Cowgirl Book Review

Neil Livingstone’s Guide for Sex tourists

When Republican gubernatorial hopeful Neil Livingstone admitted to the Associated Press last week that he was once “a guest on a yacht full of hookers in Monte Carlo,” few people realized that Livingstone is actually a leading authority on such matters.

Indeed, it turns out that Livingstone actually published a detailed instructional manual in 1997, which provides candid advice for world business travelers on how to solicit a high-quality prostitute.

This is not a joke.  This valuable handbook appears as a chapter within a greater literary work by Livingstone, a book entitled Protect Yourself in an Uncertain World” (Amazon, $3.39 used).  It’s one of several books he’s authored. Livingstone, by all accounts a very wealthy businessman, is a self described “international security consultant” who used to regularly appear on CNN and FoxNews, dispensing international security wisdom.

The chapter on how to find a hooker is entitled “Nightlife: Adult Entertainment Districts,” and is required reading for this campaign season.  Somebody has posted a PDF of the entire chapter at this link, and in the last 24 hours a few right-wing social conservatives have been emailing it around to their friends in Montana, horrified at the possibility that Livingstone could become the nominee of a Family Values organization like the Montana Republican Party.

Here are a few verbatim excerpts from pages 36-38 of the book:

Never give a hooker your real name.  Alternatively, use only your first name. On the one hand, some experts say that you should never take a hooker back to your hotel room or apartment, as this invites trouble. On the other hand, your hotel is the safest place for a tryst.

Select a high quality brothel.  Patronizing a high quality, and therefore generally more expensive, brothel or escort service is always preferable to picking up a bar girl or streetwalker. Most brother operators are required to scrutinize the health of their employees and offer a generally safe environment for patrons. Some tony London brothels, for example, offer a high degree of cleanliness and security.

Double Pleasure can be Double Trouble. Never take those two for one deals.  When you get the women back to your room, one may rifle through your pockets while the other takes you around the world.

On and on the advice goes.  Tips such as “Never let a hooker pay the bar bill” and “Don’t try to cheat a hooker” and “Be careful when cruising for sex,” each with a short paragraph of elaboration.  It’s good advice that we should all internalize, in case we ever find ourselves seeking a prostitute while on business travel.  There is even a section entitled, “Practice safe sex,” perhaps an incongruous piece of advice to be offering in a chapter about sleeping with prostitutes.

There are several pages with dozens of such tips.  It is truly hilarious. If you don’t find yourself giggling aloud then there is something seriously wrong with you.

And after the tutorial on how to find a hooker, Livingstone moves on to instructions about how to find drugs, if that’s your thing.  But before he does, he offers one final tip, saving the best for last.

Stay out of trouble by avoiding it.  The reason many individuals seek out prostitutes and raunchy nightclubs is loneliness and boredom. When planning a business trip, arrange in advance to spend your evenings with old friends or business associates, thereby reducing your free time. Also, consider bringing your spouse along.

One of the more amusing elements of this literature is Livingstone’s usage of certain archaic terms, like the expression “getting rolled.”    I believe that in earlier times (the 1970’s, perhaps), “to get rolled” meant “to have your money stolen.”  Livingstone is  greatly concerned about protecting the reader from this danger.  “If you are inebriated, a taxi driver might try to roll you,” he warns, and advises that you ought to hire a limousine to go find a hooker rather than a taxi.  “Carry only the necessary amount of cash” when negotiating with a hooker, he writes, so that  “if you are rolled, you will lose less.”  And he warns, “Never let a hooker take you to a place of her choosing.  She may have accomplices there, waiting to roll you or worse.”

There’s plenty more in this chapter and the book, all worth reading.  In the end, needless to say, there is only one person who will have gotten rolled and that’s Livingstone, for having published this monumental piece of stupidity.  At present, he’s spent north of $300,000 of his personal money on a fruitless campaign for governor, and will now have to explain his hooker expertise to the GOP churchgoing crowd.  And Livingstone is already busy explaining not only why he and his wife were “on a yacht full of hookers in Monte Carlo,” but also why he wrote a letter to Muammar Qadafi in 2011 offering to help get him out of Libya in return for $10 million, a story reported in the New York Times.  I always thought $10 million was  bit steep.  Perhaps the price included some advice to Qadafi about how to get hookers.

Finally, one could argue that this is all good news for Rick Hill, against whom Livingstone is competing for moderate Republican primary voters.  But Hill himself once failed to follow Livingstone’s advice.  Hill got busted by his wife for sleeping with a cocktail waitress, which led to his divorce.

Alas, Hill could have avoided these troubles by simply reading Livingstone’s manual. On page 37, it clearly states that “An escort is always preferable to picking up a bar girl.”


248 Comments on "Cowgirl Book Review"

  1. At least Neil Livingstone made money off of his moral shortcomings. Rick Hill…not so much. He even got scammed on a get rich quick scheme. Moron.

  2. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | March 16, 2012 8:17 AM at 8:17 AM |

    HOLY COW! This campaign is in DEEP doo doo! So, as my civic duty, I’m offering my help. A catchy slogan for the boys. And here it is:

    Don’t Be a Twinkie. Protect Your Winkie. Vote Zinke!

    Like it? ME TOO! Hey, anything to help my pals Livingscam and Zinke! BTW, just what the hay is Zinke, who by all accounts is a decent fellow, hanging around with a guy like Livingscam for? I thought he was a Christian?

    I would say that the Pubbie Party in Montana has come unhinged, but that would be a misnomer, for THESE bozos were never HINGED in the first place!

    I mean, just LOOK at what the party offers up as serious candidates! Livingscam, Pastord Bulbdim, Pastord Roilin’ Rawburps, Gen Robert E. Skees, etc., etc. etCETera! Where do they FIND these goombas? They must do a nation wide TALENT search!

    Sheesh. If we weren’t a laffingstock before, we sure are now! Thanks, fellas!

    AND, the possibilties are endless for slogans! Help the boys out. They need it!

  3. I don’t see any bad advice. Washington and other large cities are overrun by prostitutes, and business is good, has been throughout recorded history. They do not prefer one party over the other. Jon and Max are surely up to speed on this. If neither has consorted its a prostitute in DC, they are missing the opportunity of a lifetime. You generally don’t find high quality ladies (and men) in Havre or Helena.

    This guy has a Machiavellian quality about him. He’s to evil or anything like that,nbut he is saying things in public that are usually only said behind closed doors. Rather than ridiculing him, you would be better served reading him and looking for pearls of wisdom. His advice is the type that elected officials probably get their first day in office, off the record.

    You guys who call yourselves “Cowgirl” are not really that naive. I know better. The stuff you write here, carefully worded to appeal to the rabble, is too clever and calculated to be done by fools. Who are you, really?

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | March 16, 2012 9:59 AM at 9:59 AM |

      You’re SUCH a dipshit, Buttinski! You see, dude, it’s simply part of being you! You and Livingscam MISSED the biggest military event of our young lives! You dudes BOTH missed Nam! So, any talk of hookers now is laffable!

      Hookers are what young soldiers and sailors do when they FIRST leave home! It AIN’T supposed to be for fat, old, bald, pinkish, doughy ReePUKElican businessmen! Man! If them pukes gotta pay for it, they’re BIG time losers! The advice he’s offering is really, really sad for some really, really sad cases! And he ONLY writes it because he thinks it makes him look manly! It doesn’t. It’s part of his shtick. It makes him look like a pathetic loser who’s attempting to be a he man wannabee!

      You see, Buttinski, if you or Livingscam HAD served, you’d know that there’s only ONE rule to follow when selecting a hooker! And that is that half the hookers have TB and the other half have VD, so you ONLY screw the ones that cough! Hell, every GI knew that!

      Now, how ’bout a rousing chorus of There’s a Skeeter on my Peter!

      • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | March 16, 2012 10:14 AM at 10:14 AM |

      • So you are saying that the thousands of call girls who work DC are actually looking for sailors?

      • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | March 16, 2012 3:23 PM at 3:23 PM |

        Mark thinks everybody on the east coast is a Hooker? Figures! Betcha, Hes never been back east either. I bet the reason he’s so smug is someone finely drove him outside the state to Arizona, now he likes it better because its warmer.

        • No he likes it better because they are all crazy. The “proof is in the pudding” as it were. Have you seen some of the craziness coming out of Arizona today? The most recent is the move to give employers the ability to ask women if they are on birth control, and worse, ask them why they are on it. They can FIRE a woman that is using birth control for contraception. Not only is that a direct violation of many laws, it, once again, proves that Republicans have declared war on women. Mark is lovin it there. His neolithic views and bat shit crazy attitude will fit right in.

    • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | March 16, 2012 3:30 PM at 3:30 PM |

      Boy Mark your pretty Stupid, and thinking of Jersey not Washington. Washington , Like San Francisco and New York, have really cleaned up their acts. Of course you wouldn’t know that, cause you always hang out in someones backyard in Arizona. I travel to these towns 2 to 3 times a year.

      • Norma Norma Norma … if Max or Jon want a call girl, they get a call girl. Are you daft?

        By the way, I don’t live in Arizona. We live in Colorado. We are down here for the month of March to hike the desert, visit friends and go to baseball games. During our time here we are not taking in local news, not watching TV. Whatever the hell you are talking about, Kenny, I know nothing about it. I’ve not yet met anyone crazy in Arizona, more than I can say for this blog.

        • Your clearly not getting your needs met, Mark. Try this.

          • Good grief. That’s terrible. What the hell is wrong with you, Kurtz?

            BTW, if I find a candidate who will fight for progressive causes, I don’t care if he consorts with prostitutes or smokes pot, takes LSD, cheats on his wife or watches porn or a whole number of other personal habits that have nothing to do with performance in office.

            Give me one of your candidates, like Tester for instance, who may do none of those things (for all i know) but does not fight for progressive causes, I don’t vote. Who needs squeaky clean weasels?

            • Some honest questions posed to a dishonest asshole: Mark, if you think a ‘candidate’ like Jon Tester may not do the things that most find abhorrent, but yet won’t serve your view of what is “progressive”, then why do you feel the need to suggest that they are actually doing those things abhorrent? Is character assassination the only tool you have to get what you want? Are you so moral that your will of what is “progressive” trumps what other people actually bother to vote for? Is that why you are allowed to lie about the behavior of others such that it damages the will of others who vote?

              • Well, dumb as a bag of rocks Rob, it’s kind of meant to suggest that all of this side issue stuff regrading who uses a prostitute and who doesn’t is meant to distract from the likely conclusion that there are no real differences between the candidates.

                And, since Tester has not been faithful to his 2006 campaign, what the hell! might as well impugn that infidelity is a character flaw, and not just political manipulation.

              • Except, damn, he’s so fat! Who would take that on besides a working girl?

        • I’ve not yet met anyone crazy in Arizona, more than I can say for this blog.

          Exactly how the hell would you know, Tokarski? Are retired pencil-pushers trained in psychology these days?

          • I’m pretty sure Kralzy is nuts,Probably booze-addled, and that you’re a sociopath. Kurtz has me wondering.

            • And your qualifications for such diagnosis is … Nothing?

              • Backwoods Monty | March 16, 2012 5:21 PM at 5:21 PM |

                Heres the thing Mr. Kailey — Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.

                Buttarski fits into group three, the small mind set. Qualifications are not needed for group three people, just inflated ego’s.

                So the Moron is apt to say anything, because he is resistant to any intelligent test, required to be someone of higher stature, or reasoning!

            • Well, I say Kralzy is a drunk because that’s what he told me he is. And the stuff he writes is crazy.

              And you, of course, I’ve got evidence, though It is not conclusive. You did spring the Momty trap, and asmitted it to me. You do use the avatar of a snarling wolf, you do suffer from grandiosity, and thos times where you do attempt to feign emotion, it’s fairly transparent. You are authoritarian and have a short fuse. All of this could simply mean hat you are an asshole and a jerk, but I read more into it.

        • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | March 16, 2012 4:19 PM at 4:19 PM |

          What a terrible thing to say about Max, or Jon, who both bring their wives with them to Washington, and come back here each weekend to Montana with them! Monty’s right the only Dick on this blog is you! Bwah hahahahaha

          • Ahem, Norma, which of Max’s wives are you talking about? Seems the at me hates his guts.

            • “at me” s/b “last one'” Wendy Baucus.

              • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | March 16, 2012 5:00 PM at 5:00 PM |

                Mark for someone who doesn’t own any cows… you sure produce a lot of Bullshit

                • Content, Norma. Strive for content.

                  • Backwoods Monty | March 16, 2012 5:45 PM at 5:45 PM |

                    Why should Norma strive for content that comports your twisted reasoning Buttarski? Why should anyone, bow to your insufferable dogma, or propagandistic theory?

