR, POH, and MIA) have duly qualified them for the ballot in the manner provided by law, free from the taint of fraud. , Thus, this decision does not preclude Proponents from fairly and lawfully qualifying the initiatives for a vote of the people on the merits in the next election cycle.”

Montanans for Justice: Vote No on CI-98, et al. v. State of Montana, et al..
Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, Cause No. CDV-06-1162(d)
(Emphasis added).

First the background. In order for the signatures gathered to qualify to be certified to bring an initiative to the ballot for a vote of the people, a few standards have to be met; and has to submit a certification affidavit with each page of signatures that:

(1) the signature gatherer has to gather or assist in gathering the signatures, (2) the signature gatherer believes the signatures are genuine, (3) the signature gatherer believes that the signatures are the person whose they say they are, (4) the signature gatherer believes that the signatures of are of Montana electors who are registered to vote, along with their telephone number, (5) that the signers of the petitions knew the contents of the petition prior to signing, and (6) must contain the affiant’s (signature gatherer’s) true address.

I think the judge could have issued this decision without the reference to the fact that the signature gatherer’s who certified their petitions were out of state paid signature gatherers, as it is almost irrelevant to the decision. So I am going forward with putting this into English, wherever possible without those references.

· 43 of the signature gatherers gave false addresses.
· At least 3 of the “assistants” to signature gatherers, who filed the certification affidavits fraudulently gathered signatures, under the pretense of having people sign multiple petitions, who were under the impression that they were signing one petition multiple times.
· King, Schumacher, Cook and Meyer signed affidavits stating that they “assisted” in gathering a huge volume of signatures in a time frame and geographic location that would be physically impossible to allow them to actually assist or supervise the signatures that they signed an affidavit verifying.
· Ok here is where I cannot avoid mentioning that the signature gatherers were paid; $287.246.22 was paid in various amounts to Rittberg, Schumacher, Witmer, Moore, Thompson, Colby/Homer, Cook and Meyer. All of these payee’s were associated with “false or fictitious addresses and/or bate and switch tactics.” (Id.)
· Marvin King certified 15,000 signatures himself from June 1, 2006 through June 15, 2006. Ok, so 14 days x 24 hours x 60 minutes = 20,160. Either that man is addicted to coffee, or he lied.

Second, lets discuss this word “assist”, the Judge does, and it is important.

“The language of the standard form “affidavit” attests that “the person who is the signature gatherer” swears under oath that:

(1) he or she “gathered or assisted in gathering the signatures on the petition to which this affidavit is attached on the stated dates;”
(2) he or she “believe that the signatures on the petition are genuine, are the signatures of the persons whose names they purport to be, and are the signatures of Montana electors who are registered at the address or have the telephone number following the person’s signature,” and
(3) “the signers knew the contents of the petition before signing the petition.”

Montanans for Justice: Vote No on CI-98, et al. v. State of Montana, et al..
Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, Cause No. CDV-06-1162(d)
(Section 13-27-302, Montana Code Annotated.)

“The plain or common meaning of the term “assist” is:

To help, stand by . . . to give support or aid . . . to be present as a spectator . . .to give support or aid . . . in some undertaking or effort.
Websters 3rd New Int’l Dictionary, 132, (2002).”
(Id).

This definition, sited by the Judge, would not allow for someone to be gathering signatures in Billings, while at the same time certifying that they “assisted” in gathering signatures in Missoula.

Third,

“As further indication of the significance of the affidavit requirement of § 13-27-302, MCA, knowingly falsifying a certification affidavit is a criminal offense, subject to a $500.00 fine and 6 months in county jail.” (Id.)

Fourth,
“ . . . the Proponents (SOS, CRTR, POH and MIA) presented no creditable evidence to rebut the Plaintiff’s showing of a pervasive and general patter and practice of fraud and conscious circumvention of procedural safeguards. As the parties who commissioned the professional migrant signature gatherers, the Proponents should have been in the best position to contact their signature gatherers and bring a sufficient number of them into court to rebut the Plaintiffs’ showing of fraud and irregularity. However, either because they were unwilling or themselves unable to locate them, Proponents failed to present any direct evidence from the best and most knowledgeable source to rebut Plaintiffs’ showing. Consequently, under the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds and concludes for the foregoing resons that the signature gathering process for CI[-]97, CI-98, and I-154 was permeated by a pervasive and general pattern and practice of deceit, fraud, and procedural non-compliance.”

Montanans for Justice: Vote No on CI-98, et al. v. State of Montana, et al..
Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, Cause No. CDV-06-1162(d)
************************************************************************

Now the Initiatives are off of the ballot, due to their own failure and careless disregard for the laws of the State of Montana. They promise to take it to the Supreme Court, but the opinion of people I know, and people who have read the decision in its entirety, are convinced that the Order is well reasoned, backed up by law and precedent, and therefore bulletproof.

Today is a great day for the citizens of Montana. Justice was served. That guy going 70 miles per hour in a 50 mile per hour zone, has been schooled in the power of law. This is not to say that we should be complacent, stop questioning, or challenging of ideas.

An important lesson I learned this year. When someone asks you to sign a petition, know what you are signing, ask the signature gatherer questions. You see, I was one of the people who was duped into signing all 3 petitions outside of Van’s Thriftway in Helena. I thought that everyone has a right to get their ideas to the ballot. What I learned is that I have two chances to vote a bad idea down; once in choosing not to sign a petition, and the second time at the ballot box.
************************************************************************

Update - As I was re-reading this, I came to the conclusion that I should explain (Id). Id means, basically, the case last sited. So you are reading along, and you see Id., look up for the last case sited, in italics.

INITIATIVES THROWN OUT, CI-97, CI-98 and I-154

2006-09-13T13:42:00.000-06:00

This just in, the judge threw out the initiatives for illegal signature gathering. The opposition vows to appeal.

More news as I gather it.

**********************************************************************************

Update 1 - here is the legal look at the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Invalidating Certification of Ci-98, CI-97 and I-154.

The Truth about CI-98, Citizen’s Right to Recall.

2006-09-12T20:46:00.000-06:00

Section 1. Article VII is amended to read:

NEW SECTION. [Section 12].
(1) This amendment shall subject to recall each elected justice or judge of the state or political subdivisions including a justice or judge appointed to an elected office.

(2) A petition for recall may be filed by up to three qualified electors serving as chief petitioners. The chief petitioners shall:

(a) provide a justification statement, not exceeding 200 words, declaring the reasons for the recall;
So, a justification statement, justified by the people in subsection (4) of this amendment, only has to come up with a blurb of why they think a judge or justice should be recalled, circulate it for signatures, and then they get a special election based on a 200 word statement or less . . .

“We the undersigned, didn’t agree with Judge So and So’s interpretation of Marshall v. State, 199 MT 33, 293 Mont. 274, as he/she applied his/her interpretation of number of amendments that were proposed in CI-97, Stop Over Spending Montana, and therefore we think he/she should be booted off of the court.”

Nice. I can see it now.

(b) circulate the petition in an approved form; and
According to this proposed addition, only up to three people can circulate the petition in approved form.

(c) file the signed petitions with the appropriate election administrator for verification and certification.
Who is the appropriate election administrator, how do they verify the petition, and how do they certify the petition?

(3) No petition for recall may be filed sooner than 60 days following the time the justice or judge takes office.
Well what if you want it to be 30 days, or 180 days? Isn’t a 60 day limitation arbitrary?

(4) The sufficiency of the justification statement required under subsection (2) is a political question answered solely by the qualified electors participating in the recall election and no judicial recall petition shall otherwise be subject to judicial inquiry or review. The justification statement is sufficient if it sets for any reason acknowledging electoral dissatisfaction with a justice or judge notwithstanding good faith attempts to perform duties of the office.
So let me get this straight, the only people who decide if the “justification statement”, is sufficient to recall a Judge are the people who sign the petition, setting in motion the process of recalling a judge for any reason they want to. There is no need to run the petition past anyone in the government who you have elected.

(5) Notwithstanding the review of protections granted under
subsection (3) a petitioner or petitioners providing a justification statement shall not be otherwise be shielded from responsibility for any untrue statements contained in the justification statement.
Well this one at least makes sense. OMG! An amendment I agree with.

(6) Prior to circulation, a recall petiton shall be approved as to form. The appropriate elections officer is the officer who is provided by law to accept the declaration of the nomination or petition for nomination for such office. A judicial recall petition shall be examined for form (note: not content, as normal petitions require) and shall be approved or denied for circulation within three business days. A petition shall be approved as to form if it contains a justification statement and includes a circulation sheet that includes signer information categories sufficient to identify qualified electors signing the petition.
“Ok, here is my 20 word justification statement, oh and my circulation sheet requiring elector’s signature, printed name, and address, where is my approval?” Bajeebers, could it be any simpler?

