Life was so much easier for politicians before the internet and YouTube. They used to be able to say a whole lot of stupid things and, generally speaking, their words didn’t come back to bite them quite so routinely. Our current Vice-President is probably dining on crow this evening…

So, Joe – will you be chatting with Rep. Boehner tomorrow morning or after lunch to get those impeachment hearings started?

One of my very early posts on this blog back in 2006 was to present the first Snarky Award. Since then I have found a few other meritorious examples. Today, I present for your pleasure, the 2011 winner:

In response to an article by Josh Gerstein in Politico, reprinted at Lucianne.com, titled, “Anti-Obama Protest Turns Violent“, that began with the sentence, “Brazilians protesting the imminent visit of President Barack Obama struck the U.S. consulate in Rio de Janeiro with a Molotov cocktail Friday, prompting police to respond with rubber bullets, according to local news accounts.”

SafariMan wins the prize with this fabulous retort:

“When told that there were Brazillions protesting him Barry asked, ‘How many is a brazillion?'”

Ba da bing!

There has been much criticism of the 2011 Montana legislature and I have tried very hard to defend them against the slings and arrows, knowing that they are dealing with very contentious issues and very passionate supporters and opponents. It’s a tough job and our 150 senators and representatives are definitely overworked and underpaid. So I really, really do try to give them the benefit of the doubt.

But at the end of the day, it comes down to the fact that every single one of those legislators not only volunteered for the job, but spent a great deal of time, effort, and money to get the job – so it is unacceptable when they refuse to do the job. How proudly those campaign signs proclaimed that the candidate would “fight for you” and “represent you”. And only the terminally naive would believe that that means 100% of the time, on every bill, would your representatives vote the same way you would.

But the one thing they can all do is listen to those who take the time to come to the Capitol and share their points of view with those that have been elected to represent them.

The first time I testified as a witness in a legislative hearing was 1969, when I supported a constitutional amendment to reduce the age of majority. I was a college freshman and, like all 19 year-olds, I felt that I had all the perspective and wisdom necessary to advise my elders as to public policy. But God bless them – every single member of the committee sat and listened as I and many, many of my peers passionately pled for our right to vote. And oh – yeah – drink – two years sooner than the current law allowed.

Since then I have invoked the privilege to participate in the legislative process on all sorts of issues – some noteworthy, some not. Sometimes the votes went my way, sometimes not. One thing that was common to every committee that I ever appeared before was the simple respect and courtesy that was shown to every proponent and opponent by the legislators, regardless of the eloquence or logic of their presentation.

Such is not the case this year. Statewide newspapers have carried story after story about how citizens have been denied their right to speak their piece on the issues of the day. I tended to discount the stories, giving the benefit of the doubt to the legislators. The hearings that I personally had participated in were exactly as I had always experienced – professional and friendly.

Until last Wednesday.

I can honestly say that I have never been so ashamed to call myself a Republican in my life. The chairman of the committee was way beyond rude. He unreasonably cut off two witnesses, an elderly couple who had traveled from Butte and a lady who had taken time off from work and come in from Livingston, flustering and frustrating all three of them. An expert witness who was invited by the opponents of the bill flew in from California at his company’s expense to provide factual evidence to counter the opinions of the bill’s sponsor and supporters. He was virtually told to sit down and shut up because the committee had four more bills to hear and each side could only have 10 minutes for their testimony and his time was up.

Admittedly, the bill isn’t one of the headline-grabbers, and in all likelihood it would probably go unnoticed by the vast majority of the people of Montana. In its own way, however, it does have the potential to negatively impact the lives, property, and financial well-being of many people. The people who do know and understand what this bill can do sincerely oppose it and the people who support it are equally sincere. They all deserve to have their elected representatives make an informed decision one way or the other after a full and fair hearing. As it stands now, that won’t happen.

As I sat there watching and listening to the unforgivable behavior of the chairman, I was in turn flabbergasted and then appalled. Montanans are nice people. We welcome those who are guests in our homes and in our public buildings. We do not shut our guests up because we disagree with them; we do not ignore their right to speak because we have other things to do; we do not treat them as nuisances when they wish to participate in their government.

They are “We the People” and our legislators owe them – us – their deepest and fullest respect. Always. That’s who we are.

Editor’s Note: When I first started this blog, I had a vision that it would be a collection of essays on a range of topics not only written by me, but also by others: My basket – Their baskets. Apparently they don’t call me Nostradamas for a reason – my “vision” sucks. Four and a half years later, no one else has volunteered to be a contributing editor. So I changed my strategy from recruiting to conscripting, and today I am thrilled to post an essay from a collection of the Friday Good News pieces, written by Rusty Harper and usually sent by email to a select group of his family, friends, and co-workers. And forwarded by those same family, friends, and co-workers to their family, friends, and coworkers, who then forward them to their family, friends, and co-workers, etc. I feel that there is a much more efficient way for these delightful pieces to be shared by the world at large (What – you didn’t realize 2HH had an international readership? You should see all the comments I get in Russian, Chinese, Swahili, just to mention a few.) Yesterday, before leaving for the day, I asked him if I could publish that morning’s essay. I obviously caught him off-guard, with his defenses down and he agreed. Please read, enjoy, and refer your friends here to enjoy also. This piece is copyrighted, so cannot be shared without crediting the author.

