Montana legislators will have an opportunity next year to send a clear message to our young people: We know that your education is a vital to your future success.

A local legislator is drafting a bill that is designed to at least partially address the dropout problem in Montana schools. Rep. Mike Miller (R) has submitted a request for a bill that will tie the privilege of driving with school attendance. As I understand the proposal, a person under the age of 19 will not be allowed to possess a driver’s license unless he/she is enrolled in and attending school full-time – or has already graduated.

While it will not single-handedly correct the drop-out problem; it does something that no other proposal I’ve seen does – it communicates a societal recognition that a high school education is a minimum requirement for a productive life. It’s no big secret that high school drop-outs are far more likely to end up on the wrong side of the law (according to Miller, about 85% of the men and 75% of the women in Montana’s prisons never completed high school), and they continue to be an economic drain on society throughout their lives due to low incomes and poor financial choices (see the debate over the recent I-164 ballot initiative). I could go on about the obstacles faced by drop-outs, but we all know that this is a serious, life-long, generational problem. The opportunities for those without even a high school education will continue to get worse as technology becomes more and more sophisticated and markets become more globally competitive.

There are all sorts of thoughts, ideas, proposals, and even some other proposed legislation out there for consideration, but this bill is unique in a couple of ways: First, it combines something that kids want with something they need, and second, it should be relatively easy and inexpensive to implement. Not only does this incentivize young people to get that high school diploma – how uncool is it to be sixteen and not have wheels? – but it sends a message about where our priorities are: school before cool.

IT’S NOT YOUR (Grand)MOTHER’S MOVEMENT ANY LONGER

Betty Friedan

Gloria Steinem

I came of age as the “Second Wave” of the Feminist Movement took center stage in American society. The baby boom generation was well established as a cultural force; Viet Nam captured the political spotlight; hippies, free love, LSD, and flower power were all the rage; and Betty Friedan’s book, The Feminine Mystique” was the instruction manual for a whole bunch of young women searching for something more exciting than a wedding band, a mortgage, and soap operas.

Enter Gloria Steinem – she of the “A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle” mantra – and cue the angry, man-hating bra-burners. The 20th Century feminist evolved into a shrill, ultra-left harridan who viewed traditional values, not as a choice, but as a threat. God help the ’70’s woman who wanted to fly the Friendly Skies in a cute little mini-dress and sassy bobby cap as she trolled for Mr. Right and the suburban cottage complete with picket fence and 2.5 adorable toddlers. A traitor to the cause! A “real” woman wouldn’t be caught dead serving a meal to a man, and the healthy male who took a second glance at the mini-skirted stewardess was roundly castigated as a chauvinist pig.

The War of the Sexes went nuclear. Millions of young women – intimidated and berated by the sisterhood for wanting a husband and family – were pressured into becoming Super Mom, juggling a full-time job and a full-time family. Family planning evolved from the pill to abortion, and the late twentieth century feminist became a dogmatic, hard-core progressive with a rigid agenda: Her way or the highway!

But something happened for some of us who didn’t buy into the ’60’s Women’s Movement and our daughters who came of age at the end of the century. We, and they, looked around and saw that, while career options had expanded into almost every field, and the wage imbalance was improved (albeit not yet equal), the rage of the sixties feminazis had become limiting rather than empowering. Much to the disgust of the aging leaders of the movement (see pictures of Betty and Gloria, above), the new generation, with their mothers’ support quietly and effectively paved the trails that had been blazed a quarter century before, and began accepting a new view of a woman’s place in society and a different way to reach her goals: She could be anything she chose to be and – horrors! – she could achieve her objective without emasculating the opposite sex or suppressing her own femininity.

The “Third Wave” of the Women’s Movement is hitting the beaches.

Tuesday’s elections graphically underscored the new type of American “feminist” leaders – among them, Carly Fiorina, Jan Brewer, Nikki Haley, Susana Martinez, Kristi Noem, Liz Cheney, and of course, Sarah Palin – as truly empowered women, able to have careers, families, husbands, AND conservative values.

The last forty years have seen a dramatic change in the feminist movement. The laws of nature have shown those radical bra-burners that time will cause the loose boobs to drop farther than Al Gore’s pants in a massage parlor, while a strong, traditional foundation can keep the girls looking real good.

There will be volumes written about the 2010 election, but I think this pretty much sums it all up:

The Montana GOP organized a little rally today in East Helena.

