Water, Water Everywhere...But Not a Drop to Print

The Scoop has a question that has been playing on me like Chinese water torture:

How the heck do they measure the precipitation levels printed every day in the Missoulian?

Is it as simple as putting out a container and measuring the number of inches, or fractions thereof, every day?

Or, is some other sophisticated tool involved?

I really, really want to know. Seriously, because my simple method for measuring shows very different results than the paper…and I only live about a mile from the airport, the location where the National Weather Service collects local samples.

As of today, the Missoulian lists that we have received only 2.58” of precipitation since the beginning of the month, and only 6.77" since the beginning of the year.

But hasn't this been a year of record snow?

Or is it as the paper prints, and we are actually BELOW AVERAGE for precipitation when compared to normal?

In the same newspaper issue, stream levels are up 20-40%. When last reported, snow pack was up to 120-160% of normal in all Western Montana ranges.

This year, I had to shovel my driveway more times than I can easily remember. Certainly we had to have more than 4.19 inches of moisture from Jan 1 to May 31? Didn't we get almost two feet in just one snowfall?

Or could it be that the airport is situated in the only arid, micro-desert in Western Montana?

Since all forms of physical evidence seemed to contradict the official reports, I did what any self-respecting reporter would do.

I went UNDERCOVER!

Or undercover, undercover, as I was already undercover as the Scoop. You could say it was a deep cover, so secret that not even Mr. Googles knew what I was up to. At times, I wasn't even sure what I was doing!

Ok, you get the idea.

So what did I discover? Something so weird it makes the Dharma Initiative look normal.

Over a three day period earlier this month (June 9, 10 and 11), I measured precipitation, as collected in a glass and/or rain gauge, on my back deck. All were containers empty when I started measuring. A different container was used for each day. These containers are pictured above (the glass pictured is exactly three and one-half inches deep).

After three days I measured six and one half inches of rain - more than double what the paper reported for this month, and close to what they report for THE ENTIRE YEAR. And this was only for a three day period.

Unfortunately, I had to stop measuring because my wife was sick of all of our glassware being on the back deck. My cover was shot!

So, my question is simple.

What am I doing wrong...

...or could it be that someone else has a thumb over their rain gauge?

A Day (in the Flathead) to Remember

If today was any indication, we may be entering one of the nicest summers in recent history, with the heavy snows and wet spring expected to extend the green season beyond the beginning of July.

To experience some of this beauty, the Family Scoop traveled north to the Flathead valley, for a picnic, swim and day of early summer adventure.

Here is our (abbreviated) photo journal.

Near St. Ignatius - still fun to see this much snow in the Mission Mountains for this time of year. Photo taken from the new turnoff at the top of the Ravalli hill.

A beautiful day at the lake - warm, clear and sunny. You can almost see all the way to Big Mountain...err... I mean the "Resort at Whitefish something or other". Whatever. This picture is from just outside Polson looking north and snapped at the vantage point just off the highway. (Thus ends our tour of western Montana highway vantage points).

A farmer just outside Polson collecting bales (or doing something...not totally sure.) This is the farm just adjacent to the new sub-division near the recently remodeled Safeway at the junction of Highway 93 and the East Shore Route (as the old timers call it). Maybe he is racing to the bank?

There were lots of boats on the lake today - similar to the number you would see around the 4th of July weekend. People must be getting an early start this year, especially now that the lake is finally up to full level. I guess gasoline prices haven't kept everbody from summer recreation. This picture is taken from the East Shore looking towards Bird Island, located at the northern tip of Finley Point.

Not sure if you will be able to see this, but the air was filled with cotton from the Cottonwood trees that line the lake. The little white flecks are pieces of flying cotton. Mr. Googles thought it was snowing. Of course...

...you can't blame the little guy, as this was what it was doing at our house just a short two and a half weeks ago. Mr. Googles, and the whole Family Scoop, hopes you got to enjoy the nice weather and beautiful outdoors today as well.

McCain Clear Pick on Energy for Mainstream Montanans

When it comes to energy policy, Montanans have a clear choice this election– back the presidential candidate who has a sensible and forwarding looking plan that will secure our energy independence and unleash an era of economic prosperity for our state, or back a candidate that is a solid supporter of the radical environmental movement that has resulted in our dependency on Middle East oil and the disappearance of many once high paying jobs in our state.

Montana, and the country, need a pragmatic, balanced and noble energy policy that acknowledges that fuel technologies like clean coal, oil and nuclear can be done safely, efficiently and cheaply.

The irony? John McCain represents this pragmatic change while Barrack Obama and the “new politics of change” offer just the opposite - a retreat to a Carteresque approach that is ill-informed, misguided and dangerous. Last time we tried this we were all waiting in line for gas…or at least Momma Scoop was.

