A Chicken Is Not Pillage

Somebody *MUST* Be Blamed For His Failures

It seems that the Lie Monkey, Roger Koopman, has found a new scapegoat for his ineffective tenure in the Montana House.  This time it's the Governor and the Department of Transportation.  Roger had hisself a letter that appeared in the Gazette today, and no doubts will grace the Comical very soon as well.  In that letter, he posts grave charges that the Governor and his cronies in the MT. DOT have made Montana's highways a kill zone ... or at least they are bad for not having done what they couldn't do, and pass legislation to fix the problem.

Notice, this is the same Roger Koopman who took credit while campaigning against John Vincent for having single-handedly made MT. Highway 191 a safer drive.  (Hint, it doesn't appear to be any safer, and the MT DOT are struggling to do something about what Roger supposedly already fixed.)  This is the same Lie Monkey who took useless Johnny Sinrud to task because Sinrud single-handedly killed Roger's pet highway safety bill.  (I guess Sinrud isn't useless after all.) 

But no, the lie has now changed, and it was the Governor who killed Koopman's expensive, tax-and-spend ill-conceived bill.

Considering our "deadliest in the nation" highway status, this bill was a no-brainer. But MDT would have none of it. While claiming they could take most of these actions already, no one at MDT wanted to explain why they haven't. They just wanted the Legislature to stay out of their business. Although the House voted for the bill 59-41 on second reading, Lynch was able to convince one committee to water the bill down and another committee to kill it.

There you have it.  The weak-kneed Sinrud was *forced* to kill Roger's pet bill by the DOT.  Face it, Roger is changing his story every time he thinks that he has some new rival.  Here's the boil; Roger wants the fine Montanans of Gallatin County to foist him with the mantel of Governor elect.  Roger wants Brian's job in Helena, and now he has to find a way to assassinate Schweitzer's service in order that he might run for the big chair.

The facts:  Koopman remains mostly clueless about dangers on Montana highways other than his pet highway 191.  His beloved HB 567 would have been a huge spending project.  The DOT is already proposing a much cheaper solution to the Gallatin canyon highway, reducing the speed limit.  As many of the commentors to his Gazette letter point out, the problem isn't the road, it's the driver.  Koopman is hustling publicity ... just as a Lie Monkey should be expected to do.

But you know what?  I'm in favor of Koopman's run for Governor.  I want him to run.  I will even donate money if he will run for Governor.  Run, Roger, Run!  Please, show us all what a Lie Monkey you really are.

It's On

Koopman declares his run for HD70.  Being as he was sooo very effective before ...

... Koopman pointed to the 18 bills he sponsored in the Legislature, calling them "unique and groundbreaking."

Among them were a controversial effort to issue death certificates for aborted fetuses, a bill to make cities and counties reimburse property owners for local land-use policies and a proposed law exempting Montana-made guns from federal regulations.

Only two of his 18 bills became law, but he said "that kind of legislation takes a while to gain traction."

one has to wonder if he actually knows the difference between "unique" and really fricken stupid.

Yeah, that Koopdog, he's such a uniter, and not a divider,

Koopman called himself a "consensus-builder," but detractors in both parties point to divisive comments he has made.

He once likened state lawmakers to "lice on the body politic." He and Rep. John Parker, D-Great Falls, had to be separated on the House floor after Parker criticized Koopman for making comments accusing Democrats of not supporting freedom. And he called Vincent a "public disgrace" after Vincent's attorney sent Koopman a letter demanding he retract allegedly false statements about the commissioner.

One expects that John Vincent's response to Koopman's declaration will be more civil and polite.  But the response from this "hate blogger" (according to Koopman) is more simple:

Bring it, Bitch.

Koopman's Transparant Motives

Yet again, Roger Koopman displays his talent for being a self-aggrandizing wingnut, and attempts to further his ambitions at public expense.  He uses the public comment period of County Commission meetings to attack his opponent for HD70, County Commissioner John Vincent.  These attacks are getting old and increasing petty, and even Walt Williams seems tired of reporting it.  Roger's motives are totally transparent to all, and his method is best characterized by John;

At one point (Koopman) refered to a recent trip Vincent had taken to Helena as an example, but the commissioner interjected that the lawmaker should have checked the public record to see what he was doing on that trip, saying it concerned road policy.