FRIDAY GOOD NEWS – MARCH 11, 2011
by Rusty Harper

I believe everything I read. I am a newspaper/magazine literalist. I figure that if they went to the trouble to print something, they must have checked all the facts so that we could rely on it as being the absolute truth. I believe that newspapers pay all those fact-checkers so much that they can’t afford proofreaders.

I’m much more uncertain about the internet. If it’s not really printed, do they feel as obligated to do a reality check? Is it true that the moon landing, Elvis’ death, and Obama’s birth certificate were all fabricated to fool the masses? Is John F. Kennedy’s brain alive inside a government complex in a cave deep beneath the Rockies in Colorado, where he converses with aliens who visit the U.S. on regular basis? My theory is that if you are doing something permanent, like committing a story to print, then of course you are under a high moral obligation to be completely factual. If you can change what you wrote with a delete key, as on a computer, then you don’t have to be very careful. The Friday Good News is predicated on this theory.

Wikipedia is another example. It’s an internet encyclopedia written by anybody who cares to weigh in – and you can change whatever you don’t like by rewriting it yourself. Is any particular article factual? Maybe yes, maybe no. Apparently it stays there by majority opinion. You can only tell for sure by looking it up in a real (printed) encyclopedia.

If that is true of the internet, then what are we to make of the spoken word on TV? The words aren’t even written down, except on teleprompters which we, the audience, never see. Who are the teleprompter writers? They are anonymous, and their words are never recorded for posterity. They can be as irresponsible as the local anonymous commenters to online newspaper stories, and often they are.

I don’t want you to think I’m giving up on the Helena Independent Record. Never. I believe that our little paper has so few stories in it about the rest of the world at large because they have to spend so much time checking to be sure that we are getting the pure, unvarnished truth. We are provincial, but what we know, we know with confidence.

The IR is not my only can’t-lie-because-it’s-printed source of news and information. I also read the Economist, a British magazine chock-full of world news. I read it a little late, because I get it as hand-me-down from my parents. Since we live in Montana, which is perpetually 20 years behind the rest of the nation, what does it matter if I’m a few weeks behind on the news in the Economist?

And what do I read in this hard-print source that never lies? Just recently I learned that scientists are doing research on why women are attracted to men. I can imagine those nerdy scientist guys saying, “If we can figure this out, we will be kings.”

The research made the startling discovery that women have to make a choice between more masculine features on some men and ordinary features on the rest of us. The magazine has a picture of Brad Pitt, looking hunky in ancient battle armor. I believe he is portraying Achilles, the greatest of the Greek warriors in the Iliad.

According to the researchers, the more manly features, such as a big jaw or a prominent brow, reflect physical and behavioral traits like strength and aggression, as well as physiological traits like virility and a sturdy immune system.

So why doesn’t every women go for the big hunk with the good genes? According to the jealous little science nerds, aggression is fine when directed at outward threats, but is a problem in domestic situations. Sexual prowess “ensures plenty of progeny,” but often is part of promiscuity, and “a tendency to shirk parental duties or leave the mother altogether.”

Shame on you, Achilles, you heel.

The science boys (I doubt there were any female scientists in this research, since it didn’t involve doing anything with Brad Pitt except looking at his picture) conclude, and I quote, “So, whenever a woman has to choose a mate, she must decide whether to place a premium on the hunk’s choicer genes or the wimp’s love and care.”

I didn’t need this article to know why Pat preferred me over Brad Pitt. At the time she and I met, he was only 13. The more scientific question is why she would choose me over Robert Redford, who was one of the national heartthrobs at the time in question. I can imagine her pondering the difficult choice – should she take the man who is handsome, rich, famous, romantic, every woman’s dream, and also sensitive, intelligent, and active in causes that she supports? Or should she pick the scrawny, average-looking, failed-musician English major with no career prospects?

It’s a bit of a puzzle when you put it that way, so I asked Pat directly why she picked me. She said Robert Redford wasn’t available.

So much for the research. Don’t believe everything you read.