                    Her wording was sound, and to the point! Your a Lair and a bullshitter. No Matter how inarticulately you try to dump on others — she has found a simple sentence that describes you to a fault! Bullshitter!

                    I like that about Norma, and others here that are sane(Unlike you). Straight and to the point!

                  • Arsonists exacerbate extreme wildfire conditions in Colorado foothills: source

        • Backwoods Monty | March 16, 2012 6:08 PM at 6:08 PM |

          There are no stupid questions Mark, but there are LOT of inquisitive idiots, just like you! Why would you smear someone, you dislike with lies, Why would you question his integrity, when you clearly have none of your own?

          • Still trying to figure out who you are. You never know with the Kailey boys around. You sound sorta like Rod, and use of the name “Monty” is either a jab or an accident, as that is the name Rod used to ambush me some years back.

            “Inquisitive idiot,” “Buttarski,” “insufferable dogma,” “propagandistic theory.” These words or phrases all have two things in common: They are meant to be insulting, and they have no intelligent content. How do I argue with such drivel?

            I’m working on your identity. Use of the word “propagandistic” indicates you’ve been around the block, but your seeming inability to grasp its content speaks of a mere Democrat.

            My first reaction is that you are Rod, as you have betrayed use of speakng for the group and “answer the question!” However, “Buttarski” is Kraljic.

            This I know – your appearing out of vapor and Kurtz bargaining with me to leave this site at my log indicates that I have annoyed some Democrats, posibly the border collies who manage the herd. It’s kind of like my job, since you are the problem.

            • WOW, That’s probably one of the most paranoid posts I have read for some time. I am amazed Larry K had to point out to you, that you annoy Democrats, considering you also seem to be annoying Republicans here as well.

              So, your that dull in the brain synaptics department? Someone else had to point it out? Interesting.

              The Kailey brothers have to be laughing their asses off at you right now. They have acquired a new ally — out of the vapors. So has the Environmental Ranger, and Cowgirl. Not to mention the rest of the mixed variety of differing, sometimes conflicting progressives, and forward thinking conservatives, that may pen their opinion’s here. My penned opinion — is to always keep right wing trolls in place, like you with annoying tidbits of facts and truths.

              As you step on someone’s freedom of expression here, with miscellaneous propoganda, cloudy opinion, and your Obamabot formulations, expect me to undo your written crap, by putting you in place systematically, as the dodgy tea party huckster, you have become. Expect it.

              “Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth, and every man has a right to knock him down for it.” – Dr. Samuel Johnson English author

            • No content!

              People rarely change their minds about things, and most Americans are deeply indoctrinated, surrounded as they are from birth with aitprop and patriotic scripts. To introduce ideas that contradict deeply held attitudes causes discomfort, as it exposes the fact that you hold conflicting ideas side by side, believing each. This causes , embarrassment and anger. It’s cognitive dissonance.

              The only way anyone will ever change their mind is by squarely facing internal contradictions to relieve the pressure caused by the conflicting realities. So I expect that people will get angry at me, and alas, with most poor souls, it ends there. they getnpissed off and say “go away!”

              You might be different, whoever you are. Facing internal contradiction and going where truth leads you takes balls. Do you have it in you? Do ya, punk?

              • Backwoods Monty | March 17, 2012 8:54 AM at 8:54 AM |

                He he he, Man, you really are a mess. Have you ever read what you write? Do you have a split personality Buttarski? All this phys-co babble, you render under the guise of intelligent, soul searching chatter — tells me you spent a little too much time with a psychiatrist, and not enough time in reality.

                You haven’t answered a damn question of mine yet. But — I suppose it is because, your still arguing with the other you, on who will answer. Figures!

                If this is the best you got for doublespeak, and it took you all night, to concoct this little fairy tale, of scribbled dung — Bring it! I need a good laugh.

              • Gotcha. No balls. Slink away then muhfuh. I can’t get over this not-so-fresh feeling that I know you by other names. Cowgirl invents personalities to keep the place running, Kailey posts under more than one name … You are familiar to me. Very creepy – it’s like, when I was a kid and I went in the bathroom and the odor told me that Dad had just been there .. I’m picking up a foul odor here.

                • You are just begining to smell your own Bullshit, Mark. You fail to provide content of any kind yet you seem to demand that others do. When they do provide content – especially if that content is pointing out your delusional drivel – you complain that there is no content. Worse, you wax poetic about your own superiority (as if there is some content in that) while deriding everyone else. What a loser. Haunt the blogs in Colorado and leave Montana to big boys and girls.

                • Backwoods Monty | March 17, 2012 4:31 PM at 4:31 PM |

                  OH Damn, he called me a Muhfah — Buttarski cant even spell MOFO(Boisterous laughter)!

                  Ummmm Mark, a person always seeks the truth. I have never seen it lead anyone, anywhere. It must be discovered first, and the directions we find must be followed by our own meddle. that doesn’t take balls, it takes sight, and hearing, and a little heart. Not balls!

                  Your personal fascination with balls, being truth detectors — proves to most of the people here, which head you really use for thinking. I prefer the one perched above my shoulders, You prefer the one closer to an ASS.

                  I use my family jewels for more pleasurable things in life, Like the chance to raise a lovely family — You must use yours for data storage. Are yours blue then also? because it seems they don’t get much action, even when you use them outside their intended use? I guess the cavity between your ears is empty too then?

                  You’re a dimwit Mark. you’ve always been a dimwit, you’ve been hanging around here for years, getting dimmer among the more enlightened Montanan of today. Yes, yes, all right, dimwit, we hear you!

              • Which of you two is the creepier brother? Just wondering. If you are ever up to it, stop by my blog. I deal in content, mostly, though I’m thinking about putting up something about my discovery this morning on how to clean an iPad screen. I once put up a post on the ionizing button on a hair dryer, wondering if it was real.

                Again, I’m no genius, and again, I got lucky. I broke free. It happened because I became self-employed. Dig? I did not plan it. I … got … lucky. Do you understand that it is not about brains, but the freedom to describe what you see as what it is and not what you are told to believe it is? I know plenty of people who have more brain power than me – maybe even you. But it’s all caged in. You’re not free. I don’t know why. I don’t know why people need to be in a herd when being out of that environment is so fulfilling.

                So all I say here is to look at yourselves, see yourselves for what you really are – mindless followers. That, to me, is content. Sorry if it hits pay dirt with you.

                • That would of course be me, Tokarski. But then we do have to clarify what you call “creepy”, don’t we?

                  I have to remind you that you are like the child that just discovered that Santa Claus isn’t real. Just because you finally noticed something doesn’t mean that others haven’t. You continue to wail and moan about everyone else who doesn’t seem, to you, to have the right view of that Santa Claus fraud. Here’s a hint, Mark, my brother has been self-employed for a considerable chunk of time as well, possibly as long as you. Surely it takes more than that to be free.

                  To you being “free” means agreeing with you else we are enslaved by your earlier delusion, the one you think yourself free of. Tokarski, many things are possible, including: We, anyone, never suffered from your earlier delusion to begin with; Even if we, anyone, did suffer from that delusion, you’re in no position to see it; Agreeing with you only proves that one agrees with you; No one has an obligation to agree with you, “free” or not; and no one has an obligation to dismiss the new delusion you have replaced the old one with.

                  • Can you kind of sum that up for me? You’re kind of boring, you know.

                  • OK, OK, I think I got it. You take my words about freedom of thought to mean that people have to agree with me on various issues. That’s percerted,mand not it at all. I merely observe that when a large group of people all think alike, like religious groups or political parties, it is herd behavior, and no one is really thinking at all.

                    You’re free to agree or disagree with me on anything. I only note that I can predict your thoughts on various subjects by merely referencing the leaders of your herd. That will be your opinion as well.

                    • Backwoods Monty | March 17, 2012 5:53 PM at 5:53 PM |

                      Shorter version of Buttarski answer: How did you figure me out Rob?

                    • Juvenile, Monty. Juvenile. And again, no content. Are yahoo are you’re not Rod?

                    • Backwoods Monty | March 17, 2012 6:16 PM at 6:16 PM |

                      I am actually not a vapor Buttarski! I am real, and I have come to haunt the crap out of you in written form!
                      Expect It!

                    • Yeah, well, geez, you’re really tasking me. This is really hard to take. I don’t think I can stand any more.

                    • Oh if only that were true, Liar. We would finally be free of your drivel posing as “intellegent content”.

                      I have been to your sad sack sorry weblog, Mark. You post the same kind of circular bullshit there that you try to force feed people here. You have a few syncophants that bolster your obviously low self image. Sadly, the actual content of your site is limited at best. It is primarily your conspiracy theory musing coupled with words you have stolen from far better men than you. I have no interest in returning.

                    • Backwoods Monty | March 17, 2012 7:31 PM at 7:31 PM |

                      Shorter version of Monty: Its a free country — don’t let the screen door hit you on the ass, on the way out!

                    • Kenny, I’m so dense! No way do I see through your bullshit.

  4. Now I have a question, if Neil Livinstone is elected governor, and Rick Santorum is elected president, how are these two going to get along? I mean you have one that wants to get rid of birth control, and porn, and you have another that wants to tell you how to get a hooker and drugs, how do these two end up in the same party?

  5. Backwoods Monty | March 16, 2012 8:43 AM at 8:43 AM |

    Is this where we slip condoms over our cowboy boots, to protect us from all the crap Livingston and Zinke are giving out to Montanans??

    I knew those little plastic wonders had a duel use!

    Larry, the slogan is great!

  6. I receuved that e-mail that’s going around. Anybody notice that Rick Hill’s consultants, Majority Strategies, are among the forwarders?

  7. How does the Republican party of Montana get these high quality candidates? When you think they hit the bottom of the barrel they find a new low. Its amazing, ten years ago I would have said there was no lower then Judy from Mars, and Mike the Hairstylist. Now here we are in 2012 and look at all these fabulous candidstes, civil war racist for state auditor, all the gubernatorial candidates, and drunken Denny for US Senate. Then a look at their Presidental field and my gosh, I wonder if there is still some normal people in the GOP. What happened to the GOP that was old,boring, white guys, who cared about business and money?

  8. Sounds like Livingstone would be more fit to be Governor of New York. Spitzer could have used his book.

  9. This is too funny

  10. Im going to vote in the Republican primary in June, cause I want Jon Tester to get re elected, so Im going to go vote for Denny Rehbergs opponent. But on the governors race how do I chose? I mean you got Neil, the man of mystery, Ken Miller, the most annyoing campaing in histroy, you got Rick Hill the congressman from way back when I was in high school, you got Corey Stapelton he is about as interesting as watching paint dry, and your got Bob Fanning the Chicago wolf killer. Oh and I forgot you got Jim Lynch Schwietzer’s former transportation director, who got canned after he hired his daughter, and then transformed into a Republican. I just dont know. Lesser of the evils or the evil or the lessers.

  11. I wonder if he is still married to his wife? Is he? Is she the blond woman with the dog who lives with Mr. Livingstone here or is she the blond woman who works in his house on his campaign when the blond woman with he dog isn’t there?

  12. There is an email going around about this forwarded from an email with the last name, Sena. Rick Hill has a campaign emploee named Jessica Sena. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence. Rick Hill would never attack Neil and Ryan.

    • I swear Republicans are dumber than dirt.

      Dave, let me explain this to you, real simple like. Livingston wrote something that could be offensive to voters and damaging to his campaign. A political opponent is making certain that the majority of people know that Livingston wrote something that might be offensive, and damaging to his campaign. Now may, just maybe, the word “opponent” means something different to you than it means to the rest of us, but one usually expects ‘attacks’ to come from opponents. Whining that such attacks come from an opponent is incredibly, unbelievably, overwhelmingly stupid. Neil (and how I love the familiarity of that) wrote the words, he sells the words, he owns the words. Not that I have much to begin with, but I would have less respect for Rick Hill if he didn’t point that out.

    • I love the hypocracy of Zinke’s statement –

      Zinke added, “I don’t have any quarrel with Rick. I talked about what I heard. That is far from spreading rumors. It was a concern that it’s out there. I wouldn’t ever accuse anyone of anything I don’t have concrete information about.”

      Of course he is spreading rumors… the statement “I talked about what I heard” is the very definition of a rumor. It is not based in fact. It does not quote a source. It is a rumor. Worse, he was called on it rather forcefully by Hill. Zinke must take lessons from Mark.

  13. I knew this was gonna happen eventually. Rick Hill’s hit men, in all likelihood. Neil is too nice of a fellow to dish it back to Hill. Which is why he isn’t cut out for politics.

  14. I’ve just looked online and the exerpts that the e-mail )and cowgirls blog) recites is not found,so whoever is doing this has a hard copy of the book. And why would anyobody in politics have a hard copy of neils book unless they are digging for dirt on him?

