Archive for September 1st, 2009

by jhwygirl

…and Skylar Browning has it on The Indy’s blog. The Indy dug a little and found that Barkus’ 2004 conviction for wreckless driving was a reduced charge from DUI.

Who knows what else they’re going to find….

I find myself wonder whether Barkus is cooperating with the investigation? Why did the Flathead Co. Sheriff’s Dept. have to subpoena his BAC? Why’d they have to obtain a search warrant for the boat?

Iverson requested Rep. Denny Rehberg’s BAC and had that information out there within 24 hours. No subpoena required.

Sounds to me like Barkus is being uncooperative.

Look – Let’s be upfront: I’m not the first one that’d be celebrating if Barkus felt compelled to resign. There’s a long line for that way in front of me. He wasn’t a favorite of mine last session, and I have trouble convincing myself that anyone else could be worse.

So this aspect of the story is going to be real interesting for me.

where’s the outrage?

you’re messin’ with the wrong guy max….

by problembear

i have had just about all the news i can stand about stuff like this.

tell us again senator about how you are only interested in doing the right thing.

do you think we are dullards sir? have you no decency? no shame? this final outrage about your deep connections with an industry which has victimized and robbed your constituents is an insult to the intelligence of all montana voters.

well, at least somebody is glad you are on the job looking out for us senator…

Back from the dead

by Jay Stevens

Left in the West is back!

Bring in the clowns!

by Jay Stevens

Whoa! As if to underscore how friggin’ out there intellectual support for anti-reform is, enter Paul Hsieh:

Hence, if Bill makes more money than Joe and can purchase a $500 MRI scan that Joe can’t, then Bill deserves it. That’s not rationing, that’s justice — just as it’s not rationing if Bill can afford a house while Joe must live in an apartment, or if Bill can afford steak whereas Joe eats hamburgers.

Of course, neither living in apartment or eating burgers may directly lead to Joe’s death…but hey! Income level is a true measure of a person’s inherent value, right?…Right?

Damn! And this guy is a doctor!

by Jay Stevens

Here’s an op-ed from last week, from Yukio Hatoyama, Japan’s Democratic Party candidate for Prime Minister, that’s worth taking a look at:

The economic order in any country is built up over long years and reflects the influence of traditions, habits and national lifestyles. But globalism has progressed without any regard for non-economic values, or for environmental issues or problems of resource restriction.

If we look back on the changes in Japanese society since the end of the Cold War, I believe it is no exaggeration to say that the global economy has damaged traditional economic activities and destroyed local communities.

In terms of market theory, people are simply personnel expenses. But in the real world people support the fabric of the local community and are the physical embodiment of its lifestyle, traditions and culture. An individual gains respect as a person by acquiring a job and a role within the local community and being able to maintain his family’s livelihood.

Under the principle of fraternity, we would not implement policies that leave areas relating to human lives and safety — such as agriculture, the environment and medicine — to the mercy of globalism.

Our responsibility as politicians is to refocus our attention on those non-economic values that have been thrown aside by the march of globalism. We must work on policies that regenerate the ties that bring people together, that take greater account of nature and the environment, that rebuild welfare and medical systems, that provide better education and child-rearing support, and that address wealth disparities.

Hatoyama’s concern is foreign policy, and urges the United States to abandon its recent desire to set itself up at the center of a “free market” capitalistic and global hegemony – and putting itself at odds with a multi-polar block of midsize countries looking to retain their own national identities and avoid getting crushed by runaway globalization. I like the advice, but whatever.

But what Hatoyama describes as conflicting forces – unbridled global corporate capitalism set against communities – seems spot on and vitally important. And it seems to me the real division in American politics, a division that spans political party – although offhand I can’t think of any national-level Republicans that oppose this destructive form of global greed – forms around the forces described by Hatoyama. Healthcare reform, climate change legislation, credit card reform, etc & co, are all issues that pit large corporate interests against the health and well-being of everyday citizens and the viability of our communities.

And pro-corporate unfettered market capitalism has subsumed the Republican party and its base, and stripped it of any meaning or usefulness. Check out this interview with Sam Tanenhaus on the death of conservatism as a “vital, contributive force.” Tanenhaus – quite rightly, IMHO – calls the contemporary conservative movement the “politics of resentment, anger, and revenge”; today’s dominant conservative force is one that has no notion of the use of government for the benefit of society. In short, it’s completely devoid of any positive vision and utilized solely as an opposition movement to block any meaningful policies that oppose corporate dominance. The only conservative intellectual basis for corporate control – fiscal libertarianism – is a kind of rhetorical moebius strip that views people – with all of their cultures and traditions and illogical nature of contentment – as inconvenient and unwanted contaminants in their otherwise perfect economic theories.

All that’s left for discourse from the right are Obama Hitler posters.

You object? Read this blog post from Eric Ethridge about the state of our “meritocracy.” Here’s a quote pulled from it that originated with the AmPro’s Adam Serwer:

Last week, Greg Mankiw wrote a post casually asserting that people with “good genes” make lots of money and pass their intelligence off to their kids who then get high SAT scores. John Sides and Brad DeLong demolished Mankiw’s argument, but I think Mankiw’s assumption is informative here: The right doesn’t mind privilege being retained, by whatever means, within those groups that already have it, because it proves their theories about meritocracy. But when someone like Sonia Sotomayor goes from the South Bronx to Princeton valedictorian to the Supreme Court, it forces the question of how much people of privilege depend on their circumstances — their financial and social advantages — to succeed rather than their ability or intelligence. That’s uncomfortable for some people to think about, and it’s part of why Sonia Sotomayor provokes outrage over “merit,” while glaring examples of preferential treatment for the privileged do not.

And it’s conservative rhetoric and activism that opposes any reforms that make our society more egalitarian, that batter down the economic and social obstacles to success, that protect communities from the unthinking love of profit.

Not that I think middle- and working-class supporters of conservatism view themselves as privileged or elite – nor are they. I think they see things like affirmative action or funding of the Indian Health Service or single-payer health insurance as a drag on their own fragile domestic economies and an unfair additional obstacle to their own well-being. Of course, they miss the holistic benefits of these policies – cheaper health insurance, say, or less taxpayer money spent on severe health problems endemic to reservations. I also think the years of civil rights struggles for women, racial minorities, gays, etc. have caused blue collar whites to believe (helpfully pushed by GOP politicos) that progressive policies are intended to benefit someone else, at their expense.

I ramble. The point here is that we are at a crucial period of American political history, and we need to seize this time to make crucial reform. Healthcare reform is the first – and it needs to affect everyone positively, or else it’ll reaffirm fears that progressives and liberals care only about someone else.

And, honestly? I’m not doing all this writing and advocacy and activism for someone else. I’m doing it for me. I need health insurance reform. I need cheaper bills, and I need my insurers to honor their obligations, and I need to know that, if my children have a medical emergency, it won’t bankrupt the family.

  • Pages

  • Recent Comments

    Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A…
    Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att…
    JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
  • Recent Posts

  • Blog Stats

    • 1,689,730 hits
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 2,734 other followers

  • September 2009
    S M T W T F S
  • Categories