The following comment was posted at the end of one of the posts on this site. I think it is far too important to languish in relative anonymity, so I have copied it here:

On a Local note the City of Helena City Commission will be considering two proposed referendums during the month of March. The first one calls for the United States to withdraw its forces from Iraq and provide funding for that. The second referendum is as follows:

“The Citizens of Helena, Montana in the United States of America, hereby urge the Congress of the United States of America to fund our military forces totally and without conditions so that they will not be deprived of the tools they need, or the manpower needed by them to give the people of the United States of America the protection they need in this time of war and be able to attain victory, which is the tradition of the United States of America and the State of Montana. The danger is too great to do otherwise”

The author of the above referendum is John Forbes, one of the most dedicated patriots in the city, if not the state. The time and effort that he and his wife, Cyndi, devote to this community is amazing. We are truly blessed to have them here in the Queen City. I wholeheartedly endorse their efforts in bringing this issue to the attention of the citizens of Helena.

Sometimes it’s hard to generate enthusiasm for another round of the same old, same old. Yet, when you get a few minutes to reflect on the goings-on on the state and national stages, the outrage, the frustration, the same overwhelming need to shout out or strangle someone, takes over and there you are – back at it again.

Ok – here’s my thing. One evening early this month there was some kind of 9-1-1 call from the governor’s mansion that required several police and sheriff personnel to respond. The governor was scheduled to be interviewed on CNBC very early the next morning. The interview was summarily cancelled for “personal reasons.” Helena, like virtually every “government town” in the country is a hotbed of gossip and speculation. This situation was prime fodder for the grist mill. Reporters supposedly tried to follow the story and ran into a virtual wall of silence at the police department, although there is some evidence that the Sheriff, herself, was somewhat more forthcoming.

But the media has chosen to remain totally mum about the whole thing.

So what? I mean, doesn’t the governor and his family have a right to some privacy? The obvious answer is, “Sure”. But what about the public’s right to know? It seems like the media considers it absolutely necessary to publish anything they can about a Republican politician’s private family life – Governor Martz’s husband’s set-to, Secretary of State Bob Brown’s father’s death, for example – but a domestic violence call at the Democratic governor’s mansion gets nary a word of coverage.

Guess we don’t need to know about that.

But what if there’s something we do need to know about the character, behavior, or actions of one of our elected officials? And the media doesn’t want to touch the story because of political persuasion?

Domestic violence is one of the most egregious crimes in our society. Mostly because it happens below the radar – and nobody knows it’s happening right next door. It doesn’t just happen to the “trailer trash”. There are plenty of “good” families that are victims of this scourge too.

Usually, this is the kind of story the press salivates over.

Ironic, isn’t it? Nah – ssdd.

The Democrat Party – how long and loudly has it touted its role as the refuge of the minorities, the beacon of tolerance in an unfair and unforgiving society, the voice of those who otherwise would not be heard. Under the auspices of the big tent welcoming the unwelcome, those who were not accepted elsewhere were embraced by those who relished the role of the non-judgmental.

Until, of course, the opportunity arose where the Party leaders could sandbag a gay congressman and use him as political chum to try to take over the House and Senate in the upcoming 2006 election.

The real details of the plot have started to emerge: the original e-mail, maybe “over-friendly”, maybe not. Certainly a stretch to justify a wholesale panic investigation of the House leadership. Who was it that went public with the information? None other than an employee of the Human Rights Campaign. Gives a whole new meaning to the term political suicide”!

There are way too many legitimate questions that have yet to be asked, let alone answered, about this entire mess. But there is one that I have to place on the table: How can Nancy Pelosi explain to her constituents from the Bay area – many of whom are gay – that she has no problem being a ring leader in destroying the reputation, the career, and the life of a gay man for her own personal and political gain?

Lest you think I alone am troubled by this phenomena, spend a few minutes reading Camille Paglia’s interview in Salon, where she castigates her party.
“I was especially repulsed by the manipulative use of a gay issue for political purposes by my own party. I think it was not only poor judgment but positively evil. Whatever short-term political gain there is, it can only have a negative impact on gay men… Why don’t the Democratic strategists see this? These tactics are extremely foolish…What in the world are the Democrats thinking? We saw the beginning of this in that grotesque moment in the last presidential debates when John Kerry came out with that clearly prefab line identifying Mary Cheney as a lesbian. Since when does the Democratic Party use any gay issue in this coldblooded way as a token on the chessboard? You’d expect this stuff from right-wing ideologues, not progressives…”

The dirty little secret? The Dems have done this for years. The gays are just the most recent example.