"You are a master of accusing by suggesting," he later told Koopman.

A suggestion for you, Lie Monkey:  When even your defender in the press starts downplaying your "watchdog" role in reporting the disruption you cause at public meetings, you might want to rethink your behavior, Roger.

Squabble

It seems the Lie Monkey wants to up the ante just a bit.  Since I was a little too peeved about other things, I didn't present to my good readers a letter that appear in the Bozeman Chronicle on Oct. 1st, penned by the Lie Monkey, Roger Koopman.  Roger's "guest column" was one more attempt to save Gallatin county from the County Commissioners who obviously hate us, and wish to destroy our freedoms.  This is horrid charge leveled by the Koopdog:

Over the past six months, commissioners have locked arms and violated their public trust in the most fundamental way. They have flouted the public's right to know and erected a wall of separation between their official actions and democracy's demand for truth.

Now Roger keeps using that word (democracy), but I don't think it means what he thinks it means.  Democracy does not "demand" the truth, though it does tend to require involvement of the citizenry.  Roger, we, the citizenry, elected these guys.  that's the demand of democracy.  That you seek to invalidate our choices based on your idea of the truth speaks poorly of your understanding of our freedoms and responsibilities.  Get it yet, Rog?  So I respect Roger's involvement, until he lies to get to the "truth".  More on that in a bit.

Offering instant insight into his true motivations, Roger's first grievance against the CC is they dissed him.  That's right, bubba, this is personal. 

It saddens me that when a concerned citizen appeals to these men to let in the light, he or she can expect to be ridiculed and attacked for their effort, while the substance of their concerns is summarily dismissed. In my case, unwilling to address my grievances, commissioners disparage me as "politically motivated" - whatever that means. Apparently in the commissioner's view, the mere fact that one of them has launched a campaign to unseat me from the Legislature obligates me to remain passive and silent. Don't count on it.

Note:  NO ONE has said that Roger needs to STFU, though I wish he would.  The two CC members who opined that Roger was simply being self-serving are Republicans, just like Roger.  That lends a certain weight to their argument, don't you think?  And the CC has taken Roger's grievances into account, with public apologies for lack of communication and transparency, and new rules for the announcement of public meetings.  But that isn't good enough for Roger.  The Lie Monkey is here to score political points, and he wants blood.

I would dearly love to go over Roger's accusations with a fine tooth comb, but I haven't the time or will to type it all here.  So I'll just hit the snark points for now.

In June, county commissioners unanimously decided to pay county employee Randy Kuyath $120,000 for the right to not rehire him. Taxpayers footed the entire bill, because the county's irresponsible actions took the insurance carrier off the hook. Not wanting the public to know what outrages were committed, commissioners then crafted a legal agreement that swore all parties to absolute secrecy. As one commissioner told me, "we didn't want anyone talking to the Chronicle."

Two things, Rog, if "outrages" were committed, and it's all secret, then how do you know about it?  Could you be lying about the "outrages", real or imagined?  Survey says:  YES!  And if some county employee says the wrong thing, and the county gets sued, I'm pretty certain that the lawsuit would cost the county more than $120,000.  That's taking a pretty big piss on the Liberty Tree, I'm thinking.

Commissioners have since stonewalled all requests for a simple public explanation of what happened, claiming concern for "Kuyath's privacy" -- while at the same time unwilling to ask Kuyath to waive his privacy so at least some of these facts could be made public.

Roger's a little slow, so let's clarify to him that a non-disclosure agreement means just that; nobody discloses nothing.  Saying "pretty please" isn't likely to stop a law suit.  And one wonders just how Roger knows that no one did ask Kuyath for more openness.  Do tell, Lie Monkey.

The pay raise thing is a non-starter.  It was 3%, not at all out of line ... unless DEMOCRACY means that our officials should be volunteers.  That the commission didn't open themselves up to public comment that would attract the wackos arguing that very thing shouldn't be an issue.  But Roger makes it one because he wants prestige with the crowd that thinks our public officials should be volunteer.  The commission has already apologized for the way that was handled, and will announce such meetings more openly in the future.  But as I've indicated, Roger isn't interested in bettering the system; Roger wants a nice bowl of blood that serves him and his interests.