(7) Signed circulation sheets containing the required number of signatures shall be submitted to the officer responsible for registration of electors in the county in which the signatures were obtained within 3 months of the time the petition was approved. The required number of signatures shall serve as prima facie (def. at first glance - sufficient to establish a fact or case, unless disproved) evidence of a completed recall that is qualified for election. The required number of signatures shall be:

(a) for an office of justice or judge subject to statewide election, at least 10% of the number of votes cast in the precious election to fill that office; or
Ok, for the 2004 District 2, Supreme Court Justice Election, Judge Warner was re-elected with
298,722 votes x .10% = 29,872.2
signatures are required to subject Judge Warner to a recall election.

(b) For any other office of a justice or judge, at least 15% of the number of votes cast in the previous election to fill that judicial office.

(8) The county clerk in each county in which a judicial recall petition is submitted shall have up to 15 business days to examine the filed signatures and determine whether invalid signatures, if any, exist in such number so as to render the filing incomplete. A recall petition meeting prima facie requirements shall not be determined incomplete unless a sufficient number of invalid signatures is [are] identified. The clerk shall certify such to the appropriate elections officer with whom the recall petition is to be filed.
Wait, what is a sufficient number of invalid signatures? Why is this not defined? So as to create confusion, a long legal interpretation of sufficient numbers, perhaps an initiative amending this amendment to clarify the numbers, meanwhile allowing the recall to go forward.

(9) In the case of a statewide election the secretary of state shall have 10 days to tabulate certified signatures from the county; and in the case of districts which are not statewide districts the appropriate election officer or officers shall have 5 days to tabulate certified signatures.
Note: this does not say business days. So if there were a petition submitted on a Friday prior to a holiday weekend, the workers in the office would only have one of two choices, certify all the signatures in 1 or 2 days, or give up their holiday plans and stick around and verify signatures. This is crazy.

(10) A special election shall be held on the question of recall within 75 days of the filing of a complete recall petition; however, if an election is already scheduled for that electoral district within 90 days of filing, the question of recall may be included in such election. The call for a special election shall be made by the governor in the case of an office subject to statewide election or by the official(s) authorized to call a special election for a political subdivision in the case of all other offices.
So, if CI-97, Stop Over Spending passes, the money to meet this requirement of running a special election within 75 days of the filing of the completed recall petition, would have to come out of the state budget approved by the legislature which only convenes every two years, meaning that the legislature would have to plan on there being a special election that would need to be held. But how many special elections to recall judges would there be? 1, 2, 5, 15? How is this even possible to consider?
(11) If a justice or judge prevailed in a recall vote once during a term of office, the legislature may require the posting of a bond by any subsequent chief petitioners in an amount sufficient to offset the government cost of a subsequent unsuccessful recall election during that term of office.
What about making them responsible for the costs of the recall election that was just run?

From here down, it is standard initiative language:

(12) All other procedural statutory recall provisions not inconsistent with the design of this amendment may be provided by law. This amendment is self-executing and shall supplant any inconsistent statutory recall provisions. This amendment provides a method of removing justices and judges in addition to Article VII, Section 11, and does not exist as a substitute for Article VII, Section 11.

NEW SECTION. Section 2. Severability. If part of this amendment is invalid all valid parts remain in effect. If part of this amendment is invalid in one or more of its applications, the part remains in effect in all valid applications that are severable from the invalid applications.

NEW SECTION. Section 3. Saving clause. This amendment does not affect the rights and duties that matured, penalties that were incurred, or proceedings that were begun before the effective date of this amendment.

NEW SECTION. Section 4. Effective date. This amendment is effective upon approval by the electorate.

************************************************************************

It is important to mention that the Constitution of the State of Montana already provides a path to recalling judges.

Article 7, Section 11 reads:
(1) The legislature shall create a judicial standards commission consisting of five persons and provide for the appointment thereto of two district judges, one attorney, and two citizens who are neither judges nor attorneys.
(2) The commission shall investigate complaints, and make rules implementing this section. It may subpoena witnesses and documents.
(3) Upon recommendation of the commission, the supreme court may;
(a) Retire any justice or judge for disability that seriously interferes with the performance of his duties and is or may become permanent; or
(b) Censure, suspend, or remove any justice or judge for willful misconduct in office, willful and persistent failure to perform his duties, violation of canons of judicial ethics adopted by the supreme court of the state of Montana, or habitual intemperance.
(4) The proceedings of the commission are confidential except as provided by statute.

************************************************************************

Now consider this. If you are accused of misconduct at your job, and are let go, you have the right to bring your issues to a judge for resolution. CI-98 proposes doing away with due process for judges; how long until they propose an initiative depriving you of due process of law?

This initiative is proposed by out of state interests, trying to use Montana as a guinea pig for this amendment.

Know your own mind. Read over the text of the initiative that you would be voting into law effective immediately, ignore my comments. Then compare it to the current law in the constitution. Decide for your self which Section makes more sense to you.

Baby gotta whole new look!

2006-09-12T16:04:00.000-06:00

Hey I am starting to get the hang of this html thang!

September 11, 2001.

2006-09-11T21:53:00.000-06:00

I remember waking up early that morning, Bobak and I had a meeting at the Immigration and Naturalization Service in downtown LA. Bob was slow to wake as usual, stumbling into the bathroom, when I, fully dressed and ready to hit the road, decided to flip on the T.V. while I waited with my steaming cup of coffee in hand.

The TV came to life, and I saw a picture of a cloud of smoke coming out of a tall building in New York. The reporters didn’t really know what was going on, the only thing that was being reported was that a plane had hit one of the towers of the World Trade Center. As Bob emerged from a cloud of steam, he asked me what was going on, and I didn’t have an answer for him beyond the fact that he had better get his ass in gear or we were going to be at the INS all day, and I had cases to get written and submitted at work.

We got into our separate cars, both tuned into NPR, and as the dawn crept towards the day over the Los Angeles freeways, I heard panicked reports from the commentators that a second plane had hit the other tower of the World Trade Center. Bobak pulled up alongside me, and pointed to his radio, I slowly turned to him, and mouthed “I heard, what does it mean?”. He shrugged back, and pointed to our approaching exit. We merged off of the freeway, and pulled into the parking garage in spots next to one another.

“Well should we go in?” Bob asked.

“Well yeah, what else are we going to do? We have to keep the appointment, and then I still have to get into work. We will just have to listen to the updates when we are done here.”

So hand in hand we crossed the street, went through security, and up to our appointed room. There was a strange hush about the place, punctuated with nervous whispering. A guard came into the waiting room to make an announcement, “We are evacuating the building, if everyone could please progress calmly towards the exits, we will notify you when we will reopen.”

I looked at Bob with a pissed look on my face. It had taken us over two years to get into that building, and I wasn’t going to leave without a fight. We were the last to leave the waiting room, and I was arguing with the guard to get our appointment slip back.

He took me by the shoulders, looked me square in the eye, and asked “Have you heard about what is going on in New York?”

“Yes. But we can’t leave without our appointment notice. Can we please have it back?”

He smiled with understanding, and said “Don’t worry, we will have you back just as soon as we can.”

Bobak grabbed my arm, and gently placed an arm around my shoulders, and lead me out of the building.

Outside on the street, I asked him what we should do. I had never been evacuated from anywhere before. Bob replied that he didn’t know, but that he was going to head back to our apartment and watch what was unfolding on TV. I wanted to go too, but I had promised my boss and several clients that I would get in to work and get their cases out that day. We walked back to our cars, Bobak headed back home, and I headed from downtown to Beverly Hills.

As I crawled down the 10, the radio reports came flooding in, and I began to grasp that the towers being hit wasn’t merely an accident, but a deliberate act of violence. I began to cry, just gushing tears silently, in my own little car bubble. I started to think bigger than myself, and I looked out at my fellow commuters, all glued to their radios, with shock and tears plastered on their faces. Instead of road rage, threatening gestures and swearing; looks of comfort, fear, tears and fellowship were exchanged on the 10 freeway that day.

I remember vowing to become a Nurse. I hated blood, guts, and pretty much anything involving gore; but I would do anything in my power to help this country heal. I would go to war, and I would comfort our soldiers.

When I pulled into the parking garage under my Century City law office, wanting to see the images again, to make sure that they were real. The phones were strangely quiet for an immigration law firm, and everyone was listening to the radio, searching the web, or down in our boss’s office watching the sole television. After an hour or so of no one even pretending to work, my boss Ralph called us all together.

“First off, I think I have to say that I don’t think that we are in any danger. But most of the buildings are evacuating, and people are heading back to their homes. I think everyone should head home today, we just can’t focus, and we will worry about tomorrow when we understand what has happened today. Again, I don’t think we are in any danger, but I think we would all feel better being home with our loved ones today.”

There was a vacant feeling to the canyon streets I used as a short cut home. When I got home, Bob had the TV going, and was surfing the internet from our office. I fell down on the couch, and just watched the same images flicker over and over. People jumping from windows, smoke billowing, the towers folding upon themselves, the hole in the Pentagon, over and over and over.