Pathetic.

I can’t stand it any longer! The hypocrisy and demagoguery of the holier-than-thou factions that attempt to paint “lobbyists” as the scourge of a democratic and free society are enough to piss off the Pope.

A recent poll suggests that an overwhelming majority of the Montana electorate supports this year’s ballot initiative to reign in those yucky scoundrels. Newspaper articles and our charismatic governor continually characterize elected officials as “representing all the people” and lobbyists as representing “one special interest group”. How noble! How philosophical! How nauseating!

Lobbyists are not a “necessary evil” – they are a necessary ELEMENT in a representative democracy.

Think for a minute: “An elected official represents all the people”. Wanna see half of the people in this country go nucking futs – tell them George Bush represents them. Get real! An elected official represents the majority of the voters – not people! – of the district from which he was elected (except for the President and the Electoral College thing, but let’s leave that alone for this discussion – the point’s still valid). In this country, that often means that more citizens in any given district did not vote for the winner as voted for him. Every district is made up of myriads of folks with a plethora of differing opinions on different issues. There is no way any one elected official can begin to represent all of them all!

Lobbyists, on the other hand, generally do represent a single issue, group, organization, or – oh horrors! – company – a “Special Interest Group”. It is their job to constantly watch what is going on in Congress or the Legislature and to make sure that the elected officials know how their particular group feels about a given piece of legislation. The alternative would be for every single citizen to be in Washington DC and/or Helena every day that congress or the legislature is in session, attending every hearing and testifying on every bill that could conceivably affect them one way or the other. Just think – 900,000 Montanans in Helena every other winter for three months. Mind-boggling? You bet your bippy! More to the point – after spending all that time tracking every piece of legislation, preparing and presenting testimony, lobbying as it were, for or against whatever issues float your boat – when would you have time to earn a living, raise your kids, blog your brains out, or whatever it is that you do to fill the days? No matter how you feel about any issue – if some level of government can regulate it, tax it, fund it, or otherwise impact it – there will be highly paid professionals out there bird-dogging it on behalf of their clients. Thank God. Otherwise we’d have our elected officials representing only those dedicated citizens who have the time and inclination to contact them.

The recent uproar and folderol over lobbyists and members of congress should generate some honest debate about how our system works and what, if anything, needs to be done. The demagogic value judgment that lobbyists are inherently evil is counter-productive to a healthy and representative democratic government.

It’s enough to gag a maggot.

The Democrats and their trusty sidekick, reporter Jennifer McKee, who, I am absolutely sure, are totally committed to protecting their own Constitutional rights such as Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press, are apparently totally comfortable sacrificing the rights of anybody they disagree with. Like that pesky little thingy in the – what – Fifth Amendment? – that sorta says something to the effect that in this country a person is considered innocent until PROVEN guilty.

They’ve hoped, they’ve dreamed, they’ve fantisized even – that Conrad Burns would be indicted over the Abramoff scandals. And here it is – the last few weeks of the campaign and the DOJ has let them down. Senator Burns is NOT a target of any investigation. Dang it. They just can’t catch a break. Poor babies.

They clutch desperately to their last shred of hope – the “testimony” of that scoundrel and convicted felon, Jack Abramoff, himself. In a much touted Vanity Fair article, Abramoff bragged about his complete access to the Senator. How pathetic! These deluded souls have hitched their wagons to the rantings of a narcissistic, self-agrandizing liar. Remember all those times Abramoff was quoted about his extensive personal ties to the President? And it turned out that he had spent – oh, about forty-five minutes total – at the White House over a period of about four years. And always at those intimate little functions for five hundred or so of the President’s nearest and dearest friends. Might the guy have a bit of tendancy to hyperbole? Ya’ think?

