Support Family Planning, letter by Mari Dominguez - Bridgercare

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments interspersed in bold.

-------------

Bridgercare, like many other nonprofits at this time of year, is buoyed by the generous support and expressions of gratitude we receive from patients and community members alike. Support for our sliding fee reproductive health services is vital, but it is these heartfelt expressions of appreciation that bolster our board and staff.

We also receive feedback that reminds us that there is still significant misunderstanding about the goals of family planning in our society. This ignorance is a major contributing factor to our country’s stubbornly high rate (50 percent) of unintended pregnancy (Notice how the opposition is pejoratively characterized as ignorant.).

Family Planning healthcare and education has the goal of giving couples the best chance to plan for and space children according to parents’ desires and resources. Benefits include better maternal health outcomes, improved infant and child survival and health, and greater economic security for families and resulting academic achievement for children.

Bridgercare and Title X, our country’s family planning program, which was co-sponsored by George H.W. Bush in 1970 (Why is Bush's participation relevant? As is typical for the Left, the reviled characters on the Right conveniently become noble and smart whenever expediency requires it),

has never funded, nor included in its’ (sic) services, provision of abortion in its 41-year history (What is the claim here? "Provision of abortion" means what, exactly? From their website: "We refer out for those services as we don’t offer them ourselves." This sounds to me like they indeed make some sort of provision for abortion services. Isn't a referral a provision? 

And oh how the Left has chaffed, whined and complained about the prohibition of title X funds for abortion! But what they couldn't accomplish with Title X they have managed to achieve with Obamacare. Despite loud assurances to voters [including mocking those who claimed otherwise], and especially, a political deal reached with former democratic congressman Bart Stupak which was reneged on later, abortion is finally going to receive the government funding abortionists crave. That deal was cut with Stupak in exchange for his vote in favor of Obamacare [the swing vote] in March of 2010. Stupak was voted out the following November, replaced by TEA partier Dan Benishek. 

So now we have government funding of elective abortion, previously illegal. The question is, will Bridgercare get on that gravy train when it becomes available? Seems very likely, considering that 16% of Bridgercare's budget comes from government. The sole reason more funding doesn't come from taxpayers is because it wasn't permitted before. 

If you search the Bozeman Chronicle for letters to the editor from Bridgercare director Mari Dominguez, you will see that almost every one of them is a plea to protect government funding. That's what it's all about for these folks is keeping the gravy train rolling.) 

Why is Social Security in trouble - FB conversation

FB friend D.G. posted this:

I haven't verified this, but quite interesting if true: "The Greenspan Commission supposedly fixed Social Security’s finances for 75 years, that is, until 2060. Why, then, do most projections show the trust fund running out well before then? Not because life expectancy is rising — that was already built into the projections. No, the big reason is rising inequality, which has led to a growing share of income coming above the payroll tax cap, so that SS revenue lags behind overall compensation. And yet the conventional wisdom is that we should respond to a financing issue caused by rising inequality by slashing benefits, further increasing inequality."
Policy Implications of Capital-Biased Technology: Opening Remarks krugman.blogs.nytimes.com
Social insurance, still affordable, and more necessary than ever.

B.C.: I've said for years we need to remove the payroll cap.

Me: It's broke now. The trust fund is empty.

B.C.: That's because Bush and Cheney stole it to pay for 2 illegal wars that we still aren't done with. I truly believe the government owes and should pay that money back! And no, it's not all that broke, either.

Me: Since the 70's? That's when congress started emptying it. 

Me: You are right about government owing it. The government has been issuing the trust fund non-negotiable bonds (debt instruments) and spending the cash in the general fund. the trust fund is full of IOUs that have to be paid back.

B.C.: One way would be to cut the "entitlement benefits" to corporate farming and big oil, and use that money to repay SS.

B.C.: Remember the Presidential Race between Gore and Bush in 99-00? The big issue was keys to the "vault", which in actuality was a locking file cabinet. It was far from broke then, and frankly, I don't believe it's all that broke now. And remember, the Government was balanced in the black after Clinton's tenure!

Me: Gore wanted it in a lock-box. It wasn't in one then, and hasn't been for decades. The Clinton budget was not balanced. The national debt increased every year: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

M.W.: The cap applies to both payments and benefit calculations. If you remove the payroll cap on taxes, you either have to remove the payout cap (which means it won't make you any extra money) or else admit that Social Security isn't really an investment scheme at all.

B.C.: Also, Obamacare SAVED 700bn in SS by cutting the fat and going after fraud.

B.C.: SS isn't an investment at all. It was never intended to be. If you work from 16 - 65+ one is likely to pay more in than received.

B.C.: It may not have been balanced, but Clinton left the country in far better shape after 8 years than Bush did.

Me: The government takes the money from the trust fund and issues non-negotiable bonds. Bonds are "debt instruments." There is no money in the trust fund, only bonds which have to be paid back.

B.C.: I look at SS as an insurance policy, which it truly is. We are required to purchase auto insurance. And if we never ever have an accident or claim, we will never recoup that money.