At some point I started silently weeping again, and Bobak came up behind the couch and placed a hand on my shoulder. I looked up at him, and he came around the couch and sat next to me holding my hands.

“I know this is the first time you have seen your people attacked. Unfortunately, this happens everyday, all around the globe. And it will be ok sweetheart, it will be ok.”

I looked at him in horror, and misunderstanding. But I understand his meaning now.

Bobak fled a country in the Middle East under a hail of gunfire shortly before turning 16, so that he wouldn’t be conscripted into the army. He lived in several countries before settling in Canada, finishing his high school education a few years late, and getting a bachelors degree. He worked his way through the world alone. He maintained contact with his family, but it was over 16 years later, more than half his life, before he was finally able to return and see his family, I remember how his hands shook with joy.

As Americans, very few of us are forced into situations like that. We have a choice about how we are going to act, who we will visit; and it is a blessing given to us by every veteran, man, woman, and child who have ever fought for our freedoms. To anyone who ever stood up against a differing voice, and said, “I think you are wrong, let me tell you why.”

I am proud of America, and of Americans. I fought my battle with the terrorists by showing up and helping people to immigrate to this country for 3 years after that awful day. I looked fear in the eye, and I overcame.

The Hamilton Debate, (BLINK)

2006-09-10T23:16:00.000-06:00

We pulled up to the Hamilton High School, commenting on the signage and placement outside of the debate. As we piled out of Shane’s van, the excitement was palpable. We walked around the building, through the doors (*interesting side note – most people were heading through a single set of doors, when Jay headed to one on the left and made his way pasts the crowds, it was an interesting visual for me), down the hallway, where we ran into William from NOW. William urged us to get inside and snag seats as quickly as we could, saying, “Try to get as close to the front as possible”. Well by that time, almost every seat in the house was taken. Jay found a spot up front, and Shane, his lovely wife and I headed up to upper tiers. After a little shuffling, and knocking a few people on the heads with my briefcase (my apologies), we got settled in for the debate.

Shane pulled out his laptop, and started searching for wi-fi. We quickly discovered that we couldn’t get onto several websites. Left in the West was blocked, as were several others; we tried not to think conspiracy, it was a high school after all, but were even more devastated when we would not be able to blog live from the event.

With the light of several flash bulbs shooting off pictures backstage left, Burns and Tester took the stage. Burns immediately went to his table, and put his chair about 10 feet behind him. Meanwhile Tester settled into his chair relaxed, gave a friendly wave to the audience, and took a quick swig of water.

We were informed that the questions that would be asked, had been submitted by and were representative of Ravalli County. (Darn, I had some zingers).

Burns spent most of his opening giving us a long verbal visual of his resume. Somehow (?) he segued into Distance Learning for rural counties, Health Care for rural counties, an energy bill he was in on about developing wind and alternative resources, and then out of nowhere he said something along the lines of the future of kids, huge pause, well they should develop their own. (For the first of about 15 times throughout, I looked at Shane and blinked in shock, had Burns really meant what he said? Henceforth we shall call them, *BLINK*s)

Someone shouted, “Let’s hear your issues”. And Burns leveled him a nasty glare.

Tester rose, gave a short rundown of his resume, and quickly progressed into his issues. Government is not working for ordinary Montanans or small businesses. The people are working harder, and earning less money trying to figure out how to pay for gas that is $3.00 a gallon, how to pay the heating bills, how to send their kids to college without them emerging $20,000 to $30,000 in debt. Montanans are not being represented in Washington, D.C., and the Federal Government needs to learn how to live within their means.

{insert paraphrase, I can only write so fast, actually, most of what I report here will be paraphrasing, given my understand of the sentiment and meaning behind the actual quotes, but I will be as accurate as possible.}

Tester summed up his opening statement, “Regular folks have lost. Please pay attention here today. Politicians frequently say one thing, and turn around and mean another.”

QUESTION 1: Regarding the war, should we stay the course, or withdraw the troops?

Burns: We shouldn’t stay the course, we should change as our enemy changes. Should Americans lose their resolve in Iraq, like they did in Somalia, it would be disaster. We should take on enemies where the enemies are, not here in the USA. Our objective should be to win. To stand united and win.

Tester: Tomorrow is the 5th anniversary of 9/11. In 2003 the President went into Iraq because of the war on terror and WMD. The Commander in Chief should formulate a plan to bring the troops home, and start fighting the war on terror. There is no end in sight; the President has lead us into an open-ended commitment. We need a plan.

Burns: Has anyone considered the consequences of losing? Who cares why we are in Iraq. (*BLINK*) We ARE in Iraq. We must win.

Tester: I have talked about a plan from the “get-go”. Disarming bombs, forming the government, we should turn these responsibilities over to the Iraqis. We are currently maximizing the radicals and minimizing the people. We must fight the real war on terror. What is your plan Burns?

Burns: Where is yours? (does this sound like a playground response or what?)

Tester: By cutting off communications with Korea and Iraq, we are heading towards a nuclear holocaust. Diplomacy with other nations is what is needed.

Burns: Here we go again. How do you communicate with the President of Iran? Israel will be wiped off the face of the map. North Korea will implode because (I lost him here, he wasn’t making any sense, my notes say ?!?). . .It is pretty tough to negotiate with people who are linked with terrorists.

Tester: If we cut off communications, we are cutting off our options. (Amen bother). There is no upside to failing to communicate. The leader of the free world is having China do our negotiations for us. Why? There is trouble in not listening and talking. The US should stand up and lead.

Burns: We are communicating, and they are listening. We should stand strong. Peace is accomplished through strength. The world is as it is, not as we would like it.

QUESTION 2: What should we do about our dependence on gas from the Middle East?

Burns: Who are the top oil producers in the world? Canada is #1, Mexico is #2 and Venezuela is #3. We should work on the technologies to produce alternative fuels. Tester mentioned that we were the coal capital of the world. There are two technologies that turn coal into diesel fuel, these are not new technologies, and we use them. We should sell our coal, people will invest in our coal, we should sell our coal.

Tester: We are more dependent on foreign oil than we were in 1970 (there was a figure with that that I missed). We have the ability to develop alternative fuels, and we should, making ourselves independent. We went from 50th in the nation for alternative fuels to ______ and that is progress. There are oils we can create from vegetables, we can use small board timber, there is Ethanol, Hydrogen, and Methane to utilize. The war is a war on standard oil, which now costs $3.00 per gallon. Montana can be a key role player in renewable energies.

Burns: Northeastern Montana and Northwestern North Dakota can out produce the soybean in oil. (Burns ranted on about his experience, and seniority, and how this would help in some way).

Tester: Your 18 years in the Senate, and my _____ in the Legislature, 2 as President of the Legislature, and your policies count, but somehow mine don’t. You have to have faith. You are a “Johnny Come Lately” to the renewable energies of barley, wind, and ethanol, all of which have processes which create jobs in Montana.

QUESTION 3: Rising health care costs, how can we make them affordable?

Tester: In the legislature of Montana, we have gotten CHIP fully funded. It was established in 1999 by O’Keefe, and we got it fully funded. We have also provided incentives and tax credits to small businesses for providing health care. 1/5th of Montanans are without insurance, and too many others have such a high deductible as to render their health insurance irrelevant. 20 to 30% of health care costs go to administration, which could be streamlined by having a common format for forms, and making health care records universally available and centralized. Medical progress is needed in this country; prevention is critical, most people being just one emergency from bankruptcy.

Burns: Our number one priority should be to centralized medical records. Number two, I was in on a bill in the Senate to help small businesses provide a health care plan at a lower cost. Who is blocking it?

Audience member: Abramoff?

(A hoot of laughter erupted from the audience. Burns turned and leveled a nasty glare in the direction of the outburst.)

Burns (cont.): The democrats. The democrats are blocking it. I also got Part D Medicare prescription coverage for our seniors. Seniors no longer have to worry about choosing between the rent, food and utilities. (Shouts of disagreement erupt) The premiums are nothing (*BLINK*), and they are guaranteed for life, they also cover wellness drugs.

Tester: Medicare plan D was written by and for Drug companies. A real benefit should be crafted. (insert some figures) Seniors still have to pay the premium on this coverage when the benefits run out. The government should be working for the people. They shouldn’t have to go to an attorney or a pharmacist to figure out their plan coverage and benefits.

(The place goes nuts)

NO APPLAUSE UNTIL THE END REMINDER FROM THE MEDIATOR

QUESTION 4: Since 2001, our national debt has doubled, how do we reduce the national debt?

Burns: It is a concern (*BLINK*), but we had a 5 billion dollar deficit, and we got it down to a 3 billion dollar deficit. We did that because our economy is growing, and we will come out of the deficit.

(WAIT WAIT WAIT. You didn’t reduce the deficit, you just got more money off the taxpayer’s hard work, and that is how the deficit was reduced. Great, thanks Burns. He reverts to rhetoric because he can hear the audience about to unleash. Good old fashioned Bushism’s.)

