Kudos to Gazette reporter Ed Kemmick for an excellent set of stories about the Montana Meth Project in the Billings Gazette today.

In the stories, Kemmick does what should have been done in the past few years: critically examine the results of the Montana Meth Project, listening to and writing about the perspectives of both those who believe the Project is working and those who are skeptical.

I urge readers who have only heard one side of the debate to read the two pieces.

A couple of political notes rose from the piece as well.

I’m thankful that Montanans had the good sense to re-elect Governor Schweitzer this fall, because his pragmatic approach to state budgeting was clearly demonstrated in his decision to reduce state funding for the MMP:

"I’m a scientist, and I understand statistics and I understand studies," he said. Erceg-Hurn examined the Meth Project’s own reports and saw that "they weren’t laying their own data out," Schweitzer said, and it should have responded to his findings.

"I saw some quotes from Montana Meth Project people saying, ‘he doesn’t know what he’s talking about because he’s not from Montana.’ That was disappointing," Schweitzer added.

Contrasting Schweitzer’s approach with that of Mike McGrath illustrates the difference between a political figure driven by results and one driven by perception.

I always had a relatively positive impression about Mike McGrath while he served as County Attorney and Attorney General, despite some discomfort about the Barry Beach case, but it’s hard to feel terribly reassured when the state’s former Attorney General and current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court uses reasoning like this:

McGrath, who is still on the Montana Meth Project board, said he didn’t read Erceg-Hurn’s study. "I didn’t really feel I needed to," he said, calling Erceg-Hurn "just a guy from Australia."

That’s just incredibly disappointing.

I’m never going to enjoy a Toby Keith song about America, nor demand that my neighbors "love or leave" this country. It’s unlikely that I will ever refer to an American media outlet as traitorous, or demand that we build a fenced wall between the United States and Mexico. I don’t believe that, this, or any country has been chosen by a higher power to lead the world, and I don’t believe that the United Nations is a global plot to strip the U.S. of its sovereignty. I do, however, love the United States.

I love America for what it aspires to be, and what is has the potential to become. The foundation of what this nation celebrates today, the Declaration of Independence, was more than a statement of revolution; it was a statement that governments exist to secure the rights of their citizens, and not to enrich and empower the few. That aspiration has been an inspiration for countless people, revolutionaries and dreamers, and a model for governments around the world for over 200 years.

I love America for its incredible diversity, for its commitment to the idea that our unmatched military might should be used for good, not dominance, its belief that every man and woman should have the opportunity to achieve his/her dreams, and its incredible optimism. I love America for its sense of community, its belief in civil rights and equality, and its capacity to be united.

And yet, we fall so short of some of those aspirations. Our government, like any human institution, often falls short of the aspirations that guide it, and sometimes even deliberately does wrong. With all of our power and all of our wealth, we sometimes fail to do what is in the best interest of the world, or even our own citizens. As someone who loves his country, I cannot be silent when  I believe we are on the wrong course. I cannot acquiesce when the government oversteps its power, or when it ignores its responsibility to the people it serves.

Liberal criticism of our nation’s policies is often mistaken or mischaracterized by the Right as hatred of America, or a desire to leave. Nothing could be further from the truth. We criticize the government because we believe it can be better, do more, and infringe less. Blind devotion to one’s country is not patriotism; it is nothing more than subservience that Jefferson would have despised.

The celebration of our independence isn’t limited to one side of the political spectrum. Patriotism isn’t about whose flag is flown higher or whose lapel pin is shinier; it’s about working together to make our nation what Jefferson and the other founders hoped it could be, an inspiration for the rest of the world:

The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it, and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

Have a wonderful Fourth.

No. I will never refer to anything as a tweet.

Anyway, Rehberg’s post:

This crazy:

Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska announced Thursday that she would step down by the end of the month and not seek a second term as governor, allowing her to seek the Republican nomination for president in 2012.

Ms. Palin, who was Senator John McCain’s vice presidential running mate in last year’s election and rallied the party’s conservative base, explained her decision at a news conference at her home in Wasilla, accompanied by her husband, Todd, and other family members.

“We know we can effect positive change outside of government,” she said in making the announcement.

Well, the country is in desperate need of another right wing keynote speaker. If that won’t fix the economy, then what will?

Of course, only someone with Palin’s unique sense of what it means to tell the truth could tell people in 2009 that she wants make change “outside of government” and then announce a bit for President in 2010.

It’s excellent news that the Montana Youth Risk Behavior Survey shows a decline in the use of meth in Montana. What’s less outstanding is the coverage that the Billings Gazette (and presumably other Lee Newspapers) chose to give the story:

The 2009 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, a national survey designed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and administered to students in grades eight, 10 and 12, shows that 3.1 percent of Montana students reported having used meth at least once during their lives.

That is down from 4.6 percent in 2007 and 8.3 percent in 2005.

