Why should we reject the findings of Daniel Erceg-Hurn’s review of the Montana Meth Project? Three reasons, according to the organization that wants to bilk another $2 million from Montanans:
1) He conducted the study in Australia.
Brockman, a Kalispell native who has worked for Montana Meth since the 2007 Legislature, said the effects of the report haven’t been damaging: “Nothing has changed.” Despite the major attention the report has received from media across the world, Brockman is expecting good things at the Legislature.
“The report is from Western Australia,” Brockman said. “We can walk out on Main Street and see the differences here.”
It’s a good point. Math and statistics are no match for anecdotal evidence gleaned by personally invested individuals.
2) His findings are erroneous. Oh, and he is from Australia.
Peg Shea, executive director of MMP, said Erceg-Hurn’s findings are based on selective analysis of statistics. She said the results are “out of context” and “erroneous claims.” Coordinators also point out that Erceg-Hurn wasn’t in Montana during his research.
You’d think Ms. Shea would have come up with something more specific in the last month. What’s wrong with the research, specifically?
3) The Montana Meth Project is already spending its resources so wisely.
A rally will be held at Helena High School, where prizes such as iPods are to be given out. Then the large group, escorted by police with a Blackhawk helicopter circling overhead, will march down the street to the state Capitol. There, the plan is to present stacks of the signed petitions – declarations of support for MMP – to Gov. Schweitzer and lawmakers.
The day’s events will also feature an appearance from a popular Billings radio personality, drummers, fire trucks, live music and a diverse cross-section of young MMP supporters, including a strong showing of American Indians, Shea said.
Inspired by the Village Voices Top 10 Rightblogger Stories of 2008, I humbly offer my assessment of the five worst posts in the world of Montana blogs this year. To all the winners, I offer a hearty congratulations. To those of you not selected, 2008 wasn’t exactly a banner year for conservatives anyway. Better luck next year!
The news is bad for newspapers: ad revenues and readership are falling to dangerous levels, with major companies and newspapers facing significant financial difficulties. Gannett is laying off workers, the Tribune Company is seeking bankruptcy protection, and even our own Lee Enterprises (the 7th largest chain in the country) is seeing its stock plummet, from nearly $16/share to 3 shares/$1, and facing a cascade of debt that calls into question the company’s viability.
Some of these difficulties make sense: print newspapers are dealing with a cultural change in the way that we read and gather news. We’re just surrounded by access to information. When I was young, I remember waking up as early as I could to read the Great Falls Tribune to get the box score of the Padres game the night before, because it was the only place I could get the news in my cable-free house. If the game was on the West Coast, I usually had to wait until the following day. Today, I can’t avoid hearing the score of the game, much as I would like to, given the poor play of the Padres. I can get an update on my cell phone, catch the score on half a dozen cable channels, watch the game on my computer, or TIVO it for later viewing. I control where I get the information, and from whom, just like my news.
To some extent, it appears that small local papers have not adjusted to this sea change. I regularly read 24 hour old AP wire stories about international and national affairs in the Independent Record. These stories don’t offer anything new, and unlike 10 years ago, don’t even inform the average reader, who has already heard the story. By the time the piece reaches a reader in the morning, the story has broken, had 13 new blogs created to discuss it, and been featured in at least a half-dozen YouTube parodies: it’s old news.
The IR seems to have chosen an interesting response to this issue: they’ve essentially given up hard news reporting of local issues. In its place, the paper is filled with human interest stories, press releases, and columnists ruminating on weighty issues like the new Organic Coffee bar in town. I suspect these measures are designed to make producing the newspaper less expensive, but from my point of view, they’ve just made the product cheaper.
Keep Reading
Erik Iverson is proud of his work, as he leaves the Montana Republican Party chair position for some undefined job with Tom Siebel:
Iverson, elected state party chairman in June 2007, said Montana Republicans have made "significant headway" the past 18 months, and he was proud to have been a part of these positive changes.
"Montana Republicans consistently buck national trends, and this year was no exception," Iverson said. "The past election was tough for Republicans all over the country, so it was no small feat to retain our 50 seats in the Montana House and win a majority in the Montana Senate."
Other than losing all five seats on the Land Board (a historic and crushing defeat), being utterly humiliated in the gubernatorial race, running a Socialist as the party’s standard bearer in a Senate race, conducting an incredibly unpopular, undemocratic, and pointless caucus for the Presidential nomination, running a nationally embarrassing disenfranchisement scheme, and watching Montana become a competitive Democratic state in Presidential elections, I’d say Iverson did one heck of a job. In fact, I hate to see him go. He’s done nice work for us.
The Montana Democratic Party has led a huge turnaround in the state in recent years, but they couldn’t have done it without the work of Montana’s Republican Party.
Thanks, guys!
you’d think he might be able to find time to read the Constitution or pardon applications.
Inauguration Day can’t come quickly enough.