We must win this war, Katrina hit, 9/11 was costly, and all are terrible losses. (Don’t spout hypocritical B.S. at me Mr. Burns; I will not give into your terror tactics). We must create new jobs and lower the deficit within the budget.

Tester: Medicare should simplify, and close up the loopholes. “Saying the debt is only half as big as last year is like saying you’re maintaining your weight gain.” (YES!!). We have to live within our means, we cannot increase the debt limit, we have to balance our checkbook, and do it without a raise in taxes.

Burns: Katrina didn’t hit your farm, your farm didn’t get hit in 9/11 (*BLINK*). “I wrote the checks, and you cashed them.”

Tester: Listen, that isn’t your money, its my money, it’s the taxpayer’s money, its these audience member’s money. And if you think that a subsidy check brought me flush, think again. I had to cut my expenses, work harder, and pay as I go.
We have the best government that money can buy. When someone gives you money, and thinks that they are getting a vote for that money, it is inappropriate (referring to Abramoff).

(Audience erupts)

Burns: I haven’t changed, I have the same wife, the same kids, the same principles. I believe in honestly, in light bulbs and sunshine. You didn’t fill out the VoteSmart questionnaire. Slush Fund. You didn’t report that foreign trip. What about those illegal phone calls to voters? “When you look at it all, maybe I’m the only one here who isn’t a lawbreaker.”

(*BLINK BLINK BLINK* What did he just say? He said he is the only one here who isn’t a lawbreaker. No way. YES HE DID!)

(the place went nuts with boos and shouts)

Tester: In 2001 I went to Taiwan on a Trade mission for Montana. I am not hiding anything here. When I found out that the phone calls were questionable, we stopped them immediately, however . . . . (Tester pulls out a full page of notes, and rattles off at least 50 trips that Burns failed to disclose that were gifted by special interest groups) (the best part) “And there must have been something going on in Las Vegas, because you went there 10 times.”

(Chaos, ok not quite, but it was great)

“It is like comparing a parking ticket to grand larceny.”

(When we settled down from that gem, a new question was posed)

QUESTION 5: (this one is hazy for me, it is a local issue that I am not surpassingly familiar with) There is a 100 year old dam, and there is legislation to build a road to the dam. When should access into the wilderness be appropriate?

Burns: The dams and the water rights were there before the Wilderness Act (ummm, I am pretty sure the wilderness was there before the dam, but I could be wrong.) Access is needed to repair the dam, and to clean the lakes. Water is a lifeblood to this community.

Tester: Concern for the irrigators in the valley are a priority, and the dams need to be in good working form. Why aren’t we asking the Forest Service to do their job and repair them? I don’t think that there should be a lockout of access for hunters and fishermen. Everyone’s concerns should be addressed.

QUESTION 6: Can congress create legislation for immigration that would be beneficial?

Tester: For 40 years we have been turning a blind eye to immigration violations. The 9/11 commission said we needed to secure our borders. We should put money into security, there should be no Amnesty, and the laws on the books should be enforced. We need Trade Agreements, and if we need workers, get in line. We can work on speeding up the bureaucracy.

Burns: Secure the boarder, that is 1st. Deal with the domestic issue. We should guarantee that there will be no amnesty. The illegals who are here should go back, and stand in line to come to the United States.

Tester: We need to work with our neighbors, on both borders.

QUESTION 7: Do you support No Child Left Behind?

Burns: Yes I do. What is wrong with accountability? There is nothing wrong with accountability, in Montana our scores have gone up. We demanded accountability on the money we have spent on education. It gives parent’s choices, state’s choices and school’s choices. Montana was slow to formulate their plan, and we might have lost Federal funding, but we made a plan.

Tester: The power should be with the local school boards, if you have a problem with the schools, you can go to them, but Washington D.C. is not listening to our schools. It is not working in Montana, the power should be repealed from D.C. and given back to local school boards, we know how to raise our children best. Power in Washington has made teachers accountable for making sure the parents get the kids to school. It is not working Burns, and if you were here, you would know that.

Burns: I go to lots of middle schools, (x2), No Child Left Behind is about accountability and serving our kids.

Tester: It teaches facts instead of thinking, and it is taking education in the wrong direction.

QUESTION 8: This involves our scientific community, do you support stem cell research?

Tester: Yes. It brings opportunity and hope. It brings opportunity to help people in a way we have never been able to before. Stem cell research is critically important.

Burns: I support it too. Rocky Mountain labs create jobs here. The research should be in the private sector, with no government funding, not using embryonic cells, but using umbilical stem cells and adult stems cells are ok.

QUESTION 9: What about budget constraints and Veterans being laid off, and benefits being cut to returning Veterans?

Burns: Spending in Veteran affairs is at an all time high of $1.7 Billion. Fort Harrison is #1 in Montana for veteran hospital care and services (doesn’t someone have to be #1? Or is that me?) I have brought funding to training our Veterans in trucking, and we are spending more money than ever before.

Tester: The situation in Iraq is leaving folks injured. The medical profession has done well, but more resources are needed. We should be the first to keep the agreements we have made with the troops, and insure that our commitment to them is lived up to. I met a young Veteran, 22 or 23 years old, and he asked me why he wasn’t getting his VA benefits as he was promised to repair his foot that was shot off. We need to take care of our Veterans, and make it a priority.

Burns: Call my office, I will help him out. (Audience laughter) It’s my money, I will spend the money and get it done. I am a Marine, and I will do anything to take care of my own.

Tester: Far far to many Veterans are saying that the benefits are not there. The money is not yours, its is our money.
************************************************************************

Now at this point, about 5 minutes from the end, my hand was hurting so badly I gave up taking notes. The audience was brewing, restraining from outbursts after someone from Burn’s camp shouted “LET HIM TALK, WE LET TESTER TALK! HAVE SOME RESPECT!”

As I listened to Tester’s closing comments, I was really glad that I went to the debate. We met some commentors, met each other (well I met Shane and Jay for the first time), shared ideas, got riled up, and even corrected some really really bad English usage. AND we managed not to take away anyone’s guns, or stop to hug depressed trees.

On our way out of the auditorium, Tester was shaking hands, (no, I didn’t see Burns), I went up to him, introduced myself, shook his hand, and said “I am one of the bloggers.” He held my hand firmly, and said “Thank you so much for all that you do.”

It was a good day, but it is late. My scoop got scooped; check out the Montana Commissioner of Political Practices tomorrow, there is to be an announcement. Perhaps if my fingers can still move tomorrow after all of this note taking and typing, I will give you my perspective on the call to Montanan’s In Action for accountability.

On the Road Again

2006-09-08T23:07:00.000-06:00

"The life I love is making music with my friends, I just can't wait to get on the road again."

Lord love Willie, and the concert in Missoula last fall. It took me a month to get the mud off my shoes, but nothing will replace seeing my Big Brother singing "Blue Eyes Crying in the Rain" along with Willie Nelson.

Shane and Jay and I are hitting the road. We are headed out from Missoula to Hamilton for the Burns v. Tester debate, and I know we are all excited. Not only do I get to meet up with two of my favorite lefty bloggers, but we get the change to share ideas in real time.

By far the best part has been the response of my family. Now I love my big bro, he is, unfortunately a *gasp* Republican, and so is his lovely wife (and my first sister). The rest of us, well . . . we lean a little left (some more than others).

But every single person that I have told that I am going to the debate, has responded with joy and eagerness. My Sis (the 1st) wants to know more, my Big Bro is glad to see me so happy; Marm is slightly worried about there being a target on my back, but is happy to see me so alive; Lil Bro got his socks knocked off, and congratulated me (Happy 32nd Bday Bro), and my Sista (the 2nd) nodded with a knowing look saying "glad to see you realizing your dreams".

Politics and Art, in these two subjects I have always had an opinion, and I am looking forward to learning new things, getting outraged, sharing with friends (new and old), a good old fashioned American Debate.

Care to join us?

Tonight's CI-97 Debate on Yellowstone Public Radio

2006-09-07T20:29:00.000-06:00

Holy schneikies! I want a transcript. If you missed it, you missed out.

Trevis Butcher of Montanans In Action repeatedly dodged questions about where his funding came from, stating that he simply funded his 3 initiatives CI-97 CI-98 and I-154 through his Montanans In Action organization. He refused to disclose a single member of Montanans In Action, except for himself. Trevis also refused to disclose who the donations came from in order for Montanans In Action to donate to his three initiatives.

I got the first question in (and I am paraphrasing, I was hyped on adrenaline),

"Section 5 of CI-97 requires a vote of the people prior to exceeding the state spending limit. Given the restrictions that would be imposed by CI-97, where will the money come from to have a special election to approve the spending?"

Trevis Butcher *blinks* (holy crap an informed person) , "Well it wouldn't be a special election," (the producers hung up on me at this point, providing no further opportunity for comment on my part) "it would come up at the next scheduled election."