Our wireless carrier – Alltel – was bought out by AT&T some months ago and we have been waiting – patiently or not – for the conversion to the new system. This was not a change that we asked for, nor is it one that we had much of a choice to reject. Alltel will be history in Montana, so change was the order of the day. The same thing happened a little over a year ago when Alltel bought out the Qwest franchise and we went through the transfer between companies. NBD. Been there, done that. None the worse for wear. Should be a cakewalk…

Since late last year we have received URGENT!!! messages alerting us to the forthcoming change. Oh, Joy!!!! In January we were commanded to choose NEW PHONES – because our present models would not work on the NEW NETWORK. Wahoo – new phones!!! Early in February, AT&T billed us for our new phones and finally some three weeks later sent us the promised SMART PHONES. Cool new phones – yay!!! Which don’t work yet, because the network conversion won’t happen for another month or so. So I have a really fancy inactive iPhone sitting in a cute little box, nestled between the stacks of crap on my desk gathering dust bunnies. Bummer.

Today in the mail we received another URGENT! message telling us about the billing policy of our NEW CARRIER. Lo, and behold! In addition to the monthly plan and data service charges, the taxes, fees, and not to mention, miscellaneous assessments for which we will be billed IN ADVANCE!!!, we will also be expected to pay – wait for it – an ACTIVATION FEE for each line.

I’ve looked over all those URGENT messages and the receipt from my order showing the plan I signed up for and the associated charges and nowhere on any of the information I’ve received before today is there any mention about any ACTIVATION FEES. And pretty healthy ACTIVATION FEES they are, too. I have been assured by a perky little service rep that, indeed, I had been advised of such charges. Sometime. Right. I must have missed the FINE PRINT in that URGENT MESSAGE! My bad.

Now I suppose – since we are talking about an unregulated utility there isn’t much of anything I can do except pay the ACTIVATION FEES. But it seems to me strange that – in a competitive marketplace – a provider would start a new relationship with a customer by MUGGING them.

Who says MaBell is dead?

In what has to come as a shock to most of the world, Denny Rehberg came out and announced his endorsement of Steve Daines to fill the seat he’s leaving open to run for the Senate:

BOZEMAN, Mont.__Congressman Denny Rehberg announced today his support for Steve Daines to replace him in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“I’ve worked with Steve for years and know he has the business experience and Montana values we need in Congress,” Congressman Rehberg said.

“I’m grateful to have the support of Denny Rehberg,” Daines said. “I look forward to joining Denny in Washington and helping him in his fight to repeal Obamacare, rein in out of control government spending and restore prosperity and opportunity to Montana and our nation.”

Personally, I think this announcement is overdue by about 30 days – and should have included a profound and sincere thank you to Steve for being a true statesman and gentleman who put the needs of Montana and her citizens ahead of his own preferences.

Steve Daines is exactly the type of person we need to represent us in Washington – a smart, principled man, a class act with a true servant’s heart. Fortunately, thousands of Montanans beat Denny to the punch and have already endorsed Steve Daines for Congress. That’s the really great news. If you aren’t one of them yet, learn more about why Steve is an excellent choice for Montana and America by visiting his website.

Since the early days of his administration, Gov. Brian Schweitzer has repeatedly denounced and demeaned the Legislative branch of state government at every opportunity. And, for a guy who loves to hear himself pontificate to the press, he’s never been at a loss for opportunities. While many have chalked this up to partisan politics and/or to the gov’s bombastic personality, it may be time to cast a more critical eye on not just the attacks, but the effects of those attacks on the Treasure State.

From the early days in the 2005 session where witnesses still shake their heads when they recall his famous “silver bullet” tantrum and the scars from the Kitzenberg conspiracy are still visible, to the blatant hypocrisy of Schweitzer’s recent condemnation of bills that he termed unconstitutional attempts at nullification coming on the heels of his own threats to ignore the mandates of the REAL ID Act, the Medicaid drug purchasing requirements, as well as the Endangered Species Act, Montana may be enduring more than a flamboyant gasbag. Brian Schweitzer may be a far more destructive force than anybody realized. And the effects may be felt around here for years to come.

For the last six years, Montana’s governor has carried on a concerted assault against the legislature on every front open to him. Some of his attacks have been just this side of libelous – calling legislators “the biggest bunch of boozers” (ignoring his own well-established affinity for a drink or seven)- to a far more insidious stealth campaign undermining the appropriation authority of the legislature. Even his unprecedented, unnecessary and completely unsuccessful lawsuit against the 2009 appropriations bill ended up with the legislature more bloodied than the administration. Montana’s legislature is truly a citizen body. They meet for 90 days every other year and are paid very little for the time and sacrifice that they make to serve. I don’t agree with every bill that’s being debated and I have to admit that some of them seem to be, if not frivolous, at least very unlikely to become law, given that they have to pass two houses and a veto-happy governor. But, IMHO, every single one of these bills has been requested by a duly elected representative of a legally constituted district of this state and therefore is inherently due the respect of a fair hearing and vote as provided by the rules. Whether or not anybody agrees with or likes a particular bill is irrelevant – it deserves its place in the process and if it survives and becomes law, that’s what the system is all about – and screw anybody who has a problem with that! Yet as we have seen year after year, Brian mounts a full-scale attack on individual legislators, and the legislature as a whole, to discredit them and confuse the public about what’s really going on in the law-making body of government.