    • Okay, now I’m laughing out loud. I seriously doubt Livingston published his book thinking that people in politics would only have it to dig up dirt on him. (See, Bandy, that’s what proper spelling looks like.) So, now you’re saying that someone having a copy of his book is a problem because they want to quote it for reasons that Neil wouldn’t approve of?

      I repeat, Republicants are dumber than dirt, but sometimes very amusing because of it.

  15. This is the funniest thing I’ve seen in a long time. He party of family values turns out to be the party of prostituting, cheating, and general degeneracy. Whowuddathunk it!

  16. Bandy is probably right. Fact is that the Democrats don’t benefit from this, because it totally finishes off Livingstone, and Bullock was praying to have him as an opponent because he is a complete joke. Stapleton and Miller, the right wingers in the race don’t want Livingstone out. They want him in. That way, Hill and Livingstone would split up the moderate vote and also the Helena vote. So unless Livingstone has some arch enemy in this world in some other sphere, it was most likely the Hill campaign that did this. And we do know that Hill and company fight dirty.

  17. He left out a section:

    Elections. Never elect me to public office of any kind. I’m probably just trying to roll you, or worse.

  18. How is any of this relevant to whether Neil Livingstone would be a good manager, a good CEO for the state, whether he would manage finances soundly and ensure limited, effective government? All of which he would. This is a bunch of character assassination for no apparent purpose other than titillation. You are smearing the name of a good man who would make a good public servant. So what if he wrote a book 14 years ago? Why is this really relevant to the election? You have a businessman who created jobs in the private sector, very successfully. The rest of the men in this field are all government employees past or present. None of them have run a big business. Isn’t that what should be discussed here?

    • Well, at a minimum, it tells us what his position on contraception really is : )

      Also, Livingstone is a big pro-lifer. So what do you suppose his advice would be to a person who impregnates a prostitute?

      • It is unfettered hypocrisy that those calling themselves pro-life want to abort environmental protection.

        “…in the last decade, the percent of all reproductive-age women living in states hostile to abortion rights has jumped from about a third to more than half.”

        Montana: repel the earth haters.

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | March 17, 2012 6:40 AM at 6:40 AM |

      “How is any of this relevant”? bwhahahahahahahaa! Pubbie dude, you gotta be the most naive dude in the entire Pubbie party! You see, moron, every candidate attempts to show how they are different than the others. And Livingscam did it in a BIG way. Unfortunately, by doing so, he SMEARED HIMSELF! Hell, if you ain’t PROUD of your “accomplishments” (such as they are), don’t LIST them! Livingscam might be able to scrub his bio from his WEB site, but he’s left a trial a mile long for folks to peruse and laff at! The dude is serious wack!

      And HEY, it ain’t just us here in Montana. The dude is a NATIONAL laffing stock! And for good reason. Is that smearing? Not hardly. You see, Pubbie dude, if one CHOOSES to be a public dink, DON’T whine when folks laff at you! What’s unbelievable is that he and apparently you too thought he had a snowball’s chance in hell of winning anything! THAT is serious wack! Hope this helps.

      And I SERIOUSLY doubt the saner heads (if there are any) in the Pubbie Party share your views. They are probably NOT happy that Livingscam is adding to their already wacky image problem!

      • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | March 17, 2012 6:51 AM at 6:51 AM |

        p.s. I’m thinkin’ bout doin’ the REDneck’s guide to Hookers! You see, MOST of us here in Montany don’t GET to them far away locals that Livingscam mentions. But we STILL like to get LAID now and then! So’s, when I run for guv, I’m gonna write a book called Wallace On a Budget! It’s all about how to spend some time whiles’t passin’ through Wallace, Id.

        It’s designed for cowboys, miners, truckers, U of M students, lonely loggers, and just any horny dudes in general who find themselves stuck in Wallace and lookin’ for a way to kill time! You see, THAT’S our traditional values! NOT some hotsy totsy dumbass trying to impress us as a man of the world! The ONLY world we’ll ever see is bout as far as Wallace, Id.!

        And at the end of a book will be a bumper sticker that says, Really, I’ve Never Been to Wallace, Id.!

        I plan to do a sequel for the dudes that make it a little farther south down to the ol’ Mustang Ranch! Good place to go for your ridin’ lessons at the ridin’ academy down there in Nevada!

        You see, Pubbie dude, Livingscam just ain’t one of us! Too hotsy totsy!

        • Backwoods Monty | March 17, 2012 7:38 AM at 7:38 AM |

          Ha ha ha, I wake up to the “REDneck’s guide to Hookers,” on St. Paddys day. What a wonderful way, to start drinking green beer, with a good book. I am not sure about Wallace though… Maybe after the elections Livingston can start a tour bus company. it would be the first honest work, the man has ever done.

          • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | March 17, 2012 8:29 AM at 8:29 AM |

            And remember, Monty, rule number one of the Redneck Guide to pickin’ up hookers. If’n that cowgirl’s name is Lola, BE CAREFUL! For this has happened to more than ONE lonely logger I know! Now, I’m not sayin’ that it’s a bad thing at all. Just different! Different strokes, right!

  19. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | March 17, 2012 8:45 AM at 8:45 AM |


  20. Neil,
    I can get you out of Montana for just 10 million dollars. Call me.

  21. It seems to me that the so-called family values folks spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about sex, especially other people having sex. It’s like any word can immediately set them off. Birth control pills…sex! Sheep…sex! Corndog…sex!

  22. Nah,you’re overthinking. Never thought I’d say that about you. I can predict with amazing accuracy where you will come down on any issue, as I can the rest of the herd.

    • Mark, photographs of you suggest that you are an obese man suffering from hypertension. Only you can prevent narcissism.

      • I am not obese and do not suffer from hypertension (119/76). Per usual, you’re full f shit.

        • Backwoods Monty | March 17, 2012 8:57 PM at 8:57 PM |

          Shorter Version of Buttarski: I’m not fat. I am fat headed. Big difference!

          • No content…

            • Backwoods Monty | March 17, 2012 9:10 PM at 9:10 PM |

              What you actually mean is, “no Comment.” Because its true!

              • Where you have offered content, I have answered in kind. You usually do not do so. Down below somewhere you offered up words of support for Obama as he seeks to lower corporate tax rates, which you would oppose if done by the “other” party. It is evidence of my larger point that you do not think for yourself and follow the herd. The even larger point is that the two herds, Democrats and Republicans, have the same cowboys on horses watching over each.

                Some of us manage to escape, and it is we who manage to do so who are ridiculed by the chorus of followers.

                • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | March 18, 2012 7:58 AM at 7:58 AM |

                  Um, Buttinski, why don’t you use your formidable soporific debating skills to take on some of the actual BAD guys that show up here? You’re a one man fifth column, dufus. That’s why folks hate you, little fella.

                • Backwoods Monty | March 18, 2012 4:37 PM at 4:37 PM |

                  Really Mark? Lets be frank for a minute here. You haven’t offered up much content in the past few years. I have seen you rip into people daily who offer an opinion here, adding no content what so ever, except the snide remarks. I am only doing what you have done to others — to you! Obviously you do not like it. Too damn bad, because you deserve it back.

                  Larry and Larry offer good content here. What they wont put up with, is you disparaging others, and neither will I.

                  I gladly leave you alone, as soon as you drop the chip off your shoulder, and stop your confusing BS. But let me make it clear, I will not stop until I am sure you have, and I will monitor the site daily to keep you in line.

                  Expect it!

                  • Your name again? Almost all that goes on here is silly partisan politics to no end. Once your people are elected, they do as they damn well please and you support them. I think that the only real purpose of this blog is to be an online fan mag. There is no “Cowgirl.” but I wonder if the use of that image, as in one who rides herd, is a cynical joke on you all.

                    I’m catching grief for even coming here, messing with the “mootocracy,” not that I care. I think the key to politics is to be able to cynically manipulate people 24/7 and not to feel bad about it. Baucus us a cynical SOB I know, and apparently Tester too.

                    Kralzy is an idiot. Did you write that with a straight face? Whoever you are, you are yet to distinguish yourself in any intelligent fashion.

                • Ahhh Buttarski lets talk about the herd mentality for a second here. I think Norma touched on it once before, but why do you think a herd doesn’t work?? It works on you

                  The best example of herd mentality is republicans in the late 1970’s — you see Jim Jones was a republican. He used the members of his “church” to organize local voting drives for Richard Nixon’s election, and worked closely with the republican party.

                  LAT, 12/17/78; Hold hands and die!: The incredibly true story of the People’s Temple and the Reverend Jim Jones , p. 70 (Jones held 15% vote Mendocino County).

                  Jim Jones grew up in Lynn, in southern Indiana. His father was an active member of the local Ku Klux Klan that infest that area. Hold Hands, pp. 61,68 (KKK, Jones’s racism); NYT, 11/26/78 (biography).

                  Jim Jones was a Christan leader “World Vision, Go Home,” L. Lee, Christian Century, 5/16/79; “In the Spirit of Jimmy Jones,” J. Fogarty, Akwesasne Notes, Winter, 1982; NYT, 2/26,4/4,11/16/75 and 12/25/79 (W.V. Cambodia), 4/2-5/75 and 6/30/79 (Vietnam work).

                  And had white supremacy friends like “Walter Heady” a rather nasty white guy in Ukiah California, the head of the local chapter of the John Birch Society

                  Journey to Nowhere, p. 220; “Jim Jones a Republican,” LAT, 12/17/78 (John Birch); Daily World, 6/23/81 (Holsinger comments), and NYT, 11/24/78 (“helpful” reputation).

                  Wait a minute! Herd mentality is Beginning to sound more and more like the tea partied of today. Your Party Mark!

                  You have a rather nasty affliction of herding syndrome yourself. You always keep telling people how you own a Ipad on this site.,2817,2401683,00.asp OOPS — your herd mentality is showing again?

                  Lastly, let us clearly define our differences:

                  1. One that favors or supports a republican form of government
                  2. A member of a political party advocating republicanism
                  3. A member of the Republican party of the U.S.

                  1. An adherent of democracy
                  2. One who practices social equality
                  3. A member of the Democratic party of the United States

                  Conservative as a Noun
                  1. An adherent or advocate of political conservatism; a member or supporter of a conservative political party
                  2. One who adheres to traditional methods or views; a cautious or discreet person

                  Conservative as an Adjective
                  1. Of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism
                  2. Tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions; marked by moderation or caution 3. Marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners

                  Liberal as Noun
                  1. A person who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways
                  2. A member or supporter of a liberal political party
                  3. An advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights

                  Liberal as an Adjective
                  1. Marked by generosity, openhanded, given or provided in a generous and openhanded
                  2. Not literal or strict
                  3. Broad-minded; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

                  Sorry dude looks like Democrats do not follow the herd Mentality, but you republicans do!

                  • Interesting. I remember pictures of Rev. Jones alongside Rosalynn Carter too. That was quite a reach. Hitler was a National Socialist, you know.

                    Why is it, honest question here, that as you realize that I am not a Democrat, that you presume that I am a Republican? Must I be one or the other? I am merely a leftist, a socialist, and I carry some libertarian impulses, like legal drugs and prostitution, too.

                    The rest of your comment is too much to answer here. The herd mentality is part of both political parties. Neither encourage critical thinking. Terms like “liberal” and “conservative” came out of European politics, and are not very useful stateside – that is, they don’t have much substantial meaning. There are no “conservatives” here, there is no “left” here beyond some isolated freaks like me, leaving only a right wing and a less reflexive “moderate” right wing, which we call “Democrats.”

                    But the essential point is that you are all right wingers, Republcians only little more reactionary.

                    • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | March 19, 2012 10:23 AM at 10:23 AM |

                      No sorry. it was just a photo opt, he showed up when she was there in SF. It was unfortunate. The Carters didn’t like him. Jimmy was the first president I voted for, as well as volunteered for, in my youth. Yeah I was also around, and the family living in same area when the Zodiac killer sprees happened. Ca Ca occurs in life, We didn’t let fear dominate us. The same fear you try to peddle to people in Montana on this blog.

                      And as Monty pointed out Jones wasn’t a Californian, he was Indianan. So the other lie, you will try and send out will be, it is the liberals states fault, that isn’t the case either. We all know you for the republican sh*t disturber you are!

                      I also see you didn’t answer Montys question on your herd mentality? I also like how dumb your explanation of American verbiage was. Made me laugh! How you tried to tie it to some long forgotten European BS story… your expertise in the English language is non existent. Your lying again Mark it shows.

                      People like you like Practicing at screaming fire. Your misinformation is legendary Mark, from what I heard it was one of the reasons you had to leave here. You are a Colorado native now, who cooks up untruths, and they have a lotta of kooks out there as well … Plus one, since you moved there!