Yet Jim Ferrell and his buddies continue to beat the dead horse. So what if Conrad isn’t a target? They’ll just have Jennifer McKee drag out a few dusty tricks from the School of Yellow Journalism (her alma mater?) and – presto – there’s a story in the newspaper* about an “article in a magazine” quoting “anonymous sources” claiming that “someone in the Justice Department” is investigating whether Senator Burns is a “subject” of an investigation.

There’s less substance in that story than in a Paris Hilton conversation on molecular biology! Get over it already! There is no “there” there.

To be perfectly candid, I don’t understand the strategy with this tactic. The people who are buying into it are already anti-Burns – no new votes in that camp. The true undecided voters out there are weighing all this blather about Abramoff against the stories about Jon Tester going to San Francisco and Washington DC to hob-nob with and raise money from the elite left-wing liberal lobbyists. The smart ones have figured out that Tester will be beholden to the liberals who are funding his campaign, and will base his votes on how THEY feel about gun control, abortion, immigration, national security, the war on terror, and taxation. Given the basic conservatism of the Montana voter, I wouldn’t want to have the spotlight on Tester’s political allies and new best friends if I were running his campaign.

As much as the democrats hate to let go of it, the Abramoff controversy is more fiction and wishful thinking than fact. But the other side of the coin – the funding from the likes of George Sorros, and the special interest groups and PACs of Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Teddy Kennedy, NARAL, and Hollywood – is a reality for Jon Tester. Just wait until the next campaign finance reports come out!

At that point Jon is going to think his promise to kill the Patriot Act was the high point in his campagn.

*BTW – This “story” appears almost verbatim on the Montana democrat party website without attribution to Ms. McKee. So who’s plagerizing whom?

Ok – my grasp of the obvious is probably pretty normal, but I have to admit my grasp of the subtle might be a touch slow. Eventually, however, the switch turns on and I, too, am blinded by The Light. This morning I experienced this phenomenon while driving to work: John Morrison was “Liebermanned” by the extreme left wing of the Democrat Party! Or maybe John Tester was “Lamonted”.

Either way, the good people of Montana have been slimed by an insidious group of extremist liberals who are hijacking the majority – moderate – element of the Democrat Party.

Think back to the Howard Dean presidential campaign in 2003. Remember all the media hoopla about the “grassroots momentum”? Come to find out, the grassroots were actually pretty shallow, but they had been fertilized abundantly by the likes of Michael Moore, George Soros, David Sirota, MoveOn.org, and the Hollywood elite. The fertilizing has continued.

Fast-forward to last spring: John Morrison, a well-known, respected, competent candidate was believed by most to be the likely choice for winning the Democrat primary for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Conrad Burns. Conventional wisdom and all the polls showed him comfortably in front of the heretofore fairly anonymous, flat-topped, flop-gutted John Tester going into the last month of the campaign. But by May, the local political grapevine had blossomed with rumors of “women” and “scandal” in conjunction with Morrison. By June, Morrison was toast, and John Tester was the new darling of the national Democrat Party, feted around the country – from Washington DC to San Francisco – as the “likely senator from Montana”, courtesy of “grassroots efforts”.

Anybody with me here – starting to see a little “fertilizer burn”?

Compare that scenario with Connecticut. Joe Lieberman. Mr. Democrat Himself. Willing even to sacrifice his personal credibility to the Party by accepting the V.P. slot on the ticket with that ol’ Internet Inventor, Al Gore. So now the grassroots pull the grass right out from under him this year because he won’t abandon his principles to the extent of repudiating his position on the War on Terror. Welcome Ned Lamont, another new darling of the DNC!

Just who is this DNC? From all indications in Connecticut, it sure isn’t the mainstream democrats! Look at the latest poll numbers that show Lieberman still has the support of most of the state’s democrats who have elected him to represent them for the past however many years.

Maybe those little rumblings we’re starting to hear around Montana – “Just who is this John Tester, anyway?” – are, in fact, the regular Montana democrats waking up to the fact that their party is being held hostage by the same Left-Wing Nuts behind Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and Ted Kennedy. John Tester isn’t so much a “real Montanan” as he’s the unsuspecting dupe of a high-powered political machine that is pouring a pot-load of money and effort into what may be the only hope they can salvage for victory this November since even the East Coast democrats seem to have figured out who’s who and what’s what in the Democrat Party!