Wait a minute, if an appropriation were needed, we wouldn't have the opportunity, as voters, to vote on the appropriation immediately? We would have to wait 2 years?!? WTF?!? Does this actually make sense to you?

One of the things that I enjoyed, is that not a single person who called in had anything good to say about the proposed amendments. Now I will admit that there were probably proponents on the line dying to get a word in, but they were stupid enough not to be the first person who called. (YAY Me!)

About 45 minutes into the umm . . discussion (slaughter) I got pretty hyped up about Trevis's blatant lie that he was not required to report his contributors as the executive hee haww of Montanans in Action to the Commissioner of Political Practices. I called up a friend to tell him that Trevis admitted on the air to violating Montana law. My friend gave me a great analogy that settled me down:

"Cece, a man can drive down the highway, see the 50 mile per hour speed limit, and ignore it. The man says, that doesn't apply to me because I am driving a truck; until that man is pulled over by the law and issued a ticket, he will keep violating the 50 miles per hour speed limit."

I propose this, are you outraged by Montanans In Action actions, and Trevis Butcher's (executive whatever) flagrant disregard for the laws of Montana, and its people?

Email Political Practices Commissioner Dennis Unsworth at dunsworth@mt.gov, give him a call at 406-444-2942 or write him a letter c/o Commissioner of Political Practices, P.O. Box 202401, Helena, MT 59620-2401; and demand action be taken on violators of the Constitution of the State of Montana and the laws of the State of Montana.

***********************************************************************************

Update. Hear the whole thing here.

CI-97 Debate

2006-09-07T14:16:00.000-06:00

Trevis Butcher from Montanans in Action and Eric Feaver the MEA/MFT President will be on Yellowstone Public Radio this evening at 7pm debating CI-97, Stop Over Spending Montana.

The website says that listener comments and questions are welcome, call 657.2941 or 800.441.2941 to participate.

Now is the chance for both sides to ask their questions of the opposition. Should be good! Hear you there!

Tough Day CI-97

2006-09-07T00:50:00.000-06:00

Well it was a long one, and my new phrase seems to be "Special kind of crazy". Honestly, some people talk themselves out of being sane.

After getting a call at the day job, to cover for someone missing their shift (again), I worked another 5 hours at the second job.

I used the time to my advantage, reading all sorts of blogs that I printed out on the initiatives. I got a lot of useful information, gained some perspective and insight into the blind party voting that some people do, instead of thinking for themselves.

I wanted to take the time to highlight probably the best article I have ever run across on these initiative issues. I was blown away.

Props to Ray Ring of the High Country News. Read it, No, I mean it, take the time to read it.

Thoughts on CI-97, CI-98 and I-154.

2006-09-04T15:36:00.000-06:00

While I was heading down to the family cabin this weekend, I was thinking a lot about the initiatives. I came to the conclusion that it might not be the most helpful thing in the world to deconstruct each initiative separately, because of the time involved in understanding each of them. So I started thinking about what would be a better solution. Here goes nothing:

Protect Our Homes (POH) I-154, changes the definition of eminent domain in our constitution, and broadens definitions and expenditures by the government to land property owners when government actions reduce the value of the land property owner’s property.

Citizen’s Right To Recall (CRTR) CI-98, makes the presently existing ability to recall judges written into our constitution, much broader, less defined.

Stop Overspending (SOS) CI-97, which is a proposed constitutional amendment to the spending limit already in the Montana Constitution (See 31 Changes).
Each of these changes were proposed for the November ballot by a political action committee called “Montanan’s In Action” (MIA). MIA is a political committee that is primarily run by Trevis Butcher out of Winnifred, MT.

Consider this:

— POH, CRTR, and SOS contain language that is similar to language of proposed initiatives in many other states. (Arizona, California, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Washington).

— POH, CRTR, and SOS were the petitions that out-of-state paid signature gather’s mislead registered voters of Montana to sign three times for one petition, instead of taking the time to explain each initiative, as required to by Montana campaign law.

— Trevis Butcher emailed Americans for Limited Government to obtain international routing codes in order to receive money to back the initiatives the MIA.

— MIA failed to report their income sources, expenditures, and contributors as required by Montana Campaign law, so as to make the initiative process “transparent” in Montana.

— MIA accepted “laundered” contributions from Americans for Limited Government (Howard Rich), then gave the money to POHM, CRTR, and SOS.

— POHM, CRTR, and SOS all contain at minimum, several changes to the Constitution of the State of Montana, each of which, according to Montana Law, have to be submitted to the voters to vote on each change separately. The initiatives are unconstitutional.

— Howard Rich, so proud of his initiatives on the Internet, has refused to defend his ideas in person.

— Montanans In Action, Stop Over Spending, Citizen’s Right to Recall, and Protect Our Homes have all failed to answer complaints filed with the Commissioner of Political Practices, explaining or rectifying their outright violation of multiple Montana Campaign processes.

How could anyone possibly want to vote for any of these out-of-state language, out-of-state money backed, money laundered, fraudulent signature gathering, and unconstitutional initiatives, which were sponsored by someone who doesn’t have the courage to back up his ideas?

Think about it.

Check out the Tribune!

2006-09-01T08:53:00.000-06:00

My letter to the editor finally made it into the Great Falls Tribune today!

The only unfortunate thing is they titled it "Burns lost me", . . . .um read the letter, he never had me, he lost people like my brother the Republican (ech!)

ROAR!

2006-08-31T23:23:00.000-06:00

I am Woman, hear me ROAR!

LOL. I found myself disappointed in the fact that Montana blogs were reduced to the viewpoints of a few. (So shoot me, I was working my second job to make ends meet, and although I wanted to be there, I just couldn't swing it.)
No, not that there were only men featured, but in the fact that only one righty Blog was featured in the article.

That’s right, I desire and crave open discourse. I admit that my first stop off in the Bloggosphere is either Left in the West or 4&20 Blackbirds, with a liberal spicing of A Chicken is Not a Pillage; but I also regularly check out RiMT, and Craig. I think that differing opinions lead to intelligent discourse as suggested by Colby.

Don’t get me wrong, I have encouraged those that I know to get more involved in the world of blogging, even if they don’t know what it is.

I have also consciously decided not to apply to Left Blogs. Yes, I know this will mean that my site gets less traffic, but I also know that when I started my blog I wanted it to be about what I was feeling passionate about at the moment.

Right now? Well, it is politics.

Tomorrow? It might be the shade of my toenail polish.

Does being girly make my opinions less valid? My arguments less convincing? My mind more full of holes?

I posit: No. I have the same vote in my pocket that all of you do.

Every person who takes the time to post his or her opinions in the Bloggosphere has the right to be read (at least until they get boring). That is my opinion.

If you aren’t willing to have you opinions challenged, twisted or re-thought, then don’t bother to post.

Hey, at least I figured out links and linking.

31 Changes

2006-08-31T09:20:00.000-06:00

The Truth about SOS, Initiative CI-97 (Montana).

I am going to do my best to present the information I have in my possession in an unbiased manner, but I have an opinion.

This has been a posting long in the making, it has taken me some time to answer the question that someone asked at the Billings Gazette, as to what is wrong with this proposed amendment to the Constitution of the State of Montana.

The Constitution of Montana, Article XIV, Section 11 states:

"Submission. If more than one amendment is submitted at the same election, each shall be so prepared and distinguished that it can be voted on separately."

Legalese? Well citizen delegates to the writing of the Constitution of the State of Montana wrote that.

Basically, if a proposed initiative contains language that amends more than one part of the Constitution of the State of Montana, it must be broken down into separate proposed amendments, so that each part may be voted yea or nay by the voters of Montana. Unfortunately, we do not all have the time to interpret, understand, and have our opinion registered on each proposed change. We are clerks, lawyers, nurses, construction workers, auditors, salespeople, therapists, foreman, waitresses, and programmers (obviously I don't have the time to list every occupation, but you get the idea). We as Montanans do not wish to abdicate our right to change the Constitution without proper reflection on our standing of each amendment.

SOS IS PROPOSING NO FEWER THAN 31 AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 9 OF THE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF MONTANA. From 15 words to 1,498 words.
(Perhaps more or less, depending on your interpretation).
******************************************************************************
If you want to vote FOR SOS, CI-97 into the Constitution of Montana, you have to support all the following (each and every one):
Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the proposed initiative inserts a state spending limit, which prohibit initiatives by the Legislature (your elected representatives) for a biennium, that are the greater of either the prior budget; or the calculation of the sum of previous appropriations multiplied by the change in inflation plus the change in population.

It is important to note that the Constitution already contains a provision limiting state spending to "not exceed the expected revenues" (Article VIII, Section 9). We already have a spending limit written into our Constitution, consisting of 15 words total, which have prevented us from going bankrupt in the past. Consider why we need 1,498 words to "balance" our state budget, and would we vote in a requirement sponsored and written by an out of state backer?