                      Is this how you get back at the state you were not man enough to continue living at? Pretty sad when a woman has to tell you, you have no courage at all!

                    • You started out somewhat sane and rational, Norma, and then deep-ended again. And you’ve got this meaning-of-words problem that others here suffer from, taking everything at face, no texture. I had no illusions that Jimmy Carter cared for or about Jim Jones, and equally, don’t take his association with any Republican seriously. He was a monster, and no party that I know in this country ever openly advocated such ideas.

                      Conservatives, as I read them in British history, were reasonable people who favored minimum government, slow change and respect for the wisdom of the past. John Stuart Mill said that, by and large, they were stupid people. There is no such animal in this country – that is, there is lots of stupidity, but no conservatives right now.

                      Classical liberals, as I read them, were heavy behind private property rights as a human right, laissez-faire public policy including free trade. Direct democracy was a no-no. Many of our founding fathers were classical liberals, as was Adam Smith.

                      Modern-day “conservatives” as I said do not exist, and our modern-day “liberals” (that one time dominated the Democratic Party) are war hawks, giving us the Vietnam War along with attacks on Cambodia, Laos, and an Indonesian massacre. At home they were hardly laissez-faire, quite the opposite, backing social welfare programs as a way to stave off internal rebellion.

                      Why I waste these words on you Norma – is my own bugaboo. As I said, I am a leftist, a socialist with some libertarian bent, and there is no place for leftists in your party, which is “moderate right wing”, and far more dangerous than the other party, as you who should be fighting the right wing are asleep when you party is advancing its agenda.

                      Zzzzzzzzzzzz Norman, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

                    • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | March 19, 2012 11:40 AM at 11:40 AM |

                      Your not a lefty Mark! You Lie, You Lie you Lie!

                    • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | March 19, 2012 11:46 AM at 11:46 AM |

                      Mark you are a facist! We see you for what you are! Your just a tool of the Republican party — sent to this blog to confuse the issues, muddy the waters…. just a dumb a** with a mission of hate and division. Pretty simple face value… no texture( or Lying) required!

                    • Oh I see Buttarski, is at it again. Norma, he lies to men, women — I’d even wager, he steals candy from children as a hobby! At the very least he is disrespectful for all human life. I see he didn’t answer you question about why he left Montana… so I take, what you said about him as true. Cowardly little “Cac ar oineach”!

                      Mark, are you always this inarticulate towards women or are you making a special effort today!

                      Please excuse my Irish!( That was for Norma, not Buttarski)

                    • Let’s be clear here. Mark’s definition of Conservative is not just British – it is the standard definition you find in any dictionary. Contrary to what Mark says, they do, indead exist. I am a Conservative. I believe in smaller government (which isn’t to say “no government”, personal responcibility, slow change and learning from the past. In fact, there are quite a few people who identify with those statements. Mark would try to tell you that we don’t exist, but then again, I am sure Mark still believes in Unicorns given his many conspiracy theories.

                      The disconnect Mark has is that since he doesn’t see them (I am sure there are a lot of things that Mark doesn’t see), they must not exist.

                      Conservatism is not a bad thing, either – regardless of what you see here in these comments – any more than rational liberalism is. Where we have gone badly wrong is that the fanatical, irrational ultra conservatives have taken over the Republican party – often calling for us old school conservatives to be booted off the island. The end result is 40% of the electorate self identifying as “independant”. In general (especially here in Montana), the majority of people in the US are at least to some extent conservative. Change (especially rapid change) scares more people. Moreover, most people are generally lazy – they would rather deal with the status quo than work hard to change it. This tends to support a moderately conservative platform.

                      Today’s Republican Party has made a serious miscalculation. They have assumed that since the majority of people are relatively conservative, than a platform of strict social conservatism (and a 200 year old view of women) will propel them to the whitehouse. This is obviously a mistaken conclusion and one that will cost them big time in November.

                      What really scares me about this whole thing is that, when the Democrats win big (and they will…) will they forward a radically liberal agenda? If they do, they will not only shoot themselves in the foot politically, they well may give control of the Government over to the self same social conservatives that are not tanking themselves. The end result will be a complete disconnect between government and governed and that should scare the hell out of anyone with even a passing knowledge of history.

                      If the Democrats actually accomplish a fiscally conservative agenda with some mildly liberal social advances, they can easily cement their future. Moderate Conservatives will continue to support them and it will force the Republicans to continue fronting batshit crazy candidates to “seperate themselves from the Democrats”. I question whether the Republican Leadership is smart enough to know how dangerous that is and moreover, the Republicans have backed themselves into that corner. Look at Romney – a moderate Conservative Governor gone radical social conservative in hopes of winning the nomination.

                    • If the Democrats actually accomplish a fiscally conservative agenda with some mildly liberal social advances, they can easily cement their future.

                      This is one area in which you and I disagree. More radical liberal social advances often do nothing but enhance a fiscally conservative agenda. I believe that we already agree that single payer (SOCIALISM!) will save enormous amounts of money every year. But, seriously, a War on Drugs? Governmental regulation that is not only anti-women but also anti-sex? Union busting because unions are full of free-loaders, mobsters and lazy people? Those are social battles, not fiscal ones, and the conservatives have been on the wrong side since the 1950’s. The only difference today is that the fiscally unconservative and socially regressed have a propaganda wing they didn’t quite have before. What you call ‘forwarding a radical liberal agenda’ is about the fiscally smartest damned thing we could do at this point.

                    • Oh, yea h – we left Montana for Colorado to be with young grandchildren and children. We still own land in Bozeman and a business and rental unit in Livingston, and come back each year in June to catch spring in YNP.

                      Do not ever use the word “inarticulate” when in the same blog as a Kailey.

                      Norma you’re like a split personality, half of you stupid and the other half able to cite long passages from Wiki. I don’t know who to deal with –

                    • It’s all about you, isn’t it, Tokarski? Or, how did you describe your response:

                      What came out was a piece so self-involved and cleverly self-flattering


                    • Ummm, I have no idea how you got to your reply from what I said. None at all.

                      Let’s ponder a moment what I meant (maybe I said it wrong….)

                      Let’s say that Obama wins and the Democrats enjoy the kind of success I fully expect them to have in Congress (a House that is as solidly Democrat as it is now Republican and a Senate with 60 Dems- might or might not happen). If they dither around like they did in 2008 or worse, try to pass a wildly liberal agenda on items like gun control, wilderness areas or any other popular liberal agenda items, they will suffer a defeat in 2014 similar to 2010. The Republicans will point at the wasted time and money spent on items like this as well as the upcoming ACA activation in 2014 and whip the average voter into a frenzy just like they did in 2010.

                      On the other hand, if they come into office, are seen to work diligently on the budget and jobs (similar to the way Clinton came into office), they have the chance to really make a difference with the electorate. It will hard because the same people that have worked to obstruct president Obama will continue to clammer from the sidelines but I would like to think that most Americans can at least recognise when they have jobs and that the government is threatening to shutdown every couple of months like it is now.

                      Yes, the current Republican Party is scary. The Religious Fanatics and Social conservatives would love to take us back to 1920 when the industry magnates ruled from on high, women were relagated to the childbaring and cooking and the “darkies” knew their place. Painting all conservatives with that brush is not fair or accurate. That said, I would HATE to see the vocal minority extant today in office. That is vision right out of “V for Vendetta”.

                    • Moorcat, the Democrats will not retake the House of Reps. If I’m wrong on that, we’ll talk then. But you might want to ask yourself why. The answer will not be a “wildly liberal agenda”, but rather why a wildly liberal agenda might actually save us money …

                • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | March 19, 2012 7:31 PM at 7:31 PM |

                  No Worrys Rob, I just allowed him to continue showing people who he really is…. a Liar for the political right!

  23. With all due respect to Montana Cowgirl, I read the entire chapter in question and Livingstone warns up-front, in the first paragraph, against partaking in such illicit and dangerous activites. Livingstone is an international security advisor and unfortunately expats working overseas tend to stupidly put themselves at risk in dangerous places in order to buy cheap and commonly available sex. Livingston warns:

    “Let’s being with the observation that those who go looking for trouble generally find it. I do not recommend that you indulge in illicit pleasures such as gambling, drugs, or prostitution, but experience suggests that many people, despite the risks, do so. This chpater is designed to help you minimize the personal risks involved especially when you are travelling in a foreign country.”

    Unfortunately for U.S. companies doing business abroad, an employee who is “enjoying the local culture,” as it were, can be a big liability. I know of one such incident wherein an expatriate employee left the company compound, went to a bad part of town to pay for sex, ended up getting kidnapped and held for ransom by the cohorts of the prostitute, and his employer spent months and millions of dollars attempting to get him released. What Neil is teaching is simple common sense, which unfortunately is lost on many moron expats who go trolling for hookers in Africa and Asia, amongst other high-risk places.

  24. I fail to see how a book which is basically a manual on how to minimize risk while traveling abroad is problematic for Neil’s campaign. I was trained on all of this stuff as a matter of course during my international career in the Third World. It’s standard operating procedure. I think that a savvy international businessman such as Neil would have the wherewithal and background to bring this state into the international economy. Wouldn’t it be nice if Montana could have a GDP that rivaled Texas? We could stop living in delapidated trailers, could put food on the table and educate our children. What a nice concept.

    • So let me get this straight. Neil’s advice on fucking prostitutes will bring this state into the international economy? If you fail to see how this book would hurt Neil’s campaign, then there is no issue for you to comment on, is there? But here’s a hint. Others might not agree with you.

  25. Neil ADVISES AGAINST sex with prostitutes. Unfortunately, with the dark side of human nature as it is, there is a huge prostitution market that one cannot stick their head in the sand and ignore in spite of how troubling and disgusting it may be. Since Neil advises U.S. Corporations on keeping their expat employees safe in the Third World, he would be remiss by not including advice on how to avoid risk vis a vis prostitution. It is a disgusting and sad FACT that many of the American men who work overseas indulge in prostitutes and their companies end up having to foot the bill for their idiocy. It is basic risk management to warn of such dangers and try to minimize them. Neil is an international businessman with a proven track record of success. I believe that his wide international business experience would undoubtedly help grow Montana’s economy.

    • Well, then, good luck to him.

    • Since Neil can provide such expert advice, will he legalize prostitution in Montana? I mean, after all, Republicans tend to treat us like a 3rd world country already so why not have all of the “allure” of a 3rd world country?

    • I’m curious about Mr. Livingstone’s “wide international business experience.”

      Would this be his business experience of getting Russian mobsters into the US without getting arrested? Or would it perhaps be trying to figure out how to reform the image of the daughter of a dictator who boils his opponents alive so that she can sell her clothing line in the US? Or perhaps, offering to grease the wheels for fundamentalist Islamic terrorists to be delisted from the US State Departments list of foreign terrorist organizations?

      This clearly puts him in the same category of international businessmen as Al Capone and Pablo Escobar.

      And I’m also curious, how many Montanan’s are currently employed by Mr. Livingstone’s vast business enterprises?

  26. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | March 17, 2012 4:44 PM at 4:44 PM |

    The problem is I don’t want a GDP like Texas, Texas is one of the most debt-ridden states in the nation. The officials of that state have no respect for education, no respect for civil rights, no respect for a clean environment! they have more dilapidated trailers, and children and adults going to bed hungry, then we have for an entire population of the state.

    Montana must find a better way to make ends meet in the future then following the failed policies of Texas. The only thing good about Texas is they have decided that wind is a good alternate to fuel. and I would like to see more of that here!

  27. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | March 17, 2012 4:51 PM at 4:51 PM |

    So now the right is finding exceptions to their party platform of “Family Values?” Neil Livingston is the first exception?

    Really? All the while you have a presidential candidate, that if elected at you convention, would call Livingstons book “Smut,”, or soft porn? The GOP is definitively going to get more interesting as the election progresses.

  28. I wouldn’t want to live in Texas either, believe me. However no one can deny that the Texas economy is booming while we are faltering here in Montana. Montana can be far better than Texas, in many ways, if we have the right leadership. I believe Neil can provide that leadership:

    “The Texas economy is the second largest in the nation and the 15th largest in the world based on GDP (nominal) figures. As the largest exporter of goods in the United States, Texas currently[when?] grosses more than $100 billion a year in trade with other nations.”

    • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | March 17, 2012 5:37 PM at 5:37 PM |

      Were landlocked! Texas has 370 miles of coastline and Galveston! The physical attributes of this state alone, make that kind of trade impossible. That is like comparing apples to oranges. Galvaston has been around itself as a city since the revolutionary war, Montana didn’t become a state till 1889. Texas 1845. its an older culture, it has had more time to grow up, and it is a false equivency to compare the two states at all.