The key to effective local government is public participation and an informed citizenry. Elected officials cannot be held accountable if they hide what they do.

That's laughable.  Because this is a (representative) democracy, elected officials can always be held accountable for what they do by the voting populace, regardless of what the populace actually knows.  Roger knows this.  Ofttimes, things are "hidden" from the populace for legal or security  reasons.  But wait.  Maybe Roger doesn't know this at all.  The key to effective local government, or any elected representative government, is that the populace elect effective representatives.  Who is Roger to call for a recount/recall/firing of these individuals (at our expense) if they won't listen to him?  I remind you, Roger established that this is all about him right from the get go.

If county commissioners want "privacy," they should return to private life.

That's just fricking stupid, Roger.  The only "privacy" called for here was in Kuyath's name, and you have no right to intrude on that, even though you think you do.  Sorry, pissant.  Kuyath owes you nothing.

My personal suggestion to them is this. Over the next two weeks, call for a vote of confidence by Gallatin County residents by asking registered voters to write Clerk and Recorder Shelly Vance, expressing their desire that present commissioners either remain on the job or resign. If they receive less that 50 percent support, they should resign, and a special election can be held for their replacements.

Once again, Roger grandstands with no substance.  The CC didn't call for a recall election against themselves (small fricking wonder, that); Roger's suggestion had no traction or backing whatsoever; can you imagine what that would have cost the county?  And Roger thinks that recall elections every time he gets his Depends damp is a good idea?  Face it, Lie Monkey, thanks to your costly suggestions the Liberty Tree is wilted and dead.

I saved Roger's first, and presumably most significant, grievous sin by the CC for last.  I did so, because it is a personal attack against the guy who is running against Koopdog next year.  Any who still think that this isn't self aggrandizement on Roger's part ought to be ashamed when reading this:

In May, Commissioner Vincent showed such slanderous disrespect for a developer appearing before the commission that local lawyers hit the roof, describing his antics as "McCarthyism" and demanded his apology. Vincent, with zero proof, asserted that the developer had given false information to the commission. No apology was given, and his fellow commissioners sat silently by.

A true pack of lies.  This actually came home to roost with Roger, however, and our noses get rubbed in Koopman's BS by his lead sycophant, Walt Williams in today's Comical.

Gallatin County Commissioner John Vincent is demanding that Rep. Roger Koopman, R-Bozeman, publicly apologize for "false allegations" he made about Vincent in a recent newspaper op-ed column.

John is apparently a little pissed off.  I would be too.  Slander is not just an allusion of impropriety like all the other crap that Koopman spews.  It's a legally actionable charge, one that John Vincent didn't commit.  And putting words in someone else's mouth, publicly in the paper, is really not a smart thing to do.  So, Vincent wants an apology.  Koopman's response to John calling him on Roger's *anti-democratic untruths* is to call for his opponent to bow out and resign.  Yeah, this isn't a political game from the Lie Monkey at all ...

But Koopman said Monday that no apology is coming. Instead, he called on Vincent to resign from the commission.

"John Vincent is out of control," he said. "He may have been a respectable figure once, but now he is a public disgrace."

These are the facts, people.  Get a load of what John Vincent actually said, as opposed to what Koopman says he said:

But Gallik's letter quoted Vincent using the audio minutes from the meeting, which showed that he was questioning the information he had received about the developer from Mineral and Fergus counties.

"One reason I'm going to abstain (from the vote) is that I've heard a number of things and I want to check into the veracity of information about the developer" coming from the other counties, Vincent said at the meeting.

Vincent added that until he could check out what he heard, "I don't think I can in good conscience bet money that what the developer says is what she'll actually do."

"I don't know the truth of the information or the lack of it in regard to what I've heard," Vincent later said.

Koopman is a hypocrite.  Koopman is trying to derail a strong race against him.  Koopman is lying through his freaking teeth about what John Vincent said.  John Vincent tried to protect the truth and is being reviled for it by the Lie Monkey.  Imagine that.

Now, if any of John Vincent's people are reading this screed, I want you to read this carefully:

1)  You're dealing with Roger Koopman as if you think he will play fair, or be rational.  He won't.  He's a passive aggressive media whore with Walt Williams in his back pocket.  Williams, to his credit, will at least present the appearance of balance.  But make no mistake, he will present Koopman as the struggling warrior speaking truth to authority every chance he gets.  Koopman lies.  A lot.  Document it, and prove it, every single time.  If the goal is to let people make up their minds themselves, then everyone out there who wants desperately to be told what they should believe will go for Roger, and that spells defeat.  The truth is a hammer, and you'd best use it.