Section 4 of the proposed SOS initiative inserts a provision into the Constitution, that when the State of Montana transfers a responsibility for providing a service to a local government, a reduction will occur in the spending limit imposed upon the state government.

Section 5 of SOS amends the Constitution (Article III, Section 5) by requiring a vote of the people prior to exceeding the state-spending limit imposed by Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the initiative. Where is the money to come from for the required special referendum (election)? SOS does not provide money necessary to run a special referendum, so we cannot vote to increase the state-spending limit.

Section 6 of CI-97 amends the Constitution by exempting from state spending and revenue calculations the following (taken directly from the SOS CI-97 Petition): http://www.sosmontana.com/pages/petition.html
(6) For the purposes of this section, �the total amount of legislative appropriations� shall include all legislative appropriations except the following categories:
(a) moneys designated by the legislature for a reserve fund to be used as safeguard against shortfalls in state revenue below the state spending limit. The transfer of money between the reserve fund and the state treasury is not an appropriation for purposes of calculating the state spending limit; however, any moneys that are held in such a fund which are later appropriated from the state treasury or appropriated directly from the reserve fund must be included within the total amount of legislative appropriations unless otherwise exempt under this subsection (6);
(b) appropriations for emergencies as may be defined by law and threats to the continuity of government if appropriated:
(i) pursuant to Article III, section 2, for the purposes of legislative actions to ensure continuity of government during periods of emergency or enemy attack;
(ii) by vote of three-fourths (3/4) of the members of each house of the legislature if the appropriation is for a matter that meets the definition of an emergency pursuant to law and is not anticipated to be an ongoing expense and is not intended to fund ordinary operations of government;
(iii) pursuant to law, by a majority vote, of each house of the legislature in an amount that does not exceed $16 million, adjusted for inflation and population growth in a manner similar to section 1, subsection (1) as of the effective date of [this amendment]; or
(iv) pursuant to Article VI, section 13, where the governor calls out the militia to aid in the execution of laws, suppress insurrection, repel invasion, or protect life and property in natural disasters.
(c) appropriations of bond proceeds or other funds derived from borrowing if payment of principal and interest on such borrowing is applied to the state spending limit or otherwise excluded under subsection 6(d);
(d) payment of principal and interest on state general obligation bonds, bonded indebtedness or other long-term debt issued or incurred prior to January 1, 2007, and on any state general obligation bonds issued after January 1, 2007, if such bonds are also approved by voters;
(e) appropriations of moneys received from the federal government;
(f) appropriations of moneys voluntarily donated to the state or a state agency;
(g) appropriations of the proceeds from the sale of property at full market value to non-governmental entities;
(h) money appropriated for pro-rata tax rebates;
(i) money appropriated for refunds of user charges or fees, and appropriations funded by user charges or fees to the extent that such charges or fees reasonably reflect the actual cost to the state of providing such goods or services and the purchase by the user is discretionary and not a requirement to operate a business, seek employment in a trade or practice in a profession;
(j) appropriations from any constitutionally created trust that are necessary to the administration of such trust, including appropriations of moneys that are income earned on assets in permanent endowment funds, trust funds, deferred compensation funds or pension funds that are credited to those funds and expended to meet the obligations of the funds pursuant to the constitutional provision creating the fund, including administrative expenses to operate any such funds, which include, but are not limited to appropriations made pursuant to:
(i) the public school fund pursuant to Article X;
(ii) the public retirement system pursuant to Article VIII, section 15;
(iii) the resource indemnity trust pursuant to Article IX, section 2 for the reclamation of lands disturbed by the taking of natural resources;
(iv) the principal and interest from the coal severance trust fund pursuant to Article IX, section 5;
(v) the noxious weed management trust fund pursuant to Article IX, section 6; or
(vi) the tobacco settlement trust fund pursuant to Article XII, section 4;
(k) appropriations of highway revenues pursuant to Article VIII, section 6;
(l) appropriations made by the legislature in fulfillment of obligations to provide for identification, acquisition, restoration, enhancement, preservation, and administration of cultural resources pursuant to Article IX, section 4;
(m) appropriations for special sessions of the legislature made pursuant to Article V, section 6, or Article VI, section 11;
(n) appropriations for districting and apportionment made pursuant to Article V, section 14;
(o) appropriations of special levies on livestock and on agricultural commodities for disease control and indemnification, predator control, and livestock and commodity inspection, protection, research, and promotion made pursuant to Article XII, section 1(2);
(p) appropriations made by the legislature in fulfillment of the constitutional obligation to fund an officer of consumer counsel so that consumer interests are represented before the public service commission or successor agency, pursuant to Article XIII, section 2; and
(q) appropriations for a constitutional convention made pursuant to Article IX, section 5.

If you disagree with even one of these amendments, you must either vote for the whole initiative, or vote against the whole initiative. That is specifically why the Constitution of the State of Montana requires that each amendment to the Constitution be proposed separately.

Section 7 of the SOS initiative amends the Constitution by granting power to a "court of competent jurisdiction" with the ability to amend the Constitution by adding spending categories or revenue sources (See SOS, Section 6 for the list), and requires the state spending limit to be adjusted accordingly. What this amendment fails to do is define a "court of competent jurisdiction", AND it removes the ability of the voters to chose which categories they agree with. Do you really want to give that power to a judge? Or is it yours to posses?

Section 8 of the proposed initiative CI-97 amends the Constitution by giving the to any person residing or doing business in the state of Montana to enforce (bring a lawsuit) the provisions of CI-97; and should the person succeed, they will be entitled to legal fees and costs. So all I have to do is buy a pack of gum in Montana at a gas station, and I can sue the State? Honestly, do we need more litigation? Which in turn will drive up the costs of the Attorney General in defending against the lawsuits; the costs not being covered by the stringent calculations of a state spending limit imposed by CI-97 itself. Think people!

Section 9 would amend the Constitution by inserting a new rule that would favor restraining growth in government spending over interpretations of the amendments provided by CI-97, which would not restrain growth in spending.

If you want to vote AGAINST SOS, CI-97 into the Constitution of Montana, you disagree with one or more of the foregoing.

IF you didn't take the time to read all of the foregoing, because it was boring as watching a slug on an iceberg in January, you are not informed as to the changes proposed to the Constitution of the State of Montana.

THEREFORE, YOUR VOTE SHOULD BE AGAINST SUCH AN INITIATIVE.

With any amount of luck, all the time and energy I have invested in trying to translate Legalese into English for the voters of Montana, will be in vain.

Stop Over Spending Montana, CI-97, violates the law set in place by the very wisdom of people from the state of Montana. Our constitution was drafted by the people (Preamble):

"We the people of Montana grateful to God for the quiet beauty of your state, the grandeur of our mountains, the vastness of our rolling plains, and desiring to improve the quality of life, equality of opportunity and to secure the blessings of liberty for this and future generations do ordain and establish this constitution."

Is this something you want changed by outside interests, money and language? Or do you want to take the time to think and examine such a proposal for yourself?

Burning Burns

2006-08-22T21:36:00.000-06:00

August 23, 2006 - Update, a much shorter version of my letter to Burns will be in the Tribune tomorrow, I had to get it down to a 250 word limit, so I focused on the franking abuse rather than all of Burns' offenses.

*************************************************************************************

Ok, I am coming out of the closet . . . and emailing newspaper editors as fast as I can.

*************************************************************************************

August 22, 2006

Conrad Burns
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-2603

Re: Your August 8, 2006 letter

Dear Senator Burns;

Today I received your letter of August 8 informing me of your great accomplishment of including language that you requested in the Fiscal Year 2007 Appropriations Bill in the Senate Appropriation Committee, which would provide for the protection of the phrase “Last Best Place”. I cannot thank you for your letter. While it is a less obvious abuse of franking than your fellow party member, Denny Rehberg’s, sending out of campaign literature at the expense of taxpayer dollars and resources is abhorrent. I will however take you up on your keen interest to hear concerns I have on other issues.

First of all, my letter was addressed to “Mr.”, and while I appreciate the fact that your staffers might be able to recognize that my name can be interpreted as a Hispanic name, a quick check of the voter registration in Montana would have clearly disclosed my correct title to be “Ms.”. A simple mistake I am sure, but one that I would have corrected prior to mailing campaign materials to my constituents. Certainly knowing your constituents should be a number one priority, but given your record of votes and opinions, I shouldn’t be surprised that you don’t care enough to know who is voting in your state.

You have claimed that Weapons of Mass Destruction were in Iraq, and if you have such proof, I would love to receive a copy of the evidence, as would the majority of America. You recently voted to allow the newly formed Iraqi government to allow amnesty for insurgents who have killed American Citizens. Mr. Burns, you also voted against investigating fraud in reconstruction contracts that have been awarded for the rebuilding of Iraq. Perhaps you are wary of investigations into fraud allegations, given the lining of your own pockets from Abramoff.