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | March 17, 2012 5:51 PM at 5:51 PM |

      OK, dipshit, you’re UP! Now, you’re a moron who likes to spout nonsense, but on THIS site, you’re gonna get called on it. So, dude, list TEN things, only TEN things that your fearless “leader” will do to improve the economy here! And be specific! Do NOT do the “cut regulations” schtick!

      Don’t worry, cupcake. I won’t laff TOO hard at you! But you see, you’ve got nuthin’, and it shows. Your turn. List them ten simple things that moron Livingscam’s gonna do, beSIDES declare war on enviros! BHWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HEY, I’m shakin’ in my boots I tell ya! I’m scared to DEATH of a Klingon wannabee with his shiny pate and his shiny pistols! The dude’s an idiot with delusions of granduer! And THAT won’t do much for the economy! You’re up, cupcake!

    • Hi InContext, nice to meet you. I’ll deny it. Texas is the #1 recipient of federal agricultural subsidies; the largest consumer of 2006 federal recovery act money ($6.4 billion) which it used to deal with its state budget deficit instead of using it’s own “rainy day fund” of $9.1billion.

      Unlike Montana, Texas has consistently failed to balance its budget. And without the huge amounts of federal support in the form of defense spending, and federal highway funds, and subsidies for the oil and gas refining, extraction, and transportation industries, Texas would be as attractive an economic climate as MIdland is as a ski destination.

      Heck, even Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) admits the oil and gas industry would die without federal subsidies (

      Further, is in the top 10 states with the highest Gini coefficient (a measure of household income inequality), coming in at #5 (behind New York, Connecticut, Louisiana, and Mississippi). In short, Texas is a glittering sinkhole of federal funds, returning to the Union a few good musicians, some great launch controllers, a few nice cowboy hats, and an accent that can peel paint. I don’t think Texas is much of an economic model to emulate.

  29. …And I understand that there is a booming prostitution business in the North Dakota oil fields. Sadly our Montana boys who are working in the oil fields are partaking of this dark trade. Perhaps they and their families would be well-served if they heeded the warnings and advice in Neil’s book. Prostitution is a disgusting reality and if we fail to acknowledge it and take adequate precautions, our boys will bring back their STD’s including herpes and AIDS to their unsuspecting spouses and girlfriends back home. It would be great if there was no such thing as prostitution. Unfortunately there is and it is dangerous.

  30. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | March 17, 2012 5:11 PM at 5:11 PM |

    We are not faltering, our state is sound financially. Let me tell you what is really happening. Jobs are going elsewhere because the state has done nothing past our mineral and rural wealth. and that has very slow growth potental. Sure we have a few good distinct businesses here, but if you were to follow a true job building pattern, you gonna have to energize city centers, with evil federal dollars to move more innovative business here.

  31. Larry–I always do a little victory dance when my opponent hauls out the ad hominem attacks. Any debater knows that the ad hominem attack is the last resort of the faltering. “Disphit.” That’s great. I’ll add that to my resume, just under my doctorate and two masters. Abolishing the corporate income tax would bring business into this state. Very simple.

    • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | March 17, 2012 7:25 PM at 7:25 PM |

      No it wouldn’t help and it never has… this is a fallacy the republicans bring up… along the same Lying lines as corporations in America pay the highest taxes in the world.

      In 2010 a new report: put together by the Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy looked at the tax filings from 2008-2010 of 280 of the nation’s biggest, most successful corporations. These companies reported $1.4 trillion worth of profit during a period when most Americans were struggling to stay afloat. The authors discovered that the average effective tax rate — what the companies really paid after government subsidies, tax breaks and various tax dodges were taken into account — was only 18.5 percent, less than half the statutory rate. Fully a quarter of the 280 companies paid under 10 percent.

      The only number that counts is the “effective tax rate.” One of the interesting tidbits provided by the authors is that in many cases, the tax rate on foreign income for many of these companies is actually higher than the effective U.S. rate.

      The most distressing part of the tale is the big picture: The overall trend line is pointed in exactly the wrong direction. If you break out just the years 2009-2010, the effective tax rate was 17.3 percent. “In 2008, 22 companies paid no federal income tax, and got $3.3 billion in tax rebates. In 2010, 37 companies paid no income tax, and got $7.8 billion in rebates.” When measured as a percentage of total GDP, over the last three fiscal years, “total corporate income tax payments fell to only 1.16 percent of the GDP … a new sustained record low since World War II.

      “Corporate taxes paid for more than a quarter of federal outlays in the 1950s and a fifth in the 1960s. They began to decline during the Nixon administration, yet even by the second half of the 1990s, corporate taxes still covered 11 percent of the cost of federal programs. But in fiscal 2010, corporate taxes paid for a mere 6 percent of the federal government’s expenses.”

      Meanwhile, GOP candidates for president are all promoting huge cuts in the corporate tax or, in several cases, even elimination of the corporate income tax entirely.

      I don’t need a doctorate and two masters to read the truth. What you are trying to do is tranfer taxes from corporations to the backs of people in this state.

      Economic History tells a different story. Not a state that took this approach of kissing corporate taxes goodbye, like Texas and California have done anything but dig itself into the red! Corporations should be held accountable for their fair share here… it is the only way to keep this state viable.

      • Last I saw, Obama wants to lower corporate tax rates.

        • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | March 17, 2012 8:07 PM at 8:07 PM |

          The proposed Obama reform is intended to prevent companies from shifting operations and earnings to tax havens and instead encourage companies to bring them back into the U.S., where they could create jobs and growth.

          As Warren Buffett says, nobody ever stopped investing because of high taxes. Companies stop investing because they don’t fundamentally believe in the growth opportunities in a market. I agree with Buffett that you can’t allow U.S. firms to repatriate foreign profits tax-free; it creates moral hazard. But it would be interesting to see how much of that money would flow back into the U.S. if the rate was 20%, or 12.5% It would tell us a lot, not only about corporate America’s belief (or lack thereof) in shared sacrifice, but also about their belief (or lack thereof) in the U.S. economy.

          Why are companies holding such a huge wad of foreign profits abroad to begin with! $1.5 trillion by some estimates. You can make a case that they simply don’t want to be taxed at 35%. But there’s no reason to think that under our current complicated tax structure, they couldn’t find ways around that, as they do now dodging taxes with U.S. earnings…

          • He drank the Kool Aid, and you support him. Why am I not surprised. It is very easy to predict your opinions in advance of your actually forming them.

            GE, which had an effective tax rate of zero, moved its X-Ray business to China. So taxes were not a motivating factor in that decision. If we lower taxes to zero, and companies still leave the country, what could you possibly be missing? What’s wrong with this picture?

            Please, deal with the internal contradiction in your reasoning.

            • Backwoods Monty | March 18, 2012 4:55 PM at 4:55 PM |

              Prove he drank the Koolaid? What you cant? That’s because your comment is an abject failure to proving any point!

              Norma, Made a good point about Obama’s reform, and all you can counter with is Koolaid — how sick of an individual are you Buttarski?

              GE also just open the biggest sun panel company in the US in Colorado last month. It plans to be in full production by 2013.

              General Electric has been plotting a solar empire for a few years now, and the industrial giant has finally settled on a place for the crown jewel of the plan: a 400 MW factory in Colorado to produce solar panels that use the same semiconductor compound as the successful “First Solar.”

              GE already is a big wind turbine maker and power plant builder in the US, and it just bought a maker of power conversion electronics and motors, Converteam, for $3.2 billion out in Georgia. The one thing I can say about GE is it is really working, at keeping more of its manufacturing base in the USA. And to me that is good news from a big company for a change!

              • GE tax rate is zero, so your evidence is in support of nothing. That was one point, the other that Obama bought into the idea (as if he had to be convinced, since he is a right wnger) that American corporate tax rates had to be lowered, a right wing ideological point.

                And finally, that you don’t think, and are reflexive, automatically supporting anything Democratic leadership proposes. Corporate tax rates are the perfect example of my prediction that no matter what the guys on horses say, the herd follows. Moo, Monty. Moo.

                • ~sigh~ Fact free as usual, Tokarski.

                  GE’s tax rate is not zero. It simply has enough deductions and incentives to make the rate below zero. Regardless, what does anything about it’s tax rate have to do with GE’s efforts towards sustainable energy? Nothing? What is the goal, here, asswipe? Paying for your medicare or getting America to a sustainable energy future? (Here’s a hint, dipshit. Those aren’t mutually exclusive.)

                  You again make accusations you can’t support and are contrary to fact:

                  Obama is a rightwinger.

                  Obama wants corporate taxes lowered.

                  1) Dumbass, those are not ideological points. They are policy points.
                  2) Dumbass, you can’t prove that Obama wants anything that you claim, save in the broadest degree. Every fucking rational human should want corporate taxes lowered because we’re all that flush with money. Obama has done nothing and will do nothing to boost tax rates for corporations that produce needed commodity, like power is by GE. The President has never, NEVER, argued that all corporate tax rates need to be lowered. You’re just dumb enough to think it had to happen. Prove your claim, asshole. You won’t, I know.

                  And not one person here will challenge you that your delusion proves itself. Of course your prediction proved correct; you alter your predictions based on the obvious. Please tell us all how dumb we are for not agreeing with you that the sun will come up in the east the next morning …

      • Backwoods Monty | March 17, 2012 7:51 PM at 7:51 PM |

        Exactly! Earlier this year we were subject to Republican thinking about Americans as a whole by Rick Perry who said,“We’re dismayed at the injustice that nearly half of all Americans don’t even pay any income tax.”

        The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that 46.4 percent of households will pay no federal income tax in 2011. This is, for the most part, not because people have chosen to loaf. It’s because they are working but simply don’t earn enough to owe income taxes, based on the progressive structure of the tax code and provisions designed to help the working poor and lower-income seniors.

        As the Tax Policy Center’s Roberton Williams has explained, “a couple with two children earning less than $26,400 (The approximate amount of pay for a family in Montana), will pay no federal income tax this year because their $11,600 standard deduction and four exemptions of $3,700 each reduce their taxable income to zero.

        So does that mean the republicans in Montana, and elsewhere in the country, think they are handing out free lunches to the lackeys of this state? Is it economic justice to expect working American Montanans to pay more, while corporations pay less?

        In the words of another idiot of right wing propaganda? (Wink, wink) “You Betcha!”

        • Obama wants to lower corporate tax rate from 35 to 28, saying he will close loopholes. So he drank the Kool Aid, as he usually does. Now, break out the brooms. Time to clean up after him. I know you are all going to support him on this matter. Usually Rod is the first to leave the gate in support of The One.

          In the meantime, you’ve forgotten about payroll, sales and property taxes. Most American families pay more in payroll tax than income tax, but your “non-partisan” Tax Policy Center typically overlooks that, and also does not account for other taxes that regular people pay. The income tax is a remnant of a tax designed to tax high earners more than low earners, so that even now, after all these years, it appears to have that effect.

          But Jesus, for once, content. What’s up with that? Are you drunk?

          • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | March 17, 2012 8:14 PM at 8:14 PM |

            Here we go again with the, “Nobody knows better then me” answer from the loony rightwinger Mark! Content Mark! Where’s your content! Facts Kinda help the conversation along!

            • I merely predict that no matter what he does, you will support Obama, right down the furthest right wings of the building.

              Somewhere eariler i said that it is easy to predict your opinions, that I only have to know what the leaders of the herd are thinking, because that is what you think.

              I predict it (takes no great insight), it happens, and you say I am loony? Good grief, Norma, there’s a word for this, but won’t use it.

              • Backwoods Monty | March 17, 2012 8:43 PM at 8:43 PM |

                And I mearly perdict, that your answer will always have no substantive, or enlightened proof, except the dung you fling regarding you Obamabot formulations… Toilet bowels have more function then you Buttarski — at least they flush out the crap!

                • No content. You’re back to reflexive form. We had a perfect example here – right wingers have for years been calling for lower corporate tax rates. Obama, a right winger, goes along with it. My prediction: As Obamabats, you’ll go along with it. What happened? You are all behind him. The herd has spoken.

        • They did pay Social Security Tax, however, which are capped at 106,000. They paid gas tax on every gallon they purchased, Medicare Tax is on all earned income, so the hedge fund managers and people Like Romeny have been except. Starting in 2013 that will change (about time)

          15 states tax groceries

          All but 4 states have sales tax, which the poor pay

          The poor pay more of their income as taxes then the wealthy as a rule.

          Mother Jones did a good article on this

          • Thanks for the link.

            I really can’t believe there isn’t a collective cry of Extra-Double-Plus-Bullshit every time this stupid republican myth is repeated. I understand the republican mantra of telling a lie enough times to actually make it appear to be real…but you just think in this day of fairly easy access to a large amount of information, opinion and a little something that the rest of the word recognizes as fact that people would just stop this idiocy (and the rest of the oft told republican myths) in its tracks.