For those of you who don’t know, East Helena is a little burg about 5 miles east of the state’s capital city, with it’s own distinct personality. I’ve lived here for over five years now and have come to treasure and appreciate it’s unique attitude. Politically, EH is actually pretty conservative – in the old-time sense. It was – and largely still is – a blue collar, union community, but it is deeply, thoroughly, unequivocally patriotic. The local VFW is the social center of the town, and the 4th of July parade is straight out of a Norman Rockwell painting.

So what happened on this quiet Halloween Sunday afternoon in East Helena, Montana is a veritable gobsmacker.

As I left my house, I noticed a city police car parked in the middle of the parking lot between the City Pool and JFK Park. Just as I reached the stop sign at the end of my block, a little gold PT Cruiser pulled up next to the officer. I continued up the few blocks to “Beautiful Downtown East Helena” where I joined up with the three dozen or so supporters who were gathering at Memorial Park on Main Street waiting for the GOP campaign bus to arrive. A few minutes later, a lone city police officer drove up and advised us that we had to disperse. He explained that someone had complained about our little gathering and because we did not have a permit, we had to leave. As we visited with the officer a bit more, he told us that the Democrats had applied for a permit that was denied by the City Council, and so they objected to our gathering and called in a complaint to the police and he had no choice but to act on the complaint. While we were talking to the officer, that same little gold PT Cruiser drove past us several times – obviously closely watching the encounter.

Being the good citizens we are, we quickly conferred, and moved the rally about ten yards further down the street to “private property”.

No real harm done. (Heck – everybody at the rally was a bullet-proof Republican, so there were no minds or votes to change.) Or was there? Isn’t there a little clause in the Constitution that guarantees Americans the right to peacefully assemble? And what about that “Freedom of Speech” thingy?

Tomorrow I plan to check out the city ordinances regarding such assemblies as well as the story about the city denying the Democrats a permit to hold their rally, because I find that offensive and frankly, pretty hard to believe. If the local Democrats wanted to hold a peaceful gathering in a local public park, they very much should have had the opportunity – and I would have been as upset as anybody if they were refused a permit.

Shame on our city leaders if they did, in fact, deny the Democrats the right to hold a political rally.

But I’m still a bit flabbergasted about the “complaint”. It must have come from a Democrat of the pre-school mentality (“If I can’t have one, you can’t either!”). Not that the complaint had any real effect on our rally, but as I walked by the memorial marker listing the names of local heroes who had sacrificed their lives for us and the United States Constitution, it saddened me that partisan affiliation so blinded my fellow citizen to the inalienable rights that we are all guaranteed that she felt she had to personally take steps to deny those rights to us.

Shame on her.

TEA minus 2 and counting. So I have a few thoughts to share…

The student mock election results are interesting on a couple of fronts: First – the turnout was perplexing. Supposedly, over 15,000 students participated, yet the results only reflect the votes of about 5,000. The obvious conclusion is that the youth vote is always hyped and the actual percentage of votes is far less than expected. Yet 33% isn’t too far below the average turnout for younger (under 30) voters in an off-year election usually, so casting aspersions would be inappropriate. Of more interest to me are the results of some of the questions. The kids seem to be pretty centrist in most of their choices – probably more reflective of their parents’ views than their teachers’. Particularly in light of the environmental propaganda the students are subject to from kindergarten on, the majority of votes on the energy question come down on the side of common-sense, free market positions. Of course, that’s offset by the overwhelming support for health care as a “human right”. The votes on immigration again seem pretty pragmatic and fundamentally logical – a center-right position, probably in line with how most Montana adults would vote. Generally speaking though, I think the kids who participated are to be commended for their citizenship, and as a grandmother, I am pretty sure the future will be in good hands.

Second issue: Alaska. What a power struggle! For all of you out there who have discounted the political in-fighting in the GOP, Holy Buckets, Batman. The old-guard Murkowski camp versus the Palin/TEA Party has gone completely out of control. A major battle ala Clash of the Titans. Would that I had the popcorn concession.

Add to the mix an apparent conspiracy by the local CBS affiliate reporters to create a story that would have a huge negative impact on the Miller campaign. Nothing like the media becoming the story, huh? This will grow legs and will probably continue well past the election. For years, conservatives have rallied against the MSM – and stuff like this goes to prove their case. “Corrupt bastards”, indeed. Stay tuned.

Finally: Charlie Crist, Bill Clinton, and the Florida senate race. Oy, vay.