This week, McCain boldly outlined an energy plan for the next twenty years – one that will focus on proven domestic solutions (like oil, clean coal and nuclear) while blending in a strong mix of alternative energies like solar, wind and alternative fuels. Meanwhile, Obama can’t wrestle himself free of the liberal-progressive interest groups that have a stranglehold on energy policy reform.

The only word from the Obama camp on his plan?

“No”… on anything and everything related to fossil fuels. No exceptions. Obama’s lack of action means he will continue the current stalemate that has lead to ever increasing gas and fuel prices. Somehow he thinks this type of bullheaded leadership is a break from the Bush years.

It seems that the best response Obama can muster is that drilling for oil off the coast of Florida and California will not produce oil for at least five to ten years.

So instead, Obama bets the farm on solutions that are twenty to fifty years away from having any real ability to replace fossil fuels, if ever. And his near-term plan? Tax the hell out of oil company profits, slap other corporations and individuals with a carbon tax, and completely ignore ways to make our current solutions cleaner and greener.

All he has to do now is give a little speech about our own malaise and the formula will be complete.

So why is Obama doing this? The only entity to gain from his approach is the federal government, which will become the new central force in the energy economy, doling out resources and penalties according to their political philosophy and agenda. The Democrats have been wanting to do this for years, admitting in private that Carter was only missing a better marketing plan. This policy fits into the master plan - build government and you build a solid democrat majority.

McCain is comparing his visionary plan to the challenge President Kennedy gave our nation to send a man to the moon, which is a just comparison for this equally noble mission. According to his plan, it will take at least that amount of effort and focus to slowly when ourselves off foreign oil totally by 2025.


McCain rightly understands that developing a long-term energy policy that keeps our country secure while leading us into a future of new, cleaner fuels is the defining issue of our times.

Montanans are beginning to understand that our past policies have not only been bad for the country, but limiting to the prosperity of our state.

That’s one reason why we should support McCain in 2008.

To learn more about the McCain energy plan, visit the Lexington Project.

Or watch highlights of the McCain Energy Security speech...

"In recent days I have set before the American people an energy plan, the Lexington Project -- named for the town where Americans asserted their independence once before. And let it begin today with this commitment: In a world of hostile and unstable suppliers of oil, this nation will achieve strategic independence by 2025."

- John McCain, June 25, 2008

Mini-Meal Me? Man Loses 86 Pounds Eating at McDonald's

Like many, the Scoop got a little pale after reading 2001's anti-fast food tome Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser. You may remember the media storm it created, spawning the documentary "Super-Size Me" where the the maker decided to see what would happen if he ate every meal at McDonalds for a month.

As if nobody new what the result would be.

So it was to much media surprise that, after just a short thirty days, the subject gained 24.5 lb (11.1 kg), a 13% body mass increase, and his Body Mass Index rose from 23.2 (within the 'healthy' range of 19-25) to 27 ('overweight'). He experienced mood swings, sexual dysfunction, and liver damage!

Not surprisingly, there was nary a mention that previously the subject was a strict vegan.

It also took the subject fourteen months to lose the weight he gained and at least as long for the media to pass this story.

But, outside of some insights on nutritional standards and food processing, these works were mostly left-wing propaganda aimed squarely at corporate America.

It was that so familiar liberal theme: the <insert industry name> is secretly and intricately designed to take advantage of kids, parents and low-income folks for a profit.

These helpless folks completely lose their minds when exposed to the sophisticated marketing machine that is McDonald's: parents can't resist the oasis that is the indoor playground, kids succumb to Ronald McDonald and his merry friends, and the low income are immune to the 24-hour attraction of the 99 cent menu. We uncontrollably pilot ourselves to these alters of over consumption and order a double cheese burger with blue-cheese crumble, bacon and barbecue sauce...all unaware this is a poor food choice.

My main criticism of the book? It overlooks the number one underlying issue that casuses the problem. PEOPLE NEED TO MAKE BETTER DECISIONS THEMSELVES, not the government. Chapters dedicated to this topic: zero.

Regardless of what the authors say, the Scoop is not immune to the nefarious advances of Grimace and the Hamburglar, and neither are you.

I do have to credit these authors for helping educate America about the health impacts of low-nutrition, crap-filled food. The resulting public outcry has led to what legislation cannot - the addition of healthy options to the menus of these restaurants because of the newly informed action of consumers.

So the Scoop was not at all surprised to see a news segment from today also reveals the false stunt behind "Super-Size Me". Apparently, a man looking to lose weight has lost 86 pounds eating at McDonald's since December.