2)  Never threaten what you're unwilling to follow through on.  Koopman printed lies, in black and white, for the world to see.  If he doesn't apologize, sue his ass.

3)  If Koopman gets "guest columns", demand a response placement.  Do not let him control media exposure, because that little Lie Monkey Circus Clown will do so, in a heartbeat.  His own party knows this.  That's likely the only reason they continue to support him.

4)  Derision is a weapon, and the Koopdog is one joke walking.  Use whatever tools you have to to make his persecution fantasies real.  He is a joke, deriding the voters of this county, and acting as if he alone can save us.  Poke that bubble and let him do the rest at convincing the voters that he's just kinda nuts.

5)  Use the website for truth.  Exposure is all, and calling BS on Koopman's BS is everything.  Make it realtime and you have some gravitas.

Well, I hope you've all enjoyed squabble number 1 for today.  Hopefully, this will actually reach some folks that will act on it.

Sheena Smacks The Koop-dog

... with a rolled up newspaper, right on the nose.  And she did it all public like, with a letter to the Bozeman Chronicle.

Rep. Koopman there is a very big difference between a hate blog and blogs that offer criticism, and of all people you should know the difference. You parade around criticizing everyone who does not agree with your conservative philosphies. Does that make you hateful? You are not above criticism Rep. Koopman, and you need to be aware of that.

Sheena Rice is officially one of my heroes, now, (though I do wish she would update her site more often.)  Blogs have a particular power, but we also have a limited sphere of influence.  Far fewer Bozemanites will read my response to Walt's love letter to Koopman than will read Sheena's defense of what we do in our webspace.  As bloggers we can thank her for her well-spoken defense, as well as for raising awareness of our existence, both in this area and the areas we reach through links.

I know, full well, that when Koopman referred to our writings as "hate blogs", he was clearly focused on what I have written about him.  I've gone after the guy, tooth and nail, with rudeness, insult and vitriol.  To me, he will remain the lie monkey, until such point as he can recognize things for what they are, as opposed to what he wants them to be.  Calling our efforts "hate blogs" is just one more lie.  You see, I know what a hate blog is.  I've traveled the dark little threads that most good people ignore, and still do.  I've been to the websites that call for the nuclear destruction of entire religions  (Judaism as well as the followers of Islam).  If Christians want to feel all oppressed and embattled, then they are terribly naive about what their brethren would violently hope for others of different belief.  I frequently read a website where the standard ending of a post is:

"Rope, Tree, {category of person we "good" souls don't like}.  Some assembly required".

Now that's some serious hate.  Because I believe that forewarned is forearmed, I read the forums of  Stormfront.org, the polite online chat wing of the National Alliance and other racist assholes.  I've read far too many websites where bitter ex-husbands slander women in general because a woman had the temerity to stop putting up with their shit.  Not surprisingly, most of these men also pitch a fit that the awful "ragheads" make their women dress in burkhas.  Hateful hypocrites much?

No, gentle reader, this is not a hate blog.  Nor is Sheena's, or Matt's or any of the vaguely referred to "Democratic websites"  in Walt's fact-free snow job.  (And for the record, mine is not a Democratic website.  It is my kingdom, and my burden alone.  No one gets a vote here, but me.  Furthermore, my website is not, in any way, an affiliate of the Democratic party.  They do not control my content, or anything I write on their behalf ... or against them, for that matter.) 

We do not run hate blogs, and Roger knows this.  We just don't like him, and hence, in his passive aggressive mind, we are haters.  He's lying, yet again.  The lie monkey is still just avoiding the fact that substantive questions are being raised about him, questions he won't answer.  For instance:

What, exactly, is the relationship between liberty and governmental spending on behalf of the constituents?  (You know, Roger, those people who actually elect the government ...)  Why is spending for the common weal an affront to liberty?

What, exactly, has the Montana Supreme Court done that is so against the Montana Constitution that it should be censured, as you requested?

What is wrong with a city commissioner exhorting the citizens of the city to get involved in a serious issue?