            A few other studies that back it up:

  32. You can have a gross margins tax in lieu of a corporate income tax. The reality is that corporations will choose to do business in a state like North Dakota over a state like Montana due to the corporate tax issue. Montana as it stands is simply non-competitive and if we want jobs in this state we have to provide a climate that will attract business. The people of this state need jobs. People are going hungry. I am neither a republican or democrat. I just want to see effective change.

  33. Haven’t you ever wondered why the oil exploration and production is happening on the North Dakota side of the Bakken and not the Montana side?

    • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | March 17, 2012 8:20 PM at 8:20 PM |

      Oil, mining, natural gas are only pay 7% of Montana’s economy, Context! It isn’t the most viable industry in this state for jobs. and you are lying if you think it is!

    • Oil companies tend to go where the oil,is. It so happens thatnthe bulk of the Bakken oil is in ND and Canada.

      • Mark is right here, the oil is easier to access–therefore less expensive, on the ND side. Of course that doesn’t fit into Livingstone’s talking points. I wonder If he is “In Context.”

        • “…the history of kerogen development is one of false starts and failure. Just ask folks on Colorado’s Western Slope, who remember “Black Sunday,” May 2, 1982, when Exxon pulled the plug on the Colony Shale boondoggle.”

        • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | March 18, 2012 9:42 AM at 9:42 AM |

          I’m thinkin’ he is. The two “PhDs” give the dude away! And the constant use of the first person plural. He’s just SO one of us! He’s just SO Mr. Montana! He’s just SO smart, and SO enlightened that he had to write a book for fat, lardassed, horny Pubbie businessmen traveling abroad who need to CHEAT on their old ladies! The dangers are terrible! They hate us for our freedoms! They want’a give us VD and ROLL us!

          You see, Neil is a modern day Joseph Smith! Joe wrote the Book of Mormon after viewing the golden tablets, and Neil wrote the Boook of Moron Sex after recieving a golden shower! Or some such DEEvine inspiration! Now, he feels qualified to lead the revolution! He’s kinda like Buttinski in that he’s a stark raving egomaniac!

          Whats next? Clean cut oil industry guys going door to door two by two PREACHING Neil’s Book of Moron Sex??? Maybe THAT’S the revolution that Neil and his trained seal are spouting about! Could be. Ya never know with Pubbies!! They’re funny, funny dudes!

    • There is slightly more oil in North Dakota than in Montana.

  34. What is it about Montana that is keeping the oil companies out of the Montana side of the Bakken?

  35. From wiki: “an oil-drilling tax break enacted by the state of North Dakota in 2007,[23] shifted attention in the Bakken from Montana to the North Dakota side.”

    • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | March 17, 2012 8:21 PM at 8:21 PM |

      we post real links here buddy, what wiki?

      • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | March 17, 2012 8:33 PM at 8:33 PM |

        Number of farms in the state 28,000! Number of acres used by farming 60,088,000, How much of the Montana state land does farming and ranching comprise of the state: 65% Average size of a farm/ ranch in Montana 2,146 Acres.

        They don’t farm near as much in North Dakota as we do. What Mining and Oil Companies really want to do, is have you republicans give them the right to come in and poison our commodities, like wheat and cattle. This is why you are trying to change Imminent domain laws, because in order for dirty companies to succeed here, they will have to take away the land from farmers. ranchers, and private citizens!

  36. It’s pretty obvious that North Dakota is booming and Montana is stagnating. North Dakota is booming because of the E&P going on at the Bakken on the North Dakota side. Our Montana boys are going over to North Dakota for jobs, paying North Dakota income tax, purchasing products in North Dakota, etc., etc. when we could be putting them to work here if only Montana would make it worth the oil companies while to drill in Montana. I want Montana to be booming. Why are we shooting ourselves in the foot?

    • Eastern Montana is booming, Montana tax coffers runner over with Bakken money. You’re doing confirmation bias in a very, very big way.

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | March 17, 2012 8:59 PM at 8:59 PM |

      “our boys”?????? WHAT A FREAKIN’ DIPSHIT YOU ARE, DUDE! Or dudette I’m guessin’! Just where the hell are you FROM, dildo? Our boys??? BWHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAA! NO ONE says “our boys” unLESS they’re some kinda retarded outta stater!

      Look, dink, if you were actually FROM here, you’d understand our economy. You don’t. People have always traveled to the job site. Nuthin’ new. And your sympathy for “our boys” is truly touching! BHWHAHAHAHAAA! You’re a joke, just like Livingscam!

      BTW, N.Dakota is a gian SHITHOLE at the moment. Move there if you want. We don’t need that.

    • The State of Montana and its taxpayers are not an eleemosynary organization for the purposes of subsidizing the oil industry.

  37. You fools can’t defeat Neil on the issues so you invent salacious attacks. That really says something about the sad state of liberal affairs.

    • And here I was told that it was Rick Hill that offered this salacious attack. So, is Rick Hill a liberal now?

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | March 18, 2012 7:20 AM at 7:20 AM |

      And here I was told that Pubbies are SUCH family values, God fearing, conservatives. But seems that the very FIRST thing that they want to do when they go abroad for a business trip is SCREW HOOKERS! And these great upright, God fearing dudes need The Book of Moron WRITTEN by a devout Moron to teach them how to pay for some nookie withOUT gettin’ rolled!


      Too funny. Drildo, you Pubbies are the funniest little hypocritic morons out there! Do YOU have your own private copy of The Book of Moron Hooker Sex yet???


      And to No Content, a bit of advice. NUTHIN’ says moronic outta stater quicker than affecting the first person plural at every opportunity! Hence, your use of “our Montana boys”! That’s a dead give away, dufus! It’s what lardassed birther bob did on national TV! “WE Montanans wanna see Obama’s birth certificate, for WE Montanans want a PURE president”! Heck, newbie Gen. Robert E. Skees does it every chance he gets! And now, even a dude like Pastord Bulbdim who’s been here what, a month, is a WE Montanan too!

      So, you’re a moron, No Content. I asked you to present Livingscam’s ten point plan for our economy, and YOU said eliminate taxes on oil companies. BRILLIANT! Did they teach you that when you got your “two” PhD’s?? BHWHAHAHAHAHAHAA!

      Funny, funny stuff!

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | March 18, 2012 7:23 AM at 7:23 AM |

      QUICK! Send these dudes The Book of Moron Hooker Sex, for it SEEMS that they’re gonna be enjoying the Brazilian hooker scene just a wee bit longer than planned!

      Luv it!

  38. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | March 18, 2012 8:14 AM at 8:14 AM |

    Ooopsie! DeeRECT from the site of family values guy Neil and his trained seal!

    Promote Family Values

    Q) What is the proper role of state government in education?

    ANSWER:The state of Montana should educate its children, who represent our future. This does not mean sex education classes beginning in the first grade, diversity studies, and other unneeded courses.

    SOOOOO, let me see if I underSTAND mr. livingscam correctly. No sex ed for kids, but LOTS of sex ed for horny dudes lookin’ for hookers in Hong Kong! Got it!


    Yes, that’s called bein’ a world class dumbass! I see that Neil has declared war not ONLY on enviros, but logic as well!

    THIS is your new Pubbie Party! He’s birther bob with a book!

  39. For those denying that North Dakota’s tax breaks in 2007 led to drilling focus on North Dakota rather than Montana, google “2007 tax break shifted attention Montana to North Dakota.” There are hundreds of citations. It is simple fact. Tell the wife with three kids who never sees her husband and who has to raise her children alone because he’s working in Williston that Montanans have always traveled for work. I have about five of these poor families living down the street. Their husbands used to have jobs here and coach little league, etc. etc. and now the only work they can find is in Williston. It is not a happy existence, I assure you.

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | March 18, 2012 9:49 AM at 9:49 AM |

      YOU’RE A SAINT, DUDE! bhwhahahahaaa! A compassionate moron! Wow! Must be them PhDs! Where you from, dude?

    • If you look at the map of the Bakken horizons, you’ll find that most of it, especially the thicker portions, overlays North Dakota and Canada.

      I worked in the oil business from 1974 to the present in various capacities, now hardly at all, and saw companies invest in ND, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Nebraska, South Dakota and California. Never once did I hear talk that a state’s tax code prevented development. The driving force was the excitement of finding a large reserve, as a 300 BPOD well will make people rich, no matter the taxes. Bakken offers far more incentive than that.

      But there were complaints about Montana’s tax structure, as at that time the ranchers of Eastern Montana, who ran the show, had managed to put the entire tax burden for their counties on oil companies. That was reformed, and tax rates are now uniform throughout the state and oil severance revenue now goes into state coffers for statewide use. The Bakken formation is being developed in Montana, and is feeding the coffers and casing a surplus, which Democrats think is done by Schweitzer magic.

      Your notion that oil companies are avoiding Montana in favor of ND because of a slight difference in severance tax (Montana has tax incentives for new developments and for aging wells too) is confirmation bias on your part, akin to saying that Arizona grows palm trees and Montana doesn’t due to taxes.

  40. And Larry, you are no intellectual, as is patently obvious. Ironically, however, you like to stare out your ivory tower with your rose-colored glasses on.

  41. How about this one–you are a sophist.

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | March 18, 2012 10:09 AM at 10:09 AM |

      HEY, I bet I’d be offended if I KNEW that that meant! Is that a diss? Come on, dude. Speak our lingo!

  42. Well, since I’m a Montanan who lives in Montana, and I use those kinda words, it logically follows that those kinda words are used in Montana. Sorry to burst your bubble.

  43. And I’m not a dude. I’m a chick. I’m neither a republican or democrat. And I loathe party politics. I’m just sick of my state resembling Appalachia (where I have relatives, by the way).

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | March 18, 2012 11:05 AM at 11:05 AM |

      I knew you were. Well, if you loathe it so much, MOVE! Luv it or LEAVE it, dudette! You’re an outta stater too. I had you pegged the minute you posted! You do NOT share our values, namely love of our state!

  44. This thread started out as a taxation issue so let’s get a couple things straight.
    In 2011, ND collected over $950 million in oil production and extraction taxes; MT collected about $100 million.
    ND collected $146 million in corp taxes vs $119 million in MT
    and ND collected about $429 million in individual income taxes vs $816 for MT.
    In addition ND collected $775 million in sales taxes (MT = $0) resulting in around $2.6 Billion in total revenue. MT collected about $1.8 billion. All this info can be found at the respective dept of revenue websites for each state; look at their biannual reports or updates to interim Legislative committtees. I’m not sure what that works out to on a per-capita basis but since ND has fewer people than MT and about $1 billion more in taxes, I’d guess it doesn’t favor ND.

  45. It would be nice if Montana could collect $950 million in oil production and extraction taxes, too. How do we get there? We have the resources.

    • The reality is that Mark is correct; the “low hanging fruit” for oil extraction is in ND right now. They produced around 110 million barrels of oil last year compared to MT’s 33 million. And when looking a little deeper into the numbers, their tax policy is really not that much different than MT and might actually be more regressive. They certainly appear to be maximizing the tax dollars right now. But it really has to do with geography and we can’t do a thing about that.

  46. If someone from Neil’s campaign is monitoring this board, would you tell us how Montana could collect a commensurate amount of oil production and extraction taxes as North Dakota?

  47. If it is about low hanging fruit, I understand that Montana has an oil patch in the Southwest corner of the state that is underexploited and is $30/barrel oil vs. the $70+/barrel oil in the Bakken. Why isn’t our low hanging fruit on the other side of the state being utilized?

  48. When you are dealing with $70/barrel oil your margins are very tight as a producer and you need to drill where all the economics are in your favor. Even a slight tax break could make all the difference from an economic perspective. $30/barrel oil, on the other hand…

    • I agree but the market sets the price per barrel. As I understand it, the market considers all sorts of things associated with the quality of the oil. I’m no geologist so really can’t speak to that. I can only assume that the oil you speak of is of lesser quality so fetches a lower price.

      ND and MT both use an average price per barrel over a given time period and at a given location when determining the tax. I don’t know that a tax incentive could be easily localized.

  49. Larry, I am a Montanan and love this state. I wouldn’t live anywhere else. It is my love of this state that makes me weep for the economic condition that we are in. We are better than allowing our neighbors and citizens to be jobless. We are a hardworking people and we need jobs. Yes, I have relatives from out of state. Don’t you have any relatives that live out of state? I guess if I’m not a “dipshit” I must be an outsider. Try again.

  50. Dallas, the oil in the southwest corner fetches a lower price because it is easier to drill for–it is more of a “sure thing” than the shale-extracted oil in the Bakken from what I’m told. I really wish that the candidates were monitoring this board so that they could chime in here because I think we have stumbled upon an issue central to the economic growth of the State of Montana. Thank you for your intelligent and thoughtful posts on this issue.

