The first story today is about the Great Falls Tribune and their Editorial board who graced the Sunday paper with an editorial about earmarks.
They proudly called their opinion, “Earmarks schmearmarks: Delegation finds a way.”
I don’t think so.
The editorial board also seemed to change their tune and opined that they like to old way it was done. They said, “This system — we hope it isn’t permanent — is what we got when Democrats, flexing their newfound majority muscle in January, self-righteously declared a moratorium on earmarks.”
No matter how it’s sliced, in regards to the 2007 Appropriations from the Federal government, Montana lost big time. I heard or read somewhere that Montana was slated to get about $400 million in FY 2007 appropriations. It looks like Montana will only get about 40% of what was coming. You and I know that money will go somewhere.
From what I have read from state newspapers, the new Democrat majority in Washington cost Billings about $17 million, Bozeman $15 million, Butte $15 million. Great Falls will receive their biggest piece of the pie (Malmstrom housing $140 million), but they lost about $10 million for other projects that the community deemed necessary. Plus, by waiting for so long, a few military families won’t have homes because the cost to build them has risen since they requested the funding.
I imagine some people (Baucus/Tester) who are not on the appropriations committee will try to tack on some funding to the supplemental war funding bill and that’s wrong.
The Tribune Editorial Board ends their editorial by saying, “Congratulations to the delegation and to supporters of all of these projects. Your perseverance has paid off — again.”
Again, I don’t think so.
The second story today deals with a poll that was recently conducted in Iraq by the British Newspaper, The Sunday Times in which they write, “MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today.”
Interesting. I guess it pays to ask those who are living there?
Also, 61% do not believe there is a civil war in Iraq. By a majority of two to one, Iraqis believe military operations now under way will disarm all militias. More than half say security will improve after a withdrawal of multinational forces.
The third story today is to let everyone know that the circus in Helena is still going on. I was able to catch a few minutes of it on TV the other night. I hope this is not seen in other states. It’s just a zoo plain and simple.
Now, the Republicans have extended an olive branch to the Democrats according to this STORY.
Maybe they have decided that a one vote majority does not mean too much and you actually have to work together to get things done. I doubt the Republicans will have to worry about a majority next session.
The Western Word 
Hey Mark,Thanks for another view. So what is the answer in Iraq? Should they divide the country up and establish separate states?
I’ve done a complete breakdown on this survey < HREF="http://insomnia.livejournal.com/737102.html" REL="nofollow">here<>.The Time’s statement that “most Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein” is highly misleading, as they are basing this claim on a question which asks people whether they prefer the previous political system or the current one, and not one which specifically asks whether they believe life is better.There are also many things the poll finds that the Times aren’t reporting on:Amongst other things, the poll says:– 26% of those surveyed nationwide said they’d had a family member or relative killed within the past three years. These numbers are even higher outside of Kurdish territory, where only 5% report losing a family member. – Less than 1/3rd of Iraqis believe that the recent U.S. surge was intended to increase security in Iraq. More Iraqis believe the actual goal is to depose the existing government, establish U.S. control of Iraq, attack Iraq’s neighbors, or to kill and destroy Iraqis.– 53% of Iraqis believe that the security situation will improve in Iraq once Coalition forces withdraw. This percentage increases very significantly if you disregard the Kurdish region of Iraq, where only 15% of the population think that security would improve without Coalition forces.– Only 15% of Kurds approve of the current governmental system. Most want an independent government. Shi’a, however, overwhelmingly support a strong, central government that imposes its will over the rest of the country. This could lead to significant conflicts in the future.Among those with a clear preference, the Sunni in Iraq prefered the political system under Saddam by a nearly 2-1 margin. Over 26% of Iraq’s Shi’a believe that the current political system in Iraq is just as bad or worse than the political system under Saddam.– Approximately 60% of respondents considered themselves unemployed. Those percentages are even higher if you disregard the Kurdish region, where only about 50% were unemployed. These unemployment figures are approximately the same as was seen in the months following the invasion — they have not improved noticeably in years.Lastly, although the survey polled residents in “every one of the eighteen governorates within Iraq”, the choice of places within those governates for their clusters seems skewed. Indeed, it appears that the data gathered in Anbar province, for example, was gathered in the far west of Iraq near Ar Rutbah, with no data from cities such as Fallujah, Ramadi, or Samarra. Much of the Sunni triangle is simply overlooked, even in situations such as Fallujah where there is a strong U.S. pacification presence allowing for surveys.Similar issues could be raised with their Baghdad surveying. Did they go into Sadr City? I suspect not.So, while the poll tries to represent Iraq, there are a lot of questions as to whether it is representative of the true opinions of Iraqis.