How do you come to be in possession of materials which were not sent to you, nor ever meant to be in your possession?  Is your web of involvement in local government even legal?

What is the difference between cells expunged with a physician's help and those expunged by the will of nature, that one should be given living status and the other not?

How were our "incomes further eroded" by a budget that didn't increase our income taxes one single bit?

Seriously, these should be simple questions for Koopman to answer, given the heroic portrait that Walt painted of Roger.  These are the questions that us "hate bloggers" have been asking of the lie monkey.  There will be no answers, because, for Roger, it's easier to slander those who question him than to accept that he is open to critique.  Sheena was absolutely on target in pointing this out.  Let's hope that Bozeman listens.

Inconceivable!

Last Friday, Walt Williams gave Roger Koopman a great big sloppy front page kiss in the Bozeman Chronicle.  Today, the Chronicle editorial staff posts their opinion of Koopman's allegations concerning the city commission.  They kiss him, all right, with a brick.

Koopman has every right to speak out at public meetings when he wants to. But it would be nice if he would abstain from turning these occasions into political grandstanding.

Will wonders never cease?

Welcome To My "Hate Blog"

That's right, I have a hate blog.  Just ask Roger Koopman, as reported by the Bozeman Chronicle's Walt Williams.  Matt has all the details, and I won't bother to repeat them here.  I will however, take issue with two things. 

The first is Walt's claim (in the comments to Matt's post) that he was not writing a profile of Roger Koopman.  Bullshit.  Witness this shallow explanation:

As for the article, it wasn’t a “profile” of Koopman. He’s been very active in local politics lately and the story was simply about the reasons for that.

Excuse me?  How is examining a man’s reasons for activity *not* a personal profile of him?  The entire article reads like the tale of the lonely struggling warrior, striving to defend the good (but obviously too weak and gullible) people of the kingdom Gallatin against the very forces that those good people were duped into elevating to power.  I'm sorry there, Walt, but Koopman ain't He-Man, and the county commission doesn't meet in castle Grey Skull.  You wrote a promotional puff piece about a head case who will do anything he can to disrupt political process for his own promotion and gain.

Ya' see, Walt, if you were actually journalisming about actual news and issues, you would have talked to some of the critics that Koopman claims have been" shooting at him for 28 years".  You might have reported exactly how he came to be in possession of emails and communications that were not sent to or meant for him.  You might have actually  questioned some of his claims, rather than just spitting out what he fed you.  That wasn't journalism, Walt.  You were just fluffing him for easy inches.

And one of the more egregious bits of poor reporting was blindly recounting Koop-dogs quote that the blogs attacking him are just "hate blogs".  That's a pretty serious allegation from the lie monkey, as far as I'm concerned.  In the two years I've written to this website, I've only consistently roughed up two people.  I've had goes at John Sinrud, 'cause he deserved it.  I've taken Conrad Burns to task, and look forward to doing it some more.  But the only two people who remain the focus of my ire are Roger Koopman and Kevin McGuire (who's name you couldn't even report correctly, Walt.) 

That's right, the deep dark depths of my hate are reserved for ... a white supremacist National Alliance stooge, and a  passive aggressive lie monkey who consistently disrupts and insults my representatives, my state and my beliefs.  So if the lie monkey wants to call my efforts a hate blog, let him.  If you want to report his opinion with no counter fact or evidence, go right ahead.  But don't pretend that you're reporting, as opposed to profiling.  'Cause you ain't.

Roger's Mask Of Civility

Happy Cinco de Mayo!  It's 05-05-05.  And in a magical bit of serendipity, this morning's sunrise in Bozeman was 6:05, which if we didn't have this ridiculous Daylight Savings Time thingy, would have been at 5:05.  Kinda' neat, huh?

On to other things.  First, though it was published by the Gallatin Democrats several days ago, John Vincent's letter refuting some (bullshit) charges against him appeared today in the Bozeman Chronicle.  I reported that the response was out there several days ago, but it's very nice to see it appear in the paper, where it will reach a much wider audience.  Considering some of the rather unfounded suspicions and accusations that have been thrown at Vincent, even on this website, I now consider that letter to be a "must read".