You are so out of touch with Montanans, that you degraded the situation of working women, indeed the working families in Montana, by telling a flight attendant that she should stay at home and raise her children if she lost her job to outsourcing. You have attacked firefighters for risking their lives to protect Montanan’s properties, who are working for a meager hourly wage. You voted against businesses being required to provide a basic wages to their employees by investing their employee’s time at an employer’s businesses. You also voted to protect inheritance dollars from taxation for the wealthiest Americans, indeed, your vote protected all of about 30 Montanans. Great voting record.

I could enumerate our differences for hours regarding how you are not representing my opinions as a Montanan, a constituent, an American Citizen, or as a voter; however, you have a much larger problem on your hands. My brother, a staunch Republican (yes it makes for lively campfire discussions), recently stated “I am not voting for Burns, I’m not saying I am voting for Tester either, but any man who makes fun of another man’s haircut, isn’t the man to represent me.” And that was before the firefighter comment. Personally, I will just be happy to continue letting you flap your yap about issues that you know nothing about.

While you may think that protecting the phrase “Last Best Place” will help you win your way back into Montanan’s hearts at their expense; I simply posit this: that any Montanan who thinks that the phrase “Last Best Place” being protected for an additional 365 days is worthy of the thousands of ignorant words that have fallen from your lips in representation of Montanan values as adequate retribution, well those voters were lost causes years ago. Thankfully, they are ever dwindling in numbers.

My Version of Hell

2006-08-11T16:07:00.000-06:00

Geeks
Circle I Limbo

Democrats
Circle II Whirling in a Dark & Stormy Wind

Greens
Circle III Mud, Rain, Cold, Hail & Snow

Bill Clinton
Circle IV Rolling Weights

Goths
Circle V Stuck in Mud, Mangled

River Styx

Republicans
Circle VI Buried for Eternity

River Phlegyas

Militant Vegans, General asshats
Circle VII Burning Sands

Creationists, Scientologists
Circle IIX Immersed in Excrement

George Bush
Circle IX Frozen in Ice

Design your own hell

Unity

2006-08-03T10:39:00.000-06:00

Alrighty then . . . . I have been watching blogs out there on this subject, and quietly reflecting. One in particular got me a little hot under the collar, but I decided to walk away, and comment on it another day. Today is that day.

Someone (who’s blog I really respect) offhandly remarked in a comment that right now litigating CI-97 off of the ballot would only be the action of a very few people, and voting it down would be the action of many. Ok, I can agree with that.

And someone else, (who’s blog I also respect) said that every minute spent litigating the matter, is a minute that could be spent not doing something else.

[Please note, if I were better at this blogging thing, I could link back to their blogs and the comments, but I haven’t figured out how to do it yet. I apologize.]

Here is what I think. I work for and with those people who are litigating this matter. That’s right, I rolled up my sleeves and dove into the material, and helped get the facts sorted out. Frankly, I am proud as hell that they are busting their asses to get the initiative off of the ballot. At least they are out there doing something tangible and substantive such as: outing the backers, insuring correct reporting of expenses and signature gathering practices, challenging the language of the measures to be sure that Montana’s laws are met. God forbid that CI-97 SOS actually passes, because it will be next to impossible to remove, and continually destructive to our state’s government until such time that we are able to get the groundswell needed to remove it.

Now is not the time to question what each person is doing to prevent this initiative from either making it to the ballot, or making sure that it isn’t passed; now is the time to be thankful for any person or organization who does anything to edify the people of Montana what this whole initiative is really about.

As a matter of fact, if you have any brilliant ideas about how to go about getting the word out, let me know, I would be more than glad to help.

2006-07-18T16:15:00.000-06:00

MONTANA POLITICAL BALLOT COMMITTEES

There was a little girl
Who had a little curl
Right in the middle of her forehead,
When she was good
She was very, very good,
But when she was bad she was horrid.

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Have you ever wanted to spill a secret so badly, that you could taste it? I mean literally. This secret has a distinct Lemonhead, eye-popping sweet/sour kinda thing going on.

Through the course of my work, I frequently get the inside scoop on something that is about to go public well before the average person does. The nice thing about this project is, that while I have to keep the secret for just a little longer, I am not bound to keep my trap shut on the details because it is a matter of public record, and not subject to a confidentiality clause or the like.

Suffice it to say, I feel like one of the special agents of the IRS who brought down Al Capone (notorious Gangster, think ÂThe UntouchablesÂ) by charging him with tax evasion.

You reap what you sow.

;) cece

P.S. MAN I CANÂT WAIT!!!

2006-04-27T23:11:00.000-06:00

Immigration Stance

“So what is your position on all this Immigration reform talk?”

Pardon me while my eyes glaze over. Its not that I am not trying to answer the question, it is that my two inner voices, and occasionally a third are warring out their true stance.

You see, I have worked with immigrants, with the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, and now it’s fractured Departments, the most well known one being the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services for over 7 years of my life now. I have personally assisted over 1,000 immigrants to obtain or maintain legal status in these here United States. The war in my head usually progresses along these lines:

“Well we definitely need reform, the system as it stands now certainly isn’t working.”

“Yeah, but why should we spend our hard earned tax dollars on helping people live in this country, tapping into resources they aren’t paying into?”

“Well now, that isn’t necessarily true. Most immigrants I know do pay taxes, and yet don’t have access to the programs that most Americans do.”

“They are driving down roads that my tax dollars get sunk into, without insurance, and if they lose concentration, and smack into me, guess who pays for it . . . I do. How is that right?”

“Well I would have to agree with that one. But not all Americans carry the insurance that they are supposed to either, I know I have been smacked by a couple of Americans and ended up paying for all the repairs myself. Besides, if immigrants are here illegally, they can’t obtain a Drivers License (if the State issuing them has even the slightest knowledge of proper procedure), they can’t obtain a Social Security Number, and as such, the insurance companies refuse to sell insurance to them. How are they supposed to get insurance if the companies won’t sell to them?”

“Yeah well . . .ok you got that one in the bag. Wait, ok, ok , What about jobs?!?” I stand back with a self-satisfied look.

“What jobs?”

“Well you know, the ones they are taking from us!”

“You mean the ones in the fields picking fruit, or cotton, or crap jobs that most Americans wouldn’t take if their lives depended on it, like flipping burgers? Take the job, I double dog dare you.”

“Ok, ok. Well get this one, if I ever went to another country, I would expect to have to follow their laws. Get a Visa, a landed immigrant status, whatever, I wouldn’t just come and expect that someday, someone would forgive my transgression of the laws of my adopted country, and take me in as one of their own.”

“Ummmmm . .” “Yeah ok, I agree with that.” “Any intelligent person would expect to be subject to the laws of the land they landed in”

“Well then?”

“I don’t know. I could argue for hours the finer points of being human, but the simple fact is, we all have the right to a better life than we came from, and who am I to stop it?”

. . . .

Comments and ideas welcome . . .

2006-04-22T17:19:00.000-06:00

Becoming Jewish, (no offense meant)

I swear to goodness, asking Gola out is like asking a Rabbi for classes to convert to Judaism. The good news is that I did ask him, kinda .

I got all gussied up, went over for the gathering, and when I first got there I saw a couple of people I knew, with these cool bike machines with a place for 2 or 3 people to sit in the back, kinda like a rickshaw, giving people rides. I spent about 1/2 hour hanging out with them, and my Sis. Sis noticed the new shirt, said I looked lovely, and asked me if I had talked to Gola yet. I explained that I had only just arrived, and I was getting there. After a while, they called it a day, Sis headed back to painting, and I went and checked out all of the tables.

About an hour later, plus one beer, I still hadn't found a chance to ask Gola. So I just sat on the lawn, enjoying the music and the beautiful afternoon. Another hour later, plus one more beer, the wind started to kick up, and clouds started rolling in, and I still hadn't found my opportunity. So finally I just went over and cornered him, kinda . .

I started to leave the event, when I heard Gola on the mike, so I hung around for another speech, then Gola's. When he was done, I tried to nab him, but he was running around like a chicken, and it took me about 10 minutes to get him alone.

As he approached, he said "Hey Cece, thanks for getting us that donation." and gave me an A hug. (think about the shape of the A)

"No problem. Listen, I was wondering if we could get together for breakfast next Sunday, to talk about what I can do to help more with DotOrg, not necessarily what the law firm can do, but what I can." GULP

"Wow, yeah that sounds good, I just don't know how my weekend is going to shape up, I have just been so focused on this whole event, and pulling it off, I just don't know what is going on. But drop me an email, it is a good way to keep in contact with me, and send me some invites." This whole time he never once looked me in the eye. "Listen, I am really sorry, but I have to run and go introduce the band, email me!" and he ran for the stage.

"Oh ok, yeah sure, I can do that."

I turned and walked away. Ok so this is the first time I have asked a guy out since like high school MORP, so I have no idea how to react. I wrapped my blanket tighter around me, and walked back to my car, threw the blanket in the trunk, and tried to decide if I was discouraged or encouraged. A Big Mac later (comfort food), I am still not sure how I feel about it all.

