Comments, fair and balanced (both riff and raff welcome)

An editorial decision, for better or for worse, was made at the birth of Montana Headlines not to allow comments. The reasoning was simple: if Montana Headlines is going to make bold to critique the Montana media, the critiques had better be reasonably thought out. David Crisp’s reluctance to “trust sloppy writers to have straight facts” is a sentiment shared around here.

Step two in the logic process was that responding to comments takes up precious blogging minutes (you know, those stolen moments when one isn’t earning a living, spending time with loved ones, sleeping, or knitting.) The writer of a post might respond to comments, using up time that would otherwise have been spent on the purpose of the blog.

Various readers have mused that the no-comment policy at Montana Headlines is perhaps an example of conservatives not being open-minded. It is a valid criticism, albeit one that Montana Headlines was prepared to accept for the sake of concentrating on the posts themselves.

It seems, though, that having a blog and not allowing any comments is poor internet manners (SORT OF LIKE SHOUTING). Until someone politely points out the faux pas, though, bad manners can go uncorrected.

Ed Kemmick, in his recent kind mention of this blog, did just that, for which thanks are in order.

So this blog is now open for comments on a trial basis, with "riff and/or raff" welcome. Things will get re-evaluated in roughly a month regarding whether the initial instinct was actually the right one after all.

One caveat: if a comment is one which, if spoken, would gain an invitation to exit a polite social gathering hosted by a Montana Headlines grandmother, it will vanish into the ether of the net.

On an unrelated note, some readers have pointed out that Montana Headlines hasn’t sufficiently delivered on its promise to critique the Gazette's fairness. The original plan was to post only occasionally, when a Gazette headline or editorial (i.e. the parts that are nearly as anonymously written as is Montana Headlines) seemed particularly unfair, leaving no choice but either to throw the paper at one’s guiltless dog… or to blog.

But since the never-ending circus of Montana politics has caused posting to be daily, referencing virtually every major newspaper in Montana as well as a number of national publications, Gazette-bias posts have been the exception rather than the rule.

A more accurate subheading for the blog’s title and a more telling description is being considered, but as is well-known, change is painful for conservatives. On the other hand, to paraphrase that ur-conservative Edmund Burke, a blog without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation. So look for further micro-evolution on this site.

Oh, those golden paychecks...

The AP tells us that Angry Republicans Block Congressional Pay Raise. (The article was in the Billings Gazette, but apparently isn't yet on the website.)

Technically, it's a cost of living allowance (COLA) -- something pretty standard for government employees and fairly common in the private sector as well. As Denny Rehberg's sleeping in his office indicates, $165,200 a year is none too much, given the cost of living in the D.C. area. Fortunately, Millionaires populate the U.S. Senate. For the record, as of 2003, 8 of the top 10 richest U.S. Senators were Democrats. And as of 2004, more than a quarter of the House members had reported incomes of more than $1 million a year. None of these people are going to be anxiously awaiting their paycheck in order to pay the rent.

The old gentleman's agreement to allow a yearly 1.7% COLA, with equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans to block any attempt to stop it, was probably a good one -- that is, if one believes that the Congress should not become any more of a millionaires' club than it already is. As Trent Lott commented, "it's very easy for the multimillionaires ... to demagogue this issue."

But Republicans were right to block this year's COLA, because Democrats broke the agreement not to camapaign on the issue of Congressional pay raises, with the DCCC running ads criticizing Republicans for voting for a COLA.

We know this right here in Montana. Through the beauties of a Google cache, this is from Jon Tester's campaign Website:

Conrad Burns Voted To Raise His Pay At Least Four Times. Conrad Burns voted to raise his own pay at least four times. He now makes $165,000 a year. [HR 2989, Vote #406, 10/23/03; Washington Post, 10/24/03; HR 5005, Vote #242, 11/13/02; AP, 11/13/02; HR 3338, Vote #360, 12/7/01; AP, 12/7/01; HR 2506, Vote #133, 7/17/91; UPI, 7/17/91; United States Senate Web Site]

Further ads in maildrops compared this salary to that of the average Montanan.

Yet before the end of November, reality had sunk in for Tester, and he was commenting to the press about the cost of trying to travel back and forth to Washington with his wife, saying that it was "going to be difficult financially."

Just think how much more difficult it would be if Tester did the honest thing and gave back the part of his Senate salary made possible by those 4 pay raises.