Which brings me to another "must read" letter, this one from Roger Koopman.  Ed Kemmick laid out the general response to Roger's little whine several days ago, after a letter from him appeared in the Billing's Gazette.  But an expanded version of Roger's ... ahem ... explanation appeared in the Bozeman Chronicle yesterday, and I just thought I'd spend a few moments disinfecting it.

To begin, you really should  read this post from Reverend Mykeru.  (His skills as a writer are astounding, but there are images on his website that are somewhat less than Safe For Work. )  Considering the eloquence and passion of Mykeru's thesis, I consider myself slightly criminal in paraphrasing him, but I will nonetheless.  He points out that civility and politeness are tools we use to interact with others that we wish to appear agreeable to.  As such they are not at all indicators of personal quality or even a baseline to judge personal actions by.  Civility is a veneer, often painted as makeup on the  mask of monsters.  I would point you to the quotes from all who signed Kevin McGuire's school board election petition.  They all said he was very polite and civil.  Given this, cries for civility above the evidence of actions  should be taken with a grain of salt ... hell, I take 'em with a salt lick.

Which, of course, brings me back to Roger Koopman.  I would hope you all know the circumstances of Koopman's dust up with John Parker on the next to last day of the legislature.  If not, go familiarize yourself with it, quick like a bunny.  The letter that appeared in the Bozeman Chronicle today from Roger Koopman supposedly clarifies the incident.  But notice the headline:

Photo misrepresented who was angry during exchange

I admit, the Chronicle wrote the headline of the letter, but they accurately describe the content.  Koopman isn't upset that the incident took place; he's worried about the appearance of it.  That's very significant.

Sometimes, news articles and photo captions are so inaccurate that a correction is necessary before they take on a life of their own. An AP story on April 21 falsely referred to me exchanging "heated words" with Rep. John Parker, when in fact, I was merely the recipient of Parker's wrath. Throughout the session, the Great Falls Democrat has taken personal offense whenever I utter the word "liberty." On that particular day, he totally lost it, and no amount of peacemaking on my part was going to cool him off.

Yup, the tone is set.  Roger  is a peacemaker and John Parker has an irrational hatred of a word.  Even the nominally intelligent can smell the stink from that characterization.  And I learned a long time ago that only fools, children and drunks hold themselves blameless in a confrontation.  Even victims of assault try to blame themselves.  But not Roger.  He's innocent.  Right ...

During the floor debate on House Bill 2, I pointed out that such a massive increase in the size and cost of government reflected a lack of faith in the principles of freedom and a free society.

Could someone explain this to me?  I'm a logician, and as such I'm kinda' stupid about wanting an argument spelled out.  I don't see an immediate or necessary  connection between the size of government and the liberties of it's people.  I lean libertarian enough that I can see how less government spending equals more personal choice in spending, but I don't understand the connection that Roger thinks he made.  It's perfectly logical, in a free society, to assume that collective governmental funds have more powers to provide essential services than is exhibited by anarchy (the extreme of "freedom").  Is Roger an anarchist?  I'm really wondering here.

My colleagues are accustomed to these kinds of comments, and know they are neither personal nor partisan in nature.

Come on Roger, even a child can understand that that's bullshit.  If I tell my wife everyday for 89 days that a good wife will give daily blowjobs, do you really think she will be accustomed to it, or think that it is neither personal or partisan?  Sorry dude, you're really reaching.

However, Democrat floor leader Parker became furious, and tried to cut off my right to speak. His reasons, I suspect, were two-fold: (1) discussions about liberty cut certain legislators like Parker to the quick, and (2) my freedom appeals were having an increasing impact of the way some legislators voted.

Sorry Roger, but you were off topic, and even presiding House officer McNutt told you so.  Parker didn't try to cut off your right (how the hell does one do that, anyway?) to free speech; he tried to get you to quit insulting your peers, among which you are despicably unworthy.  And you can suspect all you want.  I suspect that you dress in diapers and have your wife spank you while saying "naughty naughty boy".  If you tell me that I don't believe in liberty, I'm gonna' get all pissed off too.  And the part that Koopman doesn't seem to get; I should get all pissed off.  Oh, and by the way, his "freedom" appeals weren't having any impact at all, and I defy anyone to show that they were.