You just have to love American politics.

Election 2012 starts Wednesday, November 3. Get ready…

Politics, as we all know, is a blood sport, and few who enter the ring emerge unscathed.

However, one of the most scathing blows of this election was landed in the HD78 race between Joe Cohenour and Steve Gibson.

For those of you who haven’t focused on this contest, a bit of background: Joe is a pretty well-known guy in the Helena/East Helena area. He is an unabashed liberal/progressive, firmly committed to endorsing every big government program that comes down the pike (including the new sex-ed curriculum he just voted for). As a highway patrolman, he’s frequently involved in one-on-one contacts with his constituents, and for some reason he usually isn’t regarded as a “real swell guy” following those visits. He’s also been on the East Helena School Board – but lost his seat a few years ago to a largely unknown newcomer, a feat that requires a certain amount of eyebrow raising, to say the least. The word around town is that folks really like his wife, Jill, who previously held the seat, but are not so impressed with Joe. Ergo, the man himself keeps a pretty low profile during the race. Minimal door-knocking – that sort of stuff. But East Helena is still a company town and unions still have a significant impact on the district. And unions, as we all know, ALWAYS support the Democrat candidate.

Except in this race. The Montana Association of Troopers – the Highway Patrol guys – have endorsed the other guy – Steve Gibson. That’s right. Joe’s comrades in arms – when given an opportunity to support one of their own – turned their backs. Holy buckets, Batman! I mean – they could have just stayed out of the race, right? Yeah – they could have done that, but, no! The guys that work with Joe – the ones who know him best, took a look at this contest and chose to throw their lot in with the other guy.

Wow.

Huge.

You know those strange bedfellows that politics sometimes makes? Talk about a strange break-up – sheesh! Betcha things are a little awkward in the HP locker room these days.

Poor Joe. It’s tough when any relationship goes south, but it’s got to be a real killer when the guys you’ve literally trusted with your life assess things and decide to throw you overboard.

When your friends and family won’t vote for you, it’s time to take a serious look in the mirror. Sorry, Joe – they’re just not that into you.

And definitely time for voters to fill in the box for Steve Gibson.

Word on the street has it that a perennial progressive politician from the Peoples’ Republic of Helena is none too sure that the career path he had mapped out for himself isn’t about to run right smack dab into a major detour. Oh-oh…

In what was supposed to be clear sailing to a second term on the Public Service Commission where he could serve as the chair-apparent for a couple of years and then transition blissfully into the master suite at 2 N. Carson St., Ken (the Tool) Toole is suddenly coming to the realization that he maybe should have been paying a bit more attention to 2010 instead of 2012. Oops…

Seems that – like so many of the Progressive Persuasion – Kenny discounted the mood of the electorate by a percent or two too much this year and now is faced with the prospect of the same kind of unemployment that far too many Montanans have dealt with as a result of their elitist, big-government, short-sighted, anti-prosperity, business-killing agenda. Awww….

While Kenny worshipped at the altar of anthropomorphic global warming, endorsing high-priced environmentally questionable green energy policies that increased costs for Montana consumers, those same consumers were watching him play the same old shell game. With one stroke he was leading the charge to enact a new law to publish the private financial information of hard-working private citizens, and at the same time he supports granting a big interim rate increase to the largest public utility even before determining whether it is justified or not. That kind of inconsistent, indefensible class warfare often results in significant collateral damage.

And it appears that Kenny is standing real close to the bull’s eye.

Close enough to catch some flak anyway.

No wonder he’s getting nervous.

This probably won’t make him feel any better:

This has to be one of the best political ads ever:

‘Nuff said.

To the shock and surprise of virtually no one, Judge C.B. McNeil ruled that I-164, the predatory lender initiative, will remain on the ballot. As of today (Friday), the payday lenders have not filed an appeal with the Montana Supreme Court (likely knowing that they haven’t got a snowball’s chance in hell of winning).

So with the odds of passage even better than Denny Rehberg’s, might the measure’s supporters ultimately be claiming a Pyrrhic victory?

As noted in the post below, the basic demand for these types of loans will not change as a result of the new law. So what happens next? Could one or more of the tribal nations step into the breach? Would the sovereign status of the Indian nations allow them to open such businesses on the reservations – and possibly “branch” out through the internet, or even with brick and mortar locations?

Supply is going down and demand is certainly not disappearing as a result of this measure. Ergo, Economics 101.

Opportunity?