Montana Meth Project Chairman Mike Gulledge, publisher of The Billings Gazette, said the 63 percent drop in teen meth use since 2005, the year the Meth Project started, is further evidence that the multimillion-dollar ad campaign is having an effect in the state.

"The program has exceeded all expectations, and I commend the people of the state of Montana for making it possible," he said.

Once again, the possibility that something other than the Montana Meth Proect could be responsible for the decline was ignored and the Gazette chose to run another press release, rather than a news story. There’s one critical fact that the story leaves out: meth use is declining rapidly all over the country, even in states that do not have the Montana Meth Project running ads. From the results of the 2007 YBS:

Correlation is not causation. The fact that meth use declined while the Montana Meth Project was running ads certainly doesn’t prove that the MMP caused that decline. In fact, given the national trend downward, it seems much more likely that something else (like increased law enforcement effort and federal law) is much more deserving of the credit.

While the Gazette did at least mention that Mike Gulledge is the publisher of the paper this time, it didn’t stop “Gazette Staff” from acting like a cheerleader, rather than a reporter.

Just as I had been thinking that the Democratic primary had been quiet on the issues front, I read that Dennis McDonald issued a press release advocating a single-payer health plan:

According to McDonald, “Families in Montana are struggling, and right now we have the chance to seize on health care reform that will ensure everyone has access to the medical care they deserve. The rumors that we cannot afford a single payer plan are false, rather, what we cannot afford is further delay.”

Remember The Hardliner? A blog that is so transparently a GOP astroturf operation that it resorted to manufacturing comments to make it appear like it had a vibrant community reading it? And then banning my IP from the site when I called them out on it?

Well, they are back to their old tricks. Yesterday, they breathlessly posted that “Tantalizing accusations abound in the comment section of this story published yesterday in the Billings Gazette,” referencing a comment that claimed that Senator Baucus had not only had an affair, but had also found a job for the woman.

Let’s see if I have this straight. The Hardliner, a faux grassroots Republican site written by a pseudonym, ran with a claim written by another pseudonym on an anonymous comment on the Billings Gazette. That certainly seems credible, doesn’t it?

I understand why Republicans would be desperate to turn the talk away from the fact that their party of professed piety is packed with philanderers, but using an anonymous comment as justification for a sock puppet site to make claims about Senator Baucus’s marriage is just pathetic.

The party of no ideas in Montana seems headed towards being the party of no ethics. How about fighting health care on its merits, instead of anonymously slinging mud?

Justice Thomas and his supporters like to repeat that they, and not liberals, uphold the original intent of the Constitution. In their worldview, any expansion (or even protection) of civil liberties goes beyond the vision of the founders. I wonder how these “originalists” can even pretend that Justice Thomas has the read the Constitution or the documents that preceded it, given his rationale for voting to allow a school district to strip search a 13 year old girl:

Justice Clarence Thomas, while agreeing that the school officials should have qualified immunity, dissented on the matter of the strip search, writing in his opinion that the decision “grants judges sweeping authority to second-guess the measures that these officials take to maintain discipline in their schools and ensure the health and safety of the students in their charge.” 

Thomas stated that searching Redding’s underwear was not a violation of the Constitution’s privacy protection because “school officials searched in a location where the pills could have been hidden.” 

Perhaps it’s just me, but wouldn’t the British governors and Europeans monarchs in general have justified searches of their subjects on exactly the same grounds? The 4th Amendment was a response to precisely this kind of heavy-handed intrusion into the lives of citizens.

An original interpreter of the intent of the Constitution? I think not, Justice Thomas.

Fortunately, the rest of the court (even Scalia) had the good sense to rule that the school’s actions were illegal.

Matt already mentioned Bozeman’s insane policy requiring potential job applicants to hand over their login names (and passwords!) for all web sites they belong to, but I thought I would take a look at the requirement and the city’s response.

Reading the form is bizarre.

What struck me, beyond the incredibly broad nature of the request, was its awkward working. Why does the first paragraph end with the ungrammatical and incorrect phrase “employment with Company.”?

It looks like the legal language vetted by the City Attorney is nothing more than a legal document template that someone forgot to edit completely. That’s certainly a reassuring detail about the legal thoughtfulness that went into approving this document.

What legal scholar approved the city asking for clearly private information? Constitutional scholar and City Attorney Greg Sullivan, who offered this defense:

"So, we have positions ranging from fire and police, which require people of high integrity for those positions, all the way down to the lifeguards and the folks that work in city hall here. So we do those types of investigations to make sure the people that we hire have the highest moral character and are a good fit for the City," Sullivan said.

It seems to me that neither a government agency nor a private employer have any business investigating an applicant’s “moral character” or determining anyone’s suitability for employment based on their choice of a MySpace background or religious views. While city officials are “looking into the legality” of the requirement, it’ s evident that the condition for employment will not stand legal scrutiny for a moment.

Until then, because of my concerns about his moral character, I’d like to see Mr. Sullivan list every web site he has a membership to, along with his username.

I’ll start with one he should look into.