I believe there is no place for anger or personal attack in the legislative process. Throughout my life, I have always focused on ideas, not personalities or petty partisanship. So when the House adjourned, I immediately approached Rep. Parker in a spirit of friendship, put my hand on his shoulder and tried to assure him that my comments were idea-based, not personal.

Hmmm.  You'd just told the man, for the umpteenth time, that you thought he didn't believe in freedom, and then you went up to him, invaded his space by touching him uninvited, and tried to assure him that your insult wasn't personal with a line of obvious crap about ideas.  Okay then.  That won't start a row ... nope ... not at all.  Face it, Roger, you did level a personal attack.  If I claim over and over again that Montana House Republicans want, more than anything, to rape babies, would you feel insulted?  But hey, it's about the ideas.   Those who want to collect money and not spend it for the public weal obviously want to rape babies.  I don't see that there's any problem here.  Let me shake your hand, baby raper.

Unfortunately, Rep. Parker began yelling at me, along with two other Democrats. My continued attempts to calm the group down were to no avail. At that point, Rep. Alan Olson suggested I leave, which I gracefully did. The press photo was snapped just as Alan put his hand on my shoulder to guide me away. At no point did I display the slightest degree of anger.

And that's really what's important, isn't it, that you didn't "display" the slightest hint of anger.  And when I fart in the elevator with you, it's okay, as long as I don't display the slightest hint of guilt.  IN the finest Koopman tradition, I will take no responsibility for the stink.  I will sympathize, I will display concern, I will ... put on a false fricking mask that I think will garner me "points".  That's what you're all about, isn't it Roger?

If anyone should be angry, it should be the taxpayers, who have just seen their family incomes further eroded by an addition one-billion dollars in state spending. If that's not an attack on liberties, I don't know what is.
                                            

Rep. Roger Koopman

                  Ohhh, I'm angry all right, Rog.  For one, you have no grasp of the English language.  "further eroded by an addition one-billion"?  How fucking hard is it, as a State Representative, to have someone proofread you?  Second, I wasn't aware that the budget bill included an increase in my taxes.  Funny, I just looked, and hey, what do'ya know, it doesn't!  Except for Bush-friendly oil companies and anti-smoking idjits, no one is taking more of my money.  Come on Roger ... be the lie monkey.  Act noble, come on, lie, lie monkey.  It's so funny when you do that.  Third, I go back to my previous point, there is no correlation that Roger has drawn between liberty and government spending.  None, Notta, Zilch, Squat.  I might actually buy into his populist bullshit if he'd have just given that much.  He didn't, he doesn't, he can't.

This is the same Roger Koopman that says that the duly elected Supreme Court of Montana should be censured.  This is the Roger Koopman who says that women who have zygotes removed should have to suffer for their choice, but it's okay if God removes the zygotes.  This is the Roger Koopman who thinks that our public schools should teach creationism along side science.  This is the Roger Koopman who thinks there should be mandatory testing for public servants, a test he obviously couldn't pass.  This is the Koopman who thinks that the elected representatives of the state who don't agree with him, hate freedom.

What is clear from Roger's letter is that he thinks that state discourse should be civil.  You can accuse your "peers" (and I use the term loosely) of treason, or baby rape or dog fucking, as long as it's about "the ideas".  In other words, as long as you're civil, its okeedokee.  Hitler was civil.  Ted Bundy was civil.  Roger Koopman is just plain wrong.

 

Koopman's Going Down

After the rather thorough trouncing that Koopman took from a couple of Montana websites yesterday, the fates decided he could use a little more bad news.  Well it wasn't the fates, I guess, but rather one of Gallatin county's more respected civic leaders.  John Vincent, after hearing Koopman's line about "lice on the body politic" decided that he's had enough of Roger's crap, and will run to unseat Koopman in 2006.

Yes, I realize that State House political campaigns don't make for exciting blogging, but if you are convinced, as I am, that Koopman is a complete freaking nutcase, then Vincent's announcement couldn't be more welcome.  As the Chronicle article clarifies, John Vincent is an accomplished educator, twice Teacher of the Year,  he has served 16 years in the Montana legislature, twice as Speaker of the House, and has been mayor of Bozeman, and Gallatin county commissioner.  In addition, John Vincent is a board member of the HRDC District 9, and served on the Governor's Council on Families.  Add to this, the fact that Vincent actually lives in the district for which he will be running, House District 70, unlike Roger Koopman who lives in Bozeman, but ran in HD 70 because he didn't stand any chance of winning in the district in which he resides.