Hopefully, Montanans aren’t more gullible than the folks in Ohio, New Hampshire, or Connecticut. As the light starts to shine a little brighter on where the Tester seed money really is coming from, I suspect that the rumblings may turn into the same kind of rebellion that stopped Howard Dean in his tracks and is threatening to thwart the Lamont conflagration.

The last thing Montana needs in Washington is a member of the choir at the Church of Liberalism. If John Tester is elected he will be a wholly owned subsidiary of MoveOn.org, from whence cameth his support.

I remember when I was going to college and my father used to tell folks he was sending me out East (Billings!) to finish my education, so I could learn how to say “fertilizer” instead of “bulls__t” when I was confronted by the stuff.

Appears to me that the Montana democrats are now up to their grasses in fertilizer.

“Snarky” has recently become a favorite word in my vocabulary. Admittedly, it is probably considered slang by most of the elite literati, but after delving into its definition and examples of its use in modern communication, I have adopted it as a perfectly descriptive idiom. It generally means critical or sarcastic in a wisecracking or cynical sort of way; impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner. Just my kind of attitude.

One of the things I have been thinking about doing as a feature on this blog is recognizing excellence in the non-professional world of editorial comment. My focus would be on those tidbits of wisdom that employ relatively equal amounts of fact, humor and sarcasm – snarkism – in commenting on the events of the day.

Yesterday, while checking out the Billings Gazette online, I happened upon an absolute gem – and thus I am prepared to nominate the first candidate for:

Excellence in the Use of Snarkism:

DAWSON ‘RESPECTFULLY DECLINED’ MEETING GOVERNOR
By CHARLES S. JOHNSON Gazette State Bureau
HELENA – Death row inmate David Dawson turned down Gov. Brian Schweitzer’s recent request to meet with him at the prison, Schweitzer said Wednesday.

Dawson, convicted of murdering three members of a Billings family in 1986, is scheduled to be put to death by lethal injection shortly after midnight Friday.

Schweitzer said he conveyed the offer through the condemned killer’s “standby” lawyer, Ed Sheehy Jr. The attorney represents Dawson and his desire to be executed.

“As the ultimate representative of the people of Montana who’ve condemned him to death, I thought it was appropriate for me, as the face of Montana, to meet with the condemned person if he wanted,” Schweitzer said.

[The story continued, but we’ll skip to the “Comment” section.]

Can’t blame him wrote on August 10, 2006 8:08 AM
I wouldn’t want my last memory on earth to be Brian Schweitzer either. *L*

I don’t have any idea who “L” is, but I’m going to be on the lookout for more of his/her comments!

If (when!) you run into examples of great snarkism, send them to me by posting a comment on this blog. We’ll then put the best examples together for a vote for the ANNUAL SNARKY AWARD. Sounds like fun to me!

Ummm… Let’s see. Ken Toole is refusing to accept the endorsement of the Montana Chamber of Commerce. Like THAT was going to happen!

Ken Toole firmly believes that: All business is bad, big business is evil, profit is a four-letter word, and ordinary people aren’t capable of making their own decisions about making a living, raising a family, and what to believe; government must take that responsibility.

Hey! I know where he got those ideas – from Karl Marx, George Soros, Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand, and Nancy Pelosi, to name a few. Someone needs to explain to Ken that there was a grand experiment in Communism in the twentieth century. It was called the Soviet Union. Failed miserably. Pretty much NOT what Montanans would want for the future of this state and their families.

The news isn’t that Ken won’t be getting the endorsement of the Montana Chamber – it’s that even the Montana AFL-CIO, a traditional Democrat stalwart, couldn’t bring itself to fall over the cliff and support such an out-of-the-mainstream, radical liberal.

The Chamber’s endorsement is one that could have gone a long way to helping Toole’s credibility. His refusal to even talk to them reinforces his reputation as the kind of Left Wing Nut that does more to hurt, rather than help, Montana.

SQUARE DEAL OR NO DEAL?