  51. It actually doesn’t fetch a lower price–it is $30 barrel because the cost of extraction is low–it only costs the producers $30/barrel to extract it. It is more expensive for the producers to extract the Bakken shale oil.

  52. I’m still a little unclear about the $30 price/bbl. Are we talking about the cost of production vs the price it’ll fetch in the market? I know that there are multiple prices for oil but I always thought it depended on the quality of the oil or costs to get it to market and not so much on the actual cost of production. But any enlightment is appreciated.

    I don’t believe increased oil production will solve whatever economic woes we have. Could it help…maybe. But I still think we’re a prisoner of our geography. As the Bakken plays out in ND, the companies will naturally gravitate to MT and will finish off the field on this side of the border. Until then I’m just not sure there’s much that can be done to increase production in the state. I don’t think that tax reductions help employment but that’s another issue.

  53. I was talking about production costs–$30 per barrel is the cost to the producer to get it out of the ground in the SW Montana oil patch vs. $70 cost to get the oil out of the ground in the Bakken. So, the $30/barrel is more “high quality” and lucrative to the producer because it only costs the producer $30. His/her profits are higher when it is sold at the market price because the cost of obtaining it is cheaper. I am just wondering what the hiccups are to increased production in the SW corner of the state. Perhaps there are environmental concerns which are blocking production? I don’t know but am curious. I don’t want to get into the “trickle down” theory (of tax reductions helping unemployment) either. LOL. All I know is that industry = jobs and natural resources = industry = jobs. Of course I’m all for doing what we can to preserve the environment as well, but there has to be a balance.

    • Industry does not necessarily equal jobs. Depends on the industry. And the income produced by those jobs may not mean much if they are at or slightly above minimum wage.

      The only way to guarantee high wages is to develop the intellectual and research infrastructure of the state and grow economic sectors that we know generate high-paying jobs with a low-carbon footprint. Why are new, huge data centers being built by Google and NSA in Utah and Finland and not in Montana? Access to a workforce with sufficient technical depth, and good basic, existing IT and transportation infrastructure.

      Oil, gas, and mineral profits are ephemeral and are mostly made by out of state/foreign investors, not by local employees. Until we get leadership that ensures that what goes out of Montana adequately subsidizes the human and physical infrastructure and resources of the state (instead of piggybacking on and diminishing that infrastructure), we’re going to suffer the same fate as parts of Appalachia for precisely the same reason: they are rich in natural resources and poor in farsighted, progressive and practical political structures.

  54. About the only thing I can think of for SW Montana might be access to market although I can’t imagine that affects production costs. I’m not sure of the pipelines that run through that area. A more likely consideration might be the depth of the oil; in the Bakken the depth to oil, as I recall, is around 6,000 feet. I assume that something more shallow could be cheaper to extract. Otherwise I would think the cost of production (labor, equipment, management,etc) would be about the same. It’s really a moving target isn’t it!!!

  55. Clarification: I went and checked Wiki and the depth of the Bakken is 10,000 to 12,000 feet.

  56. It would be cheaper and better for the environment to buy everybody a Jetta that runs on biodiesel distilled in part from the 70 million acres of collapsed pine forest in the US.

  57. It IS a moving target, Dallas–I still think we are on to something, though.

    Larry, I wish that we didn’t live in a petroeconomy. I am a proponent of alternate fuels and clean energy. However, the projects that I have worked on (geothermal and hydro) got shut down because they were “too expensive” vis a vis oil. It’s sad and troubling that oil is king. Nevertheless, Montana does have oil. I understand that we have marketable oil and that this oil could create jobs in this state.

    So–how can we create a market for our oil, and act environmentally responsible in the process, so that we can create jobs here in Montana for out of work Montanans AND create tax revenues from oil production that would allow for such programs as subsidizing biodiesel Jettas and alternative energy development, for instance? That is the question. Again, I wish the candidates would respond here!!!

  58. The Upper Missouri Basin is toast: Bismarck Tribune.

  59. Not to get all philosophical but what we need is a long term energy policy in the US. It’s been talked about since the first oil embargo back in the early 70’s but, in effect, nothings been done. Consider where we would be today had we implemented some long term energy solution 40+ years ago. Now consider how we get to those solutions (or better) 40 years from now. Larry’s idea is one (fuel/energy efficiency in homes and cars), alternative energy is another (solar, wind, bio, geothermal) and energy to bridge the difference is still another. As near as I can tell about the only thing that happens when the policy makers discuss these things is that someone gets a tax break but no real solution arrives.

    • I’m certainly not disagreeing with you, Dallas, but you touch on the biggest obstacle to real change, and it isn’t tax breaks or nothing being done. It’s that long term policy is becoming an increasingly impossible thing to maintain in the US. There were conservation measures enacted in the late seventies, governmental agencies created and educational programs instituted that all moved the nation towards energy security. And then new leaders get elected. Most of those policies have been dismantled since then, by Democrats and Republicans alike, in service to political change. The EPA Dept. of Energy are under constant fire to the point that abolishing them are now a platform plank of the Republican party. We’re having national debates over goddamned light bulbs that save people money as well as energy, fer crying out loud. In this age, it appears that the only policy our political system seeks to make enduring is the viability of its own existence.

      I’m feeling pessimistic today (it’s looking increasingly likely that Manning will go to the Titans) but I do think we will see a NASA level effort to promote and harness the technologies that will move the planet’s energy consumption in more sustainable directions … just as soon as China gets around to doing it.

    • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | March 18, 2012 2:54 PM at 2:54 PM |

      I spent a lot of time last night going over BLM leases for oil and gas in Montana, Montana’s BLM has a ton of new leases on file for the last 5 years. The problem isn’t the government.

      It is the companies sitting on the leases. they just aren’t doing much, because they like oil and gas to be high… better profits for them! So then we come back to what Warren Buffet said about markets, ” its what the markets can stand.” Personally There is no shortage of Oil in the world, and the Market is being kept artificially high, by speculators. This has nothing to do with the white house, it has to do with wall street continuing to rip Americans off.

      InContext you can go to the BLM website just like I did and find all the History reports for Oil and gas Leases in Montana.

    • Rommey says you can’t drive a car with a windmill on top…..

      President Obama’s trying but….the oil lobby is in control….

      Here’s the sad thing,” Obama explained to the friendly crowd. “Lately we’ve heard a lot of professional politicians — a lot of the folks who are running for a certain office, who shall go unnamed — they’ve been talking down new sources of energy. They dismiss wind power. They dismiss solar power. They make jokes about biofuels. They were against raising fuel standards. I guess they like gas guzzlers. They think that’s good for our future.”

  60. We do need a real solution. It IS doable. Entrenched interests prevent any real solution. All we get is lip service. I am a big fan of the movie, “Dave.” If common-sense, hard working Americans who know how to run a small business drove the boat, instead of special interests or career politicians, we wouldn’t be shaking our heads all the time wondering, “What the…. .”

    • The problem is that those good and true citizens will only be ‘driving the boat’ until the next election cycle. And I do they can drive that boat better than Barkus …

  61. Recall the earth hater icon, Ronald Reagan, taking the PV system off the White House: PPL is not Montana’s friend.

    Blue states are showing us the way:

  62. Touche, Rob.

  63. From the article Larry referenced. Very exciting stuff:

    “Agilyx, was the first in the world to economically convert difficult-to-recycle waste plastics into crude oil through a patented system that is scalable, versatile and environmentally beneficial. This, in turn, provides a promising supply of American sourced energy and one way to contribute to our nation’s desire for independence from foreign oil.

    Agilyx has grown to 55 employeesand we are able to generate roughly 50 barrels of crude oil per day from 10 tons of plastic once destined for the dump.”

  64. What if Agilyx could put their technology on a floating barge and convert the “trash island” the size of Texas that is floating around in the Pacific Ocean into usable crude oil.

  65. This came across my twitter feed a couple of days ago: fuel from the Pacific Garbage Patch:

  66. 200 comments in 3…2…1…

  67. Wow–it’s already in the works per Larry’s link! So exciting. Let’s hope they can get the funding they need. Cleaning up the oceans should be a high priority, in my opinion. I can’t even fathom the concept of that much trash (some say the trash island is as big as the continental U.S.) and the havoc it is wreaking upon the ecosystems. Truly horrendous, but it’s inspiring to see that someone is making lemonade out of lemons.

    • The Pacific herself has bought us some time. The nice thing about the mid-oceanic gyres is that food is limited, so much of the marine bio-system avoids them. Cleaning them up is a total net good, but if such effort turns out to be profitable, then we can expect more international and national political fighting over who *really* owns the trash.

    • Livingstone has two masters and a PhD, just like this “In Context” character claims here. Neil, come out.

  68. Don’t mean to get all misty eyed but the last couple hours of discussion have been very enlightening and entertaining. Thanks to all of you for pitching in and sharing; it seems that’s something a good blog should be all about.

  69. I’ll bet his sex tourism book was the book of the month pick for pedophile priests!

  70. Neither of these candidates has a chance against Bullock. Though I do hope Rick Hill wins the GOP primary. The man’s got scandal coming out of his eyeballs.

  71. This article profiling Livingstone in the 80s is freaking hilarious! Calls him flamboyant, his politics “weird” and his skills “dubious” quotes his mom as saying he built up a fake air of mystery. Drove a Ferarri to Helena High at 16. Yikes.

    The Washington Post

    August 20, 1986

    The Mystique of Terror;
    Neil Livingstone, Wheeling and Dealing In the Security Game

    By Myra MacPherson, Washington Post Staff Writer

    He looks more invented than real, like a character in an Arnaud de Borchgrave novel filled with international intrigue and right-wing derring-do. A fringe of blond hair cloaks a shiny head. The shirt is white on white, the suit dark and expensive. The watch is gold and so is the heavy linked bracelet. There are three rings and they flash as his hands work over some Turkish worry beads. The beads, too, are pure gold.

    The voice is deep but quiet, with little inflection, even when he says Moammar Gadhafi should have been killed long ago. He lives, as would a character in a Washington novel, in the Watergate; a huge crystal vase filled with flowers rests on a glass table next to the Partagas cigars. The black Corvette is stabled in the garage below.

    In one room are replica instruments of death — models of Czechoslovakian pistols and letter bombs that he uses in lectures — and collected writings on germ warfare. On one wall is an autographed picture of President Reagan; on another, a picture of a half-dressed woman, a flak jacket only partially covering her bra.

    Welcome to his world: Neil Livingstone is the name, counterterrorism the game. It is a world of studied mystique; scoffed at by some as a smoke-and-mirrors province of the right wing or a fast-buck consultancy scam exploiting scared travelers; valued by others as a reassuring guide service through the global mine field of alien cultures and political violence.

    At 39, Livingstone is one of the more flamboyant and controversial of the breed. “Antiterrorism is the fastest growing industry in America,” he says, “which is why it has attracted every type of bozo and thug along with some very good firms.” Although he regards himself as one of the more rational voices in the trade, others, particularly academicians, view Livingstone as an alarmist ideologue who advocates assassination and the violent overthrow of governments and scares up clients with high-decibel prophecies of germ warfare terrorism.

    *”We should have killed the ayatollah,” he says, softly. “Assassination is a dirty word but I do believe there are terrorists and people like the ayatollah who can so disrupt the world order we have today.” As for Nicaragua, “Somoza was a bad guy, but these guys are worse. The right thing in my judgment is to overthrow that government. Whether the contras or the United States should go in and throw them out, I’m not prepared to say.”

    One might wonder how the 1964 graduate of Helena (Mont.) High School — a hot-rocket entrepreneur who owned a Ferrari at age 16, had time for both track and debate, won a Voice of Democracy contest and listed “politics” as his future — wandered into the shadowy world of counterterrorism.

    It was a convoluted trail. His thinking on world affairs began to crystallize while he was studying for a doctoral degree at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in the early ’70s. “I became seduced from being a normative person who said we have to design the world to being a pragmatist that said, ‘Let’s look for real solutions,’ ” he says. “Our world is populated by people who don’t enjoy our sensitivities, don’t enjoy our institutions and, quite frankly, mean us real harm. We have to roll up our sleeves and do the dark and dirty deeds.”

    *Livingstone has lots of former lives — former Hill aide, former partner in Air Panama airlines, former power broker at Gray and Co., former executive in a now defunct security company — and a pretty lucrative present. He is a consultant on terrorism to ABC television’s “20/20,” and to the CBS series “The Equalizer.” He also wrote a book, “The War Against Terrorism,” in 1982, and last year edited, with Terrell E. Arnold, a book of essays, “Fighting Back: Winning the War Against Terrorism.” Lexington Books will publish a book on germ warfare this fall by Livingstone and Joseph D. Douglass Jr., “America the Vulnerable: The Threat of Chemical Biological Warfare.” He teaches a course on terrorism at Georgetown University and is trying to start a Ramboesque magazine aimed at a “more upscale audience” than Soldier of Fortune.