To sum it all up, Koopman stands precisely *NO* chance of being re-elected next year (if he even chooses to run again).  Let me alter that, he stands a chance if Vincent is somehow unable to run, a possibility always, but hope tells me that won't happen.  Matt Singer says of Koopman:

His district is only lean-Republican. It isn’t crack-smokin’ crazy. He’ll be a target next time around. And if the opposition is successful, Koopman can rediscover the liberty of not being a legislator.

Look forward to that liberty, Roger, 'cause John Vincent is going to put you down.

 

Fight! Fight!

Well it appears the state has a budget now.  I'll leave it to the wonks to dissect that at their leisure.  What really got me all fired up happened last night at the end of the session.  It seems Bozeman's own Roger Koopman decided once again to proclaim that Democrats have forgotten (don't believe) in Freedom.  Yes, that Roger Koopman.  The one who wanted death certificates filed for abortions (but strangely enough neglected miscarriages), the one who wanted certain candidates for office to have to take tests on Montana and the Constitution before they could serve (Oh the irony there!), the very one who wanted a vote of censure against the Montana Supreme court (what a crybaby).  Yep, that would be Roger Koopman.

So, last night when Koopman went all Braveheart, and made the pronouncement that supporters of the state budget had forgotten freedom (FREEDOM!), John Parker of Great Falls decided he'd had enough of Koopman's shit, and called him out on it.

"I believe that's out of order,'' protested House Democrat Floor Leader John Parker of Great Falls. "We're not going to stand here and be told that we don't believe in freedom on the last day of the Legislature. We've had it fed to us too many times. Let's talk about the budget, but no one's belief in liberty is going to be questioned today.''

Rep. Walt McNutt, R-Sidney, who was serving as presiding officer of the House, told Koopman, who only the day before had referred to lawmakers as "lice on the body politic,'' to keep his comments to the bill.

I've wasted more than a few moments wondering just exactly what the body politic is, in our free society (FREEDOM!), if our duly elected representatives are the lice upon it.  I'll keep pondering that, but let's get back to the exciting finish of the next round.

After the session, Parker got all up in Koopman's face, and the two had to be separated by other lawmakers.

Exactly what happened is unclear. Koopman said he wasn't angry and encouraged Parker to calm down.

"He was very upset. He just came at me a verbal torrent of angry words,'' Koopman said.

Poor Roger, never understanding why he is so maligned, attacked and misunderstood.  Yup, this is the guy who wrote into the Bozeman Chronicle bemoaning the angry reactions from his fellow Bozemanites because of his harmless attempt to grant living status to some zygotes.  People would call him up, and be all mad like.  What had he ever done, the poor poor man?  And now he must face such anger from someone that he just blatantly insulted?  What is the world coming to?

Few things in my world are more pathetic than passive aggressive egoists, and Koopman really kind of takes the cake in that department.  As always, though, I think he's the product of a much larger paranoia (cowardice).  It's been a consistent and pathetic mantra of idiots like Koopman for 3 years now that anybody who disagrees with them are traitors, freedom haters, against America.  If some dumbass bloggers, or that pathetic walking turd Jonah Goldberg, or Coulter or Hannity want to spew that kind of fear-filled mental diarrhea, then fine.  It gives them the excuse to play Dennis and scream "Help, I'm being repressed!" when someone says "Um, that's mean, unfounded, anti-democratic and just not right".  He not only insults half of his colleagues, but every person who exercised their American rights and freedoms (FREEDOM!) to put those colleagues in the legislature.  Koopman can hide in the back of his closet and quiver in fear at the corruption of our Republic on his own time.  On my time, he's in Helena to do a job.  And insulting me isn't part of that job.

It was reported on the radio this morning that Koopman told Parker that he was being "overly sensitive".  You're rather lucky that that wasn't me, Roger.  I'm "sensitive" enough about my state, my country, my freedoms and my money (that you're wasting) that I'd have probably decked your passive aggressive ass.  And you would've damned well deserved it, too.  The radio reported Parker's response as telling Koopman that he is a "disgrace to the legislature".

That's kinda' stating the obvious now,  isn't it?