The event is organized, the audience is prepped, the cameras are ready, and the star takes the stage to thunderous applause. Oh wait – it’s not Howie Mandell and twenty-six gorgeous models – it’s Brian Schweitzer and Margie MacDonald and the Montana Democrats’ version of the latest hit TV show – Square Deal or No Deal.

Ok Montana – what’s in the case held by the lovely, albeit slightly frumpy, Ms. MacDonald? Could it be the fortune that will change your life? Could it be enough to pay off the car and take the kids to Disneyland? Could it be enough to help you make it to the end of the month for the next couple of years?

Open the case, Margie.

It’s a $400 one-time property tax rebate. Yea! Clap, clap, clap!

Wow – Mr. and Mrs. Montana $400!!! Of course, it’s a one-time only thing, and it’s only for your primary residence, and only if you are a full-time resident of Montana. And it’s a rebate – so you’ll have to pay income taxes on it. But hey, call it $325; it’s money, right?

Oh – you’re a renter? Sorry. Your landlord won’t be getting this rebate on his rental unit, so there’s no hope you’ll see anything from it.

What? You have a couple of acres up in the Flathead that you’ve lived on and paid higher and higher property taxes on for thirty-some years and now your property is worth a little over $500,000. Oh – too bad. Nothing for you. Just because you’re living on a small pension and social security – you’re too rich to deserve a break on your property taxes.

Hmmm… you’ve got a ranch out in eastern Montana. Dang – that’s agricultural property, not residential. You don’t qualify either. Nada, zip, zilch!

Let’s see. The Democrats are offering maybe about half of the state’s taxpayers a one-time $400 (well almost, sorta) bribe to get your vote for local legislative candidates.

Whaddayasay Montana — Square Deal? Or ……….

NO DEAL!!!!!!!!!

Well, Governor Shyster, I mean Schweitzer, Montanans are smarter than you give them credit for. They’ll see through the hoopla and realize that the Republican’s Handshake with Montana is a commitment to significantly reduce property taxes permanently for all Montanans.

That’s a REAL DEAL.

Hello Helena – and the rest of the world! Welcome to a new blog site dedicated to sharing thoughts, ideas, and other specimens of literary brilliance about the goings on in and around Helena and Montana.

By choice, if not default, most items found on this site will be of a political nature. Mostly because I am of a political nature and those are the types of thoughts, comments, and ideas in which I usually like to indulge.

Wow – having your own blog is like somebody died and made you Queen. As a very wise woman once said, “It’s good to be Queen” Got that right!

So to explain the title of this site and my vision for how it will work…

I am a lover of puns and all other such wordsmithing, so it was no accident that I would choose something that might be a bit of a double entendre. I also love descriptive phrases and liberally pepper my speech and writing with them. One of my mother’s favorite remarks when someone asked where she was going was, of course, “to hell in a handbasket” or as I interpreted it as a child, “to Helena handbasket”. I never knew quite where Mom was going – but she spent a lot of time there, so it had to be a fun place. As I contemplated my concept for this site, I realized that I wanted it to be more than just me – I want this to become a shared experience – thus the “2”. So consider “2 Helena Handbaskets” as a fun place to visit and share your thoughts and observations with friends.

My Handbasket will be filled with whatever I want to put into it. The other Handbasket is reserved for the thoughts and writings of everybody else who would like to contribute. As the Chief Basket Case, I will have editorial control. I’m hoping that the literary genius of writers like Erma Bombeck, Jean Kerr, Dave Barry, Art Buchwald, P. J. O’Rourke, Patrick J. McManus, and even Ann Coulter will inspire all of us to incorporate humor and style into the communication of our points of view on various topics. That way – even if we can’t change anybody’s mind, we can at least provide a bit of entertainment for what I hope will be an ever-expanding audience.

Although this site is formatted as a blog, I really would like it to become a dynamic collection of light essays on a variety of subjects. I know there are many talented writers out there and this can be the forum you use to publish those literary gems. From time to time, I might suggest a theme, but generally I will leave your handbasket for you to fill.

I suppose there will have to be some rules, but I think I’ll wait to get into those details.

Ok everybody, get out those laptops.

Ready. Set. Write!!!!!!!!

P.S. Rule 2: You may request that your submissions be published either with or without your name or, naturally, you may use a penname. Tell me what you want.