    For a handsome fee, he lectures kidnap-fearful corporate executives, warning them, among other things, that the hooker eyeing them in some European boite may be a member of, say, the Japanese Red Army or the Baader-Meinhof Gang. He says he also helps advise various governments at crucial times on terrorism, but what he has done and with whom is always vague. “I wish I could be more forthcoming,” he says, “but in the security business you never talk about your clients.”

    Depending on whom you talk to, Neil Livingstone is everything from a self-promoting hustler of dubious skills to a kind and loyal expert, smart and knowledgeable. Says former senator James Abourezk, national chairman of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee: “He’s a very nice guy, even if his politics are weird as hell. I scoff at this new terrorism business. They’re all right wing and by their very terms they define terrorism as anyone who is against them. But I like Neil. And I have to tell you he was the first guy I went to when the AADC got blown up. He recommended a very good security person.”

    Av Westin, producer of “20/20,” says Livingstone came up with some “fantastic” French counterterrorism contacts for the show. And Robert McBrien, Treasury Department assistant secretary for law enforcement, praises Livingstone as a “good thinker and writer with a good strategic perspective and strong security contacts.”

    But there are many others who, in the standard practice of official Washington, will not speak for attribution. Says a high State Department official, laughing, “The ability to promote oneself as an ‘expert’ counts for a lot. Livingstone is someone who has decided he’s found an interesting and lucrative area.”

    Livingstone answers his critics: “Many of my more scholastic colleagues spend time talking to each other in mutual mental masturbation. I sit in the trenches with the folks who do. . . . When I spoke at the Chicago Council of Foreign Relations I had the Chicago bomb squad in the first row, the guys with three fingers. My book had been helpful to them.”

    If the bomb squad has no trouble with Livingstone’s credibility, others do. At Gray and Co., for example, where he is remembered for having his own personal document shredder, former colleagues say he insisted people call him “Dr. Livingstone,” as if he had his PhD. He doesn’t, and insists he never promoted that idea.

    “Because my thesis has been accepted (at Fletcher in 1973) they probably assumed that.” He plans to pass his language requirements for the degree this fall. Livingstone knows French and Russian slightly and speaks Spanish. However, one Gray and Co. applicant insists he told her any employe had to speak at least two languages, which is not the case, then added that he spoke no fewer than eight and was fluent in Spanish because he grew up in Havana. Livingstone denies the story.

    During this interview, Livingstone said the College of William and Mary “let me into graduate-level courses as a freshman.” A clerk in William and Mary’s registration office said, “Our records show that his first year Livingstone took all 100-level courses, which are freshman courses.”

    “He’s had an angle ever since he was born,” says Livingstone’s mother Jeanne, with a laugh, in a phone interview. Does she see a sense of mystery? “He promotes that. Come onnnnn. He’s not a mystery to his mommy.”

    The slightly hooded eyes reveal nothing and Livingstone barely smiles when he says he has never been with the CIA or in any other intelligence capacity. Did he ever run guns? “No, but we did sell some guns through the firm (Joseph J. Cappucci Associates, the Washington security firm that once employed him) “They were for executive protection.”

    Livingstone said the security firm dealt in “small shipments of counterterrorism gear, infrared and night sighting devices, silencers — all closely monitored by the State and Defense departments.” What about weapons for international corporations fearful of kidnaping and ransom (K&R, as it is known in the trade)? “We bought it abroad. There is less red tape to go abroad.”

    Cappucci, who sold his security company a few years ago, says “Neil collected and collated information about terrorist acts: whose, where, modus operandi, tactics.”
    *Livingstone makes it sound more exciting than that: “I spent four years learning what technical security was about.” He recalls Bogota’ as a “wild west. Everyone carried a gun. We did some very tough things. A large American company was being driven out of the country, and when they replaced their Americans with locals one of the locals came home and found his wife in the entry hall with her throat slit and a note pinned to her saying ‘Stop working with the Yankees.’ We ultimately became consultants to one of the largest insurance underwriters in the world.”

    When Reagan was elected, Livingstone was hoping for a position in the administration. “My name had been floated for a job in this counterterrorist area and had engendered a expletive match between some of the powers that be. I also had been taking some hits in the press. I had been attacked by Human Events in 1981 as too liberal, and various far left groups said I was too conservative.” His life was “on hold.”

    Enter Bob Gray, who “wanted to create an international division” of Gray & Co. Livingstone’s credentials? “My special expertise, if you will.” His work for Gray began when “Bob Gray needed advice about Libya.” Livingstone had once been arrested there, he says. “Someone put a machine gun in my ribs.” He was taken to a “secret police headquarters that a friend of mine in Libya did not know existed. I had to go through a very lengthy interrogation and at the end had to sign a confession in Arabic. It could have said, for all I know, that I am a CIA agent . . . It was pure expletive but I figured I was in a tight spot. Afterward, there were profuse apologies and they let me go. I never figured out whether it was mistaken identity or what.”

    *Last year, Livingstone, who supervised Gray’s foreign operations, was placed on leave after the company reached a severance agreement with its then vice chairman, Alejandro Orfila. This followed an investigation of Gray’s Madrid office, which raised concern that Orfila had been involved in money being transferred from a client to a Spanish legislator for the purpose of influencing legislation. Livingstone’s name never surfaced in any of the alleged dealings, except as supervisor of foreign operations. Today, he says, he and Gray & Co. “had a difference of opinion on how they handled that matter. Because it is still under investigation, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it, but I consider the view that I took vindicated and we’re working toward an amiable resolution of our differences.”

    The son of a dentist in Helena, Mont., Livingstone remembers his childhood with great affection. At 15, his mother took him to his first coin club meeting and Livingstone quickly saw the possibilities of selling rare coins. He made a killing on the estate of a coin collector whose son didn’t understand its value.

    Poring over the collection, Livingstone found a 1797 uncirculated $10 gold piece and “rolls and rolls of rare silver dollars. I wrote $20,000 worth of checks that night and all I had was like 500 bucks. I knew I had to cover those checks by morning . . . I woke up people in the middle of the night and said, ‘I’ve got a deal for you.’ By morning I had covered my checks and had probably about $200,000 to the good.” He immediately bought the Ferrari, but says he quickly ran through all his money on cars and partying.

    Although Livingstone sometimes wears cowboy boots and hats in Washington, such Montana trappings contrast considerably with his usual apparel. Says his mother, “Montana has a terribly different image than the way we are. For example, my husband had tailor-made suits. I was raised with Neiman-Marcus.” One reason Livingstone went to William and Mary, says his mother: “I wanted him to be raised as a gentleman.” At William and Mary, Livingstone met Susan Morrisey his freshman year. Their senior year they met again, walking across campus. He asked her for a date, they went out from then on and got married after graduation in August 1968. His wife is bright and bubbly and clearly adores Livingstone, whom she describes as her “closest friend.”

    Livingstone managed to avoid Vietnam as a member of the Army Reserve and the two of them lock-stepped through life from then on. Both worked on Capitol Hill, then left to get master’s degrees at the University of Montana. They were the first married couple accepted at the Fletcher School. She is now associate deputy administrator for logistics with the Veterans Administration.

    Livingstone started with the late senator Stuart Symington in 1969, then returned to the Hill in 1973 after Fletcher to work for then-Sen. James B. Pearson of Kansas. He is but vaguely remembered by some ex-Symington staffers. As for Pearson (“I was Pearson’s foreign affairs assistant,” says Livingstone), the former senator, now a Washington lawyer, says, “I can remember the name and I sort of remember who he is.” A former staffer says, “He did a lot of research and speech writing. He was ambitious and energetic, but for us, his level of work didn’t match. He sounded better on paper than in actuality.”

    Next, Livingstone returned to his entrepreneurial days of old, acquiring, along with four other partners, Air Panama. They got interested, in part, because “it’s a way to power. One of my partners had very strong political ambitions.” He refuses to mention the names of his partners. The whole venture came a cropper, according to Livingstone, “because very high Panamanian officials wanted to run the airlines so that their friends could have it. In order to meet one of our letters of credit we were selling some of the planes and they had to be certified with an FAA inspection by a certain date.” Livingstone says the Panamanian government tied up their permit to get the planes out of the country. He and his partners could not make their financial commitments “so the government took it over.”

    Livingstone lectures about 100 times a year. He recently warned a group of women business leaders to be inconspicuous when traveling and not to carry attache’ cases.
    “Under no circumstance accept responsibility for any luggage . . . especially if a stranger asks that you ‘watch’ a suitcase . . . never hesitate to take the next carrier when suspicious of fellow travelers. Don’t sit in first class. We all love to but it usually becomes the control center for terrorists and also they think you’re more important. Don’t try to look too important.”

    Sitting in his Watergate apartment, frequent flier Livingstone says: “You can live with terrorism without being paranoid. If you don’t want to look like an American, wear tinted glasses. I do. And I wear Italian suits.”

    How to escape a kidnaper: If armed with a knife and desirous of dispatching a guard or sentry, slip up behind him and, if right-handed, cup your left hand over his mouth, jerk his head upward, and push forward with the knife across the side of his neck below the angle of the jaw. A one and a half inch deep slash will sever the jugular vein and often the carotid artery. The victim will be rendered unconscious within five seconds, and death will usually follow in another seven seconds.

    That was Livingstone, not Ken Follett, writing in his book “The War Against Terrorism,” emphasizing that this is one of the last-resort techniques if a kidnap victim is “convinced that he is going to be killed and his only chance lies in escape.” “The woman pulled up her long formal gown, and from a sea of black lace removed a metal canister that had been strapped to her leg. Her companions attached the canister to the air-conditioning unit and set a timer that would release the contents.” In a matter of minutes “the President and his retinue collapsed as if mowed down by machine gun fire. They died before they hit the richly carpeted floor.” Victims of deadly nerve gas.
    That was Livingstone, not Robert Ludlum, writing in The Washingtonian about a scenario of a germ warfare attack.

    Livingstone says he has credibility because he takes a “rational, thoughtful approach.” And indeed a Wall Street Journal editorial drew attention to “some important answers to the problem of chemical warfare in a chilling report by Neil Livingstone and Joseph D. Douglass Jr., ‘The Poor Man’s Atomic Bomb,'” published by the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis. Much of his “Fighting Terrorism” book is a quick read history of terrorist movements and attacks, less sensational than his kidnap advice.
    However, others in the antiterrorism field see his emphasis on germ warfare as part of what one calls the “threat-mongering school of literature . . . more lurid and sensational than helpful.”

    Livingstone contends that “a single individual with normal education working alone in his garage or kitchen with unclassified data and readily available materials could build a weapon of mass destruction of a chemical or biological nature, killing perhaps tens of thousands of people, with no more risk to himself than refining heroin and with no more degree of difficulty than brewing beer at home. And that’s pretty frightening.”

    Two other experts in the field, Brian Jenkins of Rand Corp. and Robert H. Kupperman, a science and technology specialist at Georgetown University’s Center for Strategic and International Studies, demur. “While anyone may be able to grow the bugs,” says Kupperman, “such moves would neither be logistically feasible nor in the best interest of terrorist groups who seek attention for their cause far more than hundreds of thousands of dead bodies.”

    But, to be sure, there will be much about this in Livingstone’s forthcoming book. Should it not sell well, he says, he has other ideas for the future.

    “You really don’t want to be typecast,” he says, so, with the knowledge he has collected, it is not at all impossible that a future gambit might be — you guessed it — fiction.

  72. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | March 21, 2012 5:42 PM at 5:42 PM |

    DAMN! For a dude with his OWN CIA, Livingscam sure is a DUMBASS! Now look and see what he’s done. The entire freakin’ COUNTRY is laffin’ their ASSES off at him! Maybe he can call on his good buddy Col. Dolly North for help!….


    Montana Pubbies, dumber than dog shit and proud OF it!

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | March 21, 2012 5:44 PM at 5:44 PM |

      p.s. And what do Col. Dolly North and Livingscam have in common with Dolly Parton? They’re BOTH a couple’a big boobs!

  73. […] Neil Livingstone, the counterterrorism expert who’s running to be Montana’s next Republican governor, explained to the Associated Press last week how once he wound up on a yacht full of prostitutes, where his wife was “the only non-hooker on board.” As it turns out, Livingstone apparently once purported to be an expert on the issue of overseas prostitution, reports the Montana Cowgirl Blog. […]

  74. Having taken the time to look over the more than 250 ‘comments’ on this thread, I have to say that I wish there had been more attention paid to dealing with pertinent matters than to all the banter about who was commenting, and whether or not the various commentators were aliens, dipshits, or stupid. It seems a shame to waste all the intellectual talent that shows up on this blog by focusing on name calling and denigration.

Comments are closed.