As we enter the “meaty” part of the 2011 session where appropriations take center stage, the narrative has already been dictated by the Executive Branch – “Montana has a surplus – no need to cut essential services.” Anybody who has paid attention over the last six years knows that this administration has been every bit as fiscally irresponsible as the one in Washington DC. But the governor’s office has played a such a concerted shell game with the budget numbers, especially recently, that many Montanans – and the national media – believe that the state is running in the black, unlike most of the rest of the country. Listening to (or reading, if you have a weak stomach) Judy Woodruff’s lovefest interview of Mitch Daniels and Brian Schweitzer is enough to gag a maggot.

It’s only as a result of financial games that the governor can tout a budget surplus going into the next biennium: Raping and pillaging various “savings accounts” for one-time money to increase the revenue side of the ledger; Using a short-term trend line showing an uptick in state revenues as a guaranteed forecast of revenue growth; Heralding a “4% raise” for state employees that’s structured to minimally impact the biennial budget by having the largest share – 3% – take effect in January 2012 – so only six months of the raise is actually in this budget; and playing other games with the fiscal calendar and major state purchases that will cause humungous headaches for the next administration. (Could this be why there aren’t any credible Democrats willing to enter the race – they know they’ll be walking into a budget ambush worse than anything Custer ever imagined?)

Brian Schweitzer has proven to be a master at defining the debate. His colorful style appeals to a liberal media that wants to appear “fair and balanced” and is a willing accomplice to his “independent” schtick. He knows how to tell people what they want to hear – even if they know better. Despite the recent report from the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities showing Montana as one of 45 states facing a budget shortfall for the 2012 – 2013 biennium, Governor BS continues to claim that our budget is totally balanced. And guess how much the CBPP says expected shortfall is? About $307 million – right in line with what the Legislative Services Division projected.

But you watch – starting next week, the governor will come out at every opportunity to castigate the members of the legislature for every unrelated, irrelevant, and even dead bill in order to change the storyline into one that undermines the legitimacy of the legislature. And that’s not a good thing for the State of Montana, because, while Brian advances his agenda and probably his political career, the people of Montana will be stuck with the tab.

What’s sad is that a big part of the cost will be the credibility of the branch of government that is closest to, and most responsive to, the will of the people. Our elected legislators deserve far more respect and deference from the Administrative branch of state government.

A wise man once said, “The most important leg of a three-legged stool is the one that’s missing.” Governor Schweitzer seems to be dedicating his best efforts to cutting off one of the three legs of state government. I hope the people of Montana are smart enough to take the ax away from him sooner rather than later.

H/T HillBuzz

In solidarity with the teachers in Wisconsin, Montana unions scheduled a rally at the capitol today. SIEU, MEA-MFT and MOP (Montana Organizing Party) have several things planned to dramatize how awful things would be without the vigilance and concern of these dedicated groups. The main event is scheduled to take place at 2 p.m.

In order to assure the largest crowd possible, organizers are planning to bus people in from all over the state: Billings, Bozeman, Missoula, and the Flathead area. Prices for the tickets range from $10 – 20 with lunch included or not, depending.

The kicker? All buses are set to leave by 2 p.m.

Apparently Montana’s Lieutenant Governor has viewed his role as more understudy than gentleman-in-waiting. Rumor has it that instead of solicitously inquiring as to the governor’s health for the next several months, John Bohlinger will be enthusiastically celebrating Governor Schweitzer’s forthcoming demise – gubernatorially speaking of course – by joining the ever-swelling ranks of those seeking to replace his BS-ness.

Okay, that’s not totally unexpected in Montana politics. The second banana wanting to become the top dog is not such a surprising concept – although it is a disconcertingly mixed metaphor. What does inspire the wry smile – not to mention uncontrollable peals of hysterical laughter – is the news that Bohlinger thinks he can be a Republican candidate for the job.

Ummm – John Bohlinger???? The punchline of the joke in the executive branch of Montana government??? Thinks he could win a republican primary????? Obviously he hasn’t been too involved with the Party lately or he’d know that his brand of elite, left-wing pseudo-conservatism is now pretty safely relegated to the outside of the big tent. And his credentials with the party faithful are not exactly unquestioned. The last time he was seen at an actual Republican function he was regarded as somewhere between the dotty old uncle and the guy who threw up in the punch bowl. He was obviously more at home last month at the Planned Parenthood reception and fundraiser.

Too bad he and the governor spent the last seven years touting John’s “Republican” label. There’s actually a lot more room in the Democrat ring – but they really don’t want to claim him either.

John Bohlinger for governor?!?! What a hoot.