The thing is I am a tad peevered. I have now offered about 3 or 4 times to help out with the DotOrg functions or grants, and not once has he taken me up on the offer. Can a DotOrg seriously throw away talent like mine? I mean lawyers trust me with my editing and critical eye, to help them look good to the world, hell, they even pay me for it. And if you ask me, these events could be better publicized, get the word to the papers in town. If you start out early enough, you can find sponsors to help pay for a TV or radio spot. These are not hard things to accomplish, you just need to be organized, and I have organization skills in spades, I have offered them for free, and it pisses me off that he never acts on it.

I was talking to a couple of people with petitions, and asked if they ever needed anyone to drive people to the polls on election day, that I would like to volunteer to do that, I have never met the chick, but she got excited, wrote down my contact info, asked if I was interested in gathering signatures, I told her no, I was more interested in doing something kind of non-partisan, like driving whoever needed a ride to the polls, she was cool with that, rolled with it, and promised to contact me soon with opportunities to help out. OK? FIVE MINUTE CONVO, and she took me up on the offer . . . HOW FRICKIN HARD IS THAT?!?

THEN, I was talking with another guy (yeah I am gregarious, I know) who just started this Montana DotOrg thing, and he was asking about whether or not I could help them get started, if I had spare time, and I was like SURE, he took my contact info, . . . . WAS THAT SO HARD?

All of this leads me to just one conclusion, ok two.

1) Either he is just not that into me, and is talking me up for my cool connections with the law firm, totally plausible; (but even then, who is he to turn down someone who wants to help Dot Org on their own time)

OR

2) He is just as shy as I am about asking someone out, doesn't know quite how to go about asking or accepting . . . whatever, again, totally plausible . . .

I dunno, the other thing is, and this is the interesting one, hold on to your seats -

The other day, a friend mailed me some words of encouragement, along with the little tidbit that Gola is ripped because he is into extreme sports. I had an interesting reaction to that: The thing is, I don't really find him all that drop dead gorgeous, sure he is cute, but frankly I am more attracted to his mind than his body. Interesting . . .

Anyhoo, that is the scoop, I knew you would all want to know . . . .

Signing off for now, much love to you all for the time you spend reading these diatribes.

Wait one last one, if he doesn't take me up on it, it is his loss. Not to be an egomaniac, but I am a great girl, and I wont be available forever.

I feel better now.

2006-04-13T17:34:00.000-06:00

LA Time vs. Real World Time

The truth is my last really significant relationship was my marriage, and that has been over for about 4 years now. I had a couple of fun flings, many dates and a tryst or two after that, including one back here in MT, but even that tryst has been kaput for over a year.

From time to time I take time outs from the whole romantic relationship scene. I have been looking at the timer, and it looks like I have been sufficiently self centered for long enough on my stair over here, and it is just about time to toss my hat back into the ring. Don't get me wrong, I think time outs are very important for the health of your spirit, but every once in a while you wish someone was by your side on that stair, sharing the ups and downs of life.

The truth of the matter is that I have been subtly flirting with a younger man for about a year and a half now. At first it was just a fun thing, but as I got deeper into my isolationistic times, I started to take more and more pleasure at the little interactions. Once I realized I was looking forward to the next time I would run into him (on purpose), I stopped to reflect on how I would feel about dating a younger guy. Generally, I have always been the younger person in the relationship. Seeing as how none of those have lasted until today, I suppose a foray into the younger side isn't something that I should consciously be avoiding (no, I am not talking about illegal here, just younger, and by how much I am not even sure, and frankly I am not sure it even matters, well except for the legal aspect).

At the very heart of the matter lies the choices I have made about how to live my life. You see, there is this very valid theory hanging around out there. When I lived in LA (Los Angeles, Hollywood, you know, la la land) I was essentially 10 years younger than my chronological age. Everyone out there is. It is just a fact of life in LA. People out there tend to not really get married until they are in their thirties, if ever. As a result, most dating down there is nothing close to what dating up in MT is about. You just don't look at a two year relationship in LA, the same way you would look at one that had lasted two years up in MT. It is a different scene.

In LA you spend your mid to late 20s and 30s having fun, going to concerts, hanging out with friends, thinking about maybe starting a career, but mostly dabbling around in the career pool, checking out where you want to end up, and making contacts all over. A perfect night in LA isn't one spent with your lover over romantic candle light sushi, the perfect evening in LA is one spent with your friends who truly know and love you, singing karoke, or going to a movie in a cemetery, drinking wine, and getting all philosophical on one another. Your 20s and 30s are ME time in LA.

By making the decision to move back to MT, (and I am still glad I did), I aged those 10 years overnight. I moved from a ME culture to a WE culture, with very few stragglers out there all on their own. Most people I know who are in their late 20s and 30s in MT, are married, have a couple of kids, activities planned for each weekend, shopping lists, etc. Hardly anyone other than my younger 20-something college grad friends are up for a wine drinking and getting all philosophical on you kind of evening.

Those people that I do know who are in their early thirties and single, tend to have an ex-wife and a couple of kids along for the ride. In general, that is a mess that I don't really want to get involved with, unless the person has the cool kind of relationship that I have with my ex, that being we are remote-knew-you-well-once-upon-a-time-friends, but he lives on the other side of the globe, and I like it that way. (Now don't get me wrong here either, because if the right man came along, and he had an ex and kids in tow, if he was the right one, I would accommodate.)

Those guys in their 20s that I know, I don't know terribly well, and I am just going to take a deep breath, and let what happens happen.

2006-04-09T21:18:00.000-06:00

EXHIBIT #1

2006-04-09T20:56:00.000-06:00

RESOLVE

3rd time is the charm. The 1st time I tried to post this, I was unhappy with the location of the bike picture, I ended up farking around with the HTML and losing the whole blamed thing; the 2nd time my friend Grrr called 1 paragraph from the end, and I lost the whole frickin thing. I still love Grrrr and he was wonderfully abashed at the loss, and encouraging about the new Blog idea. (He says I crack him up, YAY me!!!)

So my treat to myself after yet another year of being a law-abiding American citizen, with the receipt of my hard earned tax dollars back in my warm and welcoming hand (Uncle Sam can thank me for the interest free loan of $321 at anytime, feel free to comment), I went out on Friday afternoon and bought a slightly used Fuji Coaster/Cruiser, (as my posse with phone machines will attest, I was stoaked). Apparently some little old lady bought it to toole around town on, ended up never really utilizing the resource, and when it came time to downsize to a smaller abode, she found she didn't have the space to put it up as it should be accommodated.

She put it on consignment at a local bike shop (YAY for me!!!), my lil bro scouted it after hearing my wish list, my sister(in-law) called me and put me on alert, and I went out and added it to my collection of material goods. I upgraded this gift from Karma with fenders, or as I call them "mud flaps", keeping in mind last week's drenching rains and a slight flood from a crack in the foundation of my apartment, the pool of water located just to the north of my couch. I decided to upgrade not only based on the above referenced reason, but also because I tend to be a slacker, meaning, I ususally only take a "life timeout" for laundry about once every 10 days or so. That's right, sometimes I wear pants twice before committing to the idea of a load. (45 minutes for a wash and 1.5 to 2.5 hours for a dry, its a time thing).

The reasoning behind the bike is multidimensional:

It is way cool, check out Exhibit #1, and admit that you are jealous;
I recently had knee surgery (ACL replacement and Meniscus repair) to my left knee, and according to Don, the PT guru, biking is the #1 exercise for rebuilding lost muscles, which support the growing ligaments, therefore my ability to dork around with confidence; (seems worthwhile)
Let's face it, everyone (almost) seems to want to lose a pound or two here or there;
I filled up on gas this afternoon, when I was headed back from my older bro's in Missoula to my diggs in Helena, and the gas at Ole's cost a whopping $2.41/gallon, a price I haven't seen since LA;
I generally do care about the environment (stick shift car), I am just not always sure how to go about saving it;
It is downhill to work in the mornings, when my being is still on semi-snooze mode, and it is uphill from work in the evenings when I feel most alive, tell me that isn't a sign;
Ok, I could go on and on, but tapping into my subconcious involves mirrors, smoke, and time that I just don't want to spend at this moment.
The bottom line is I am hoping for SUN tommorrow, even if that means that I am an optomist, it being springtime in the Rockies. I don't have any sandwich fixins, (refered to above referenced slackerhood), so if I do it; riding to work, and back from work, I am planning on lunch at the General Merch, Coney Island, or the No Sweat Cafe (if I call ahead) as a reward.

One day at a time.

P.S. Anyone know how to smoke a ciggie whilst peddling a bike?!?! SAFELY?!?! One ACL sugery is enough for me. ;)

2006-04-09T15:39:00.000-06:00

Picture Posting

Honestly, you would think that posting a picture would be easier. I am killing myself here.