Serving the Flathead Valley & Montana since 2006. A reality based independent journal of observation & analysis. © James Conner.
Today, why I’m not likely to take a vacation in Florida (and never to move there), some cautionary words on calls to prosecute the break-in at, and vandalism of, All Families Healthcare, a hate crime, and observations on restraint, restraining orders, and the political predicament of John Michael Myers.
There are at least 100,000 Burmese pythons living in the Everglades, so last year Florida enlisted 1,500 hunters and thrill seekers to round them up. They captured, reports the Washington Post, just 68. Although Burmese pythons can grow to 15 feet or more, they blend in with the swamp so well they’re hard to see even when they’re just a few feet away. Short of obliterating the ‘glades with a few thermonuclear weapons in the megaton range — and even that might not kill every snake — there’s nothing Florida can to evict Big Slither.
That’s really the lesson of invasive species. Once they’re here, they’re next to impossible to eradicate, and only slightly less difficult to control. That’s why Montana’s natural resources officials, and organizations such as the Flathead Lakers, are being so aggressive in their efforts to keep the zebra mussel and its cousin, the quagga mussel, from becoming established in Flathead Lake and anywhere else in the state.
Burmese pythons were released into the wild when they became too big as pets. Natives of what’s now the Ukraine and southern Russia, Zebra and quagga mussels hitchhiked on ships to the Great Lakes, and are spreading westward by hitching rides on private boats. They’re already established in Lake Mead, so when snowbirds in Arizona and Nevada load their boats on trailers and head north for the summer, they risk bringing the havoc-wreaking little invaders with them. Even a soap and steam cleaning might not wash every critter off a boat.
Florida, incidentally, does not have to worry that I’ll contribute to its tourist economy as long the state offers big snakes and man eating crocodiles along with sunshine, sandy beaches, and palm trees.
Susan Cahill, the clinic’s owner, is convinced it is. Her conclusion was joined this week by Ben Long in an opinion piece in the Flathead Beacon.
I’m not yet convinced that it was, nor am I comfortable with the concept of a hate crime.
Zachery Klundt, the 24-year-old man charged with the break-in, theft, and vandalism (among other things), is still in the Flathead County Jail. His arraignment is scheduled for 27 March.
If what’s been reported in the news media is true, and admissible in court, Klundt’s in deep trouble. But an arrest isn’t a conviction. Klundt has yet to present a defense. Like everyone else, he’s entitled to the presumption of innocence. So far, we’ve heard only the prosecution’s case. Unfortunately, that hasn’t stopped people from offering opinions, from concluding that a hate crime was committed, and from trying to convict him in the court of public opinion.
Whether the robbery and vandalism constituted a hate crime depends on whether there was an “intent” to “…terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy, or offend:” as defined in MCA 45-5-221-222. Intent goes to motivation, and at this point it’s just too early to know what motivated the person who robbed and wrecked AFH. I wish some of my friends who are human rights activists would withhold their judgment while the criminal justice process moves forward.
I’m not comfortable with the concept of a hate crime that makes intent punishable. If intent is punishable, either as a stand alone offense or as an aggravating factor that can increase the severity of a punishment, then what we are thinking becomes a crime: there is no longer such a thing as free thought. Punishing what a person thinks is an extraordinarily dangerous notion.
When I wrote a profile of John Michael Myers, who had just filed for the Republican nomination for House District 5, I did not know the 30-year-old lawyer was living under a court order to stay away from his former girlfriend, and her young son, let alone know the order had been finalized, and sealed by the court, just a month before he filed for the legislature.
But someone knew — a court’s seal notwithstanding, that’s not something that can be removed from public view, especially in a small town — and that someone tipped off the Flathead Beacon, which reported the the RO yesterday.
Myers told the Beacon:
“I feel motivated and hopeful about the future, and I’m confident that I can be a strong candidate and represent my community if elected,” he said. “I have had some personal demons in the past but I’ve dealt with them and emerged a stronger person.” [Emphasis added.]
And he told me:
Both parties have moved on in positive directions, and I wish her and her new family all the best. My focus right now is campaigning for the economic and educational changes we need to bring to the state.
Unless the record is unsealed, getting at the facts behind the RO is impossible. Even then, it might be a he said, she said, situation in which the truth is impossible to discern. Human relationships are complicated and messy even when couples stay together and like each other. Couple do not break up because they love each other, and there is so such thing as an amicable break-up. There are only degrees of hatred, and an infinite variety of methods of hurting one’s ex.
Still, “I have had some personal demons in the past…” strikes me as an oblique admission that the RO may have been merited. And Myers’ assertion that he emerged a stronger person should raise an eyebrow: getting slapped with an RO is a dubious way to build character.
And character — Myers’ character — is the political issue raised by the RO and the Beacon’s exposure thereof. Two questions are posed: (1) has he truly exorcised his demons and become a stronger man, and (2) did he exercise sound judgment in filing for political office just a month after the court’s judgement became final?
Voters, I think, will want more proof than his word that he’s become a stronger man. What else would he say? They’ll want the proof that can be provided only by his spending the next few years not getting into the same kind of or similar trouble; proving through experience that his disastrous relationship with his ex-girlfriend, Ms. Jacobs, was an aberration, that he has mellowed, matured, and rehabilitated himself.
There’s no doubt in my mind that filing for political office so soon after the court order became final was a serious error, the triumph of ambition over judgment. No reputable political consultant would have wanted any part of him upon learning he was under an RO granted on the basis of allegations that he made a woman fear for her safety.
Will the RO lead to his defeat in the Republican primary on 3 June (absentee voting starts a month earlier)? That depends on whether Republican voters in HD-5 consider him as less an evil than Doug Adams. I don’t know Whitefish well enough to offer an informed opinion on that. But I suspect his best chance of winning depends on his ability to recruit a multitude of respected middle-aged women to go door-to-door on his behalf, vouching for his character.