His recipe for success: he chose healthy options like apples over Big Macs.

How did he fight off the Big Mac Attack? By having a desire to improve his situation and an informed plan on how to make this happen. (Now that is a book I would be willing to read!)

This is a simple approach that has provided much for our country, and one we need to remember entering this election cycle.

Let's not make personal responsbility, and the freedom it affords, another victim of the "new" politics.

Have You Been Blacklisted?

Over the last two years, as climate change advocates have watched their poorly fortified arguments collapse into the rising tide of general awareness, many moderately minded people still postulate on the fence with this familiar sounding argument:

“Even though we know that most man-made solutions will have little effect on reversing global warming, what’s the harm in implementing some of these solutions?

At worst, these actions would be an insurance policy against the very small likelihood that these apocalyptic fantasies are possible.”

If this is you, mark your calendar, for today is the day this once pragmatic argument unquestionably tumbled into the sea.

In a radical speech to the National Press Club in Washington, Dr. James Hansen, a rouge NASA scientist and leader of the global warming movement, called for the heads of the world’s largest oil companies to be put on trial in a global tribunal.

“CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of the long-term consequences of continued business as usual," said Hansen.

"In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature."

While this sounds utterly fantastical, I am not making this up. He actually said this. In front of a really big audience…with television cameras…from networks other than PBS and MSNBC. In a few days, we'll probably find out this guy roomed with Obama at Harvard.

So, in case you need someone to spell it out for you, the reason we shouldn’t let unproven opinions and emotional arguments guide our decision making is because, once down this path, the burden of proof becomes too easy a causality. We don’t need to look any further than the stories of the vigilantes or McCarthyism to understand the importance of having a fair trial based on the facts.

Under this line of thinking, anybody who buys or uses oil, gasoline or diesel could be an accessory to a crime…an amazing statement coming from someone who has chosen to associate themselves with such a clean and green organization as NASA.

Apparently, nobody told Dr. Hansen that the carbon footprint needed to design, build and launch the space shuttle is slightly more than zero (especially if you take into consideration the 835,000 gallons of liquid propellant used to place it in orbit). Even nasa.gov doesn’t hide the fact that the Space Shuttle and Titan rocket programs account for a quarter percent of man-made carbon emissions per year. This is almost equivilent to Al Gore's house!

So what has made Dr. Hansen the unbiased arbitrator of humanity rather than a co-conspirator in the cold-blooded murder of nature?

Could it be that he has active political ties to both Al Gore and John Kerry? Could it be that he has received over a million dollars in grants from the Heinz Foundation and the Open Society Institute, a political organization funded by George Soros? Could it be that he is protected by governmental employment practices that abdicates accountability?

Or, maybe it is because mainstream Americans haven’t paid close enough attention.

Sadly, the Scoop thinks it is the latter.

Are you guilty?

Why Obama Misses the Mark on Free Trade…Again

It seems that very little has changed with the lefty blogs during my winter slumber. As Budge and Wiley were quick to note earlier today, Anna at LITW posted what might go down in history as one of the most unreflective commentaries since the creation of that site, which is really quite an accomplishment, just given the sheer volume of material from which to choose.

At issue, was her statement that Obama’s recent flip-flop on NAFTA was a refreshing “level of self reflection unusual among most of the politicians I've known.”

A funny post? Absolutely. Politics as usual? Bulls eye. Does Anna need to cut the umbilical cord? I hope for her sake her therapist is working on this one.

But a surprising post given the analytical skills of the site in question? Not so much.

More surprisingly, nestled in the article was something very revealing about Obama. Not only was his original rhetoric on NAFTA out-of-step with mainstream American values, so was the flip-flop.

After calling NAFTA “devastating” and “a big mistake” that requires immediate unilateral renegotiation, Obama re-nuisanced his position. He now believes in "opening up a dialogue" with trading partners Canada and Mexico "and figuring to how we can make this work for all people."

So what has Obama missed?

Only the whole economic point of free-trade.

Like freedom, free-trade benefits all parties. There is no figuring out how to make it work for all people…it already does.

As the Fortune reporter astutely points out, non-partisan studies show that free-trade has a mild positive effect on the entire economy. In the U.S.,for every $143.3billion in jobs and capital that shift outside the country under a free trade agreement, $170 billion returns in spending on U.S. exports. This is a net positive of 26.7 billion annually and an almost 19% return.

What Obama doesn’t like is that free trade doesn’t impact people equally. Or, probably more accurately, his boys aren't getting what they think is a fair share of the pie. So to deal with that unequal outcome, Obama wants the government to re-cut the pie, even after government takes its share of the increased taxes generated on the trade.

So, what threatens free trade? The same things that threaten your individual freedom. Just like free speech, free trade is another reflection of our ability to interact with whom we choose as long as our speech does not infringe on the rights of others -- no harm, no foul. The same should be said for free trade.

The real threat to our freedom comes in the form of nanny-state legislators like Obama that feel their elite status provides them judgement that should replace that of everyday Americans. Quite simply, he feels he can make better decisions about you than you.

This doesn’t mean the Scoop supports zero regulation to free trade, but common-sense regulations can happen without redrawing the entire economic argument, and thus neutering the result.

For example, regulation is necessary to safeguard shared resources like the environment. Government can also help play a role in providing a safety net to workers who may be temporarily displaced, including unemployment, retraining and job replacement support (But, it should not be a program to award benefits as if certain Americans are entitled to any type of job.) Some regulation needs to protect industry and technology that are essential to our national security.

And, it doesn't take a genius to see that some international trade organizations are given powers that undermine our national sovereignty, and thus our individual liberty. (This is about the only thing Ron Paul has right about free trade, having chosen to jump head first into the isolationist bunker with Obama and Pat Buchanan.)

But this is not what Obama is talking about. He is just finding a new way to sell an old concept for redistribution of wealth, and in the end, saying nothing new at all.

No wonder the Clinton folks were worried this guy would take a pounding.

It really is refreshing, isn't it?

Obama Lags, Targets Montana

Recent polls show that the Obama campaign continues to defy campaign traditions - this time forgoing the traditional bounce that a candidate receives after besting the primary field!

Political observers are starting to ask: "Why hasn't Obama opened up a bigger lead?"... especially at a time when he should be at the top of his game.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll shows Obama, D-Ill., leading McCain, R-Ariz., by a margin of 48 percent to 42 percent.

It is a surprisingly small lead considering that the incumbent Republican president George Bush is at record lows and public opinion overwhelmingly feels the country is on the "wrong track".

Adding to that deflating feeling previous known as Obama-mania, the Real Clear Politics national poll average shows Obama clinging to a scanty 4.0 point lead, with Obama at 46.3 and McCain at 42.3. (Nothing like dancing along the margin of error to produce a feeling of comfort.)

But, normal politics this season is not. All but abandoning a 50-state strategy outlined weeks before, Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe has declared a new unconventional strategy that includes targeting Montana.

"You have a lot of ways to get to 270," Plouffe said. "Our goal is not to be reliant on one state on November 4th."

Plouffe and his aides are weighing where to contest, and where chances are too slim to marshal a large effort. A win in Virginia (13 electoral votes) or Georgia (15 votes) could give Obama a shot if he, like Kerry, loses Ohio or Florida.

Plouffe also has been touting Obama's appeal in once Republican-leaning states where Democrats have made gains in recent gubernatorial and congressional races, such as Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Montana, Alaska and North Dakota.

The last poll conducted in Montana had McCain up by 8 points...at a time where McCain was not at his strongest, and right as Obama was spending a record amount on state-wide television advertising. Of course, that has not stopped the national press from buzzing about a Democrat hostile take-over.

While the Scoop applauds Plouffe for thinking outside traditional boundaries, the idea of Obama winning Montana seems distant, if not totally implausible.

This is especially true if Obama's strategy rests solely on confusing people about his position as an advocate of gun control and as a panderer to the hard-working Montana farming community with overblown big-government solutions to a wide-range of problems that do not exist.

Even Time Magazine, in their over-the-top leg-humping article of last year on western Democrats noted that Hillary and Obama defy the mold of the libertarian, plainspoken type that have recently won in the Rocky Mountain West.

In fact, the real flaw in the Rocky Mountain Blue electoral fantasies is that the Democrats' leading candidates, especially the junior Senator from New York, elicit groans in the Rockies.

"I just don't get this Obama thing, either," says Orbanek, the Grand Junction newspaper publisher.

New Mexico's popular Latino Governor Bill Richardson will probably try in 2008, but Richardson has spent most of his career in Washington and sometimes tries a bit too hard at playing the Western card: his cowboy boots are ostrich skin, which is permissible but fancy. Richardson certainly can't compete with Republicans John McCain or Mitt Romney, either of whom would easily sweep the region.

Of course, this clear thinking was before Obama-mania set in.

Maybe Boise native Jim Messina (hey...I thought this guy was from Montana?) can give him a clue. Or, better yet, maybe they will target Idaho.

I haven't seen this much nonsense since working in Silicon Valley in the early 90's and overhearing a group of prominent business leaders declare an end to the old rules of corporate valuation.

I think they said it was all about momentum rather than results.

The Scoop thinks this election will be about issues...and who has a proven record of reform. This, at least, is what we'll be talking about at here.