B.C.: aren't those bonds interest bearing?

Me: SS is not insurance. It is a tax with a promised future benefit. Fleming vs. Nestor decided that there is no right to SS benefits. Current retirees are funded by current workers. it's a redistribution program.

B.C.: It's far closer to insurance than a ponzi scheme.

Me: Those bonds can only be purchased by the SS trust fund. No other entity can buy them. They are not marketable. The interest paid is from the general fund (funded by debt), and as soon as it is received by the trust fund, the money is taken out and more bonds are purchased. It's an accounting gimmick

B.C.: And because I paid the taxes i.e. premiums, it means that I do have a right to collect SS at retirement of either 62 or 65. Unfortunately/fortunately I am disabled, it has been proven in court, and I am on SSDI, Social Security Disability Insurance.

Me: It's not insurance at all. Insurance is based on actuarial assumptions, mortality and morbidity tables, and reserve and surplus calculations.

B.C.: Hell our entire monetary financial system is only an accounting gimmick!

Me: Bingo!!! Big banksters milk the system, the Fed invents money, and congress has 50 ways to make it seem like your tax dollar is helping someone when in actual fact it only helps them get reelected to spend even more money that doesn't exist.

B.C.: I'm not in total disagreement with you Rich in the difference between SS and insurance and how it's calculated. I worked in the industry, both health and personal lines for a number of years. However, the effect of SS is the same.

Me: You do not have a right to collect benefits. Please read about fleming vs nestor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor and http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

B.C.: I'll read it, thank you.

Me: D.G., sorry to hijack your post...

B.C.: I worked for a Farmers agent managing his personal lines for 5 years. I worked for 4 in health claims and auto claims. My uncle was a Farmers actuary and we had some good conversations about it.

M.W.: D.G., this claim seems dubious mathematically. If Krugman were right about the Greenspan Commission having accounted correctly for everything except the fraction of income which exceeds the Social Security Wage Base, then yes, Greenspan would have overestimated Social Security income--but he would also have overestimated Social Security expenditures. The only way to make Krugman's claim work would be (approximately) if Greenspan were right on expenditures and wrong on income, i.e. young workers are disproportionately likely to hit the wage cap, compared to retirees, thus failing to fund "their" share of retirees. This seems unlikely. Let's see if Krugman can back up his numbers...

Me: He might have to give his Nobel back...

Congress extends law on foreign surveillance - some comments

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes.

------------------

Some things to note in this article. First, despite the incessant whining of Democrats all through the Bush administration about how warrantless wiretapping violates peoples' rights, the Senate voted 73-23 to keep the program. The House passed it 301-118 in September.

Second, note the labeling bias: "...Democratic liberals and ideological Republican conservatives..." as if only Republican conservatives are ideological.

Third, all amendments to require disclosure of the activities of the program were defeated in the name of national security. I find this interesting because of assurances that the program contains a "...prohibition against targeting Americans without a warrant...," yet there is no way to know because the amendments were defeated.

------------------------  

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate gave final congressional approval Friday to a bill renewing the government’s authority to monitor overseas phone calls and emails of suspected foreign spies and terrorists — but not Americans —without obtaining a court order for each intercept.

The classified Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act program was on the brink of expiring by year’s end. The 73-23 vote sent the bill to a supportive President Barack Obama, whose signature would keep the warrantless intercept program in operation for another five years.

The Senate majority rejected arguments from an unusual combination of Democratic liberals and ideological Republican conservatives, who sought to amend the bill to require the government to reveal statistics showing whether any Americans were swept up in the foreign intercepts. The attempt lost, with 52 votes against and 43 in favor.

The Obama administration’s intelligence community and leaders of the Senate’s intelligence committee said the information should be classified and opposed the disclosure, repeating that it is illegal to target Americans without an order from a special U.S. surveillance court.

The group seeking more disclosures also sought — unsuccessfully — a determination by the government of whether any intelligence agency attempted to use information gained from foreigners to search for information on Americans without a warrant, referred to as “back-door” searches. The prohibition against targeting Americans without a warrant protects Americans wherever they are, in the United States or somewhere else.

The debate focused on the need to balance national security with civil liberties. Sens. Dianne Feinstein, DCalif., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., the chairwoman and top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, warned that the classified intercept program would be jeopardized if even statistical information was disclosed. They sparred repeatedly with Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who held the bill up for months until he was allowed to argue on the Senate floor that Americans’ civil liberties were in danger under the law.

During debate that began Thursday, Feinstein bluntly told Wyden, a fellow liberal, that she opposed his disclosure amendment because, “I know where this goes. Where it goes is to destroy the program.”

Do we deserve God's love - FB conversation amongst Christians

I posted this on FB:

Can anyone point a scripture that says we don't deserve God's love, or that we are unlovable, or something along those lines?

K.T.: Psalm 5:5, 45:7, 101:3, 119:104 & Proverbs 8:13. This will give you a start. These say that God hates the wicked. Romans 1 will follow up on this for you too. Also Romans 9:13 says that God hated Esau.

L.J.: Depends on who you mean when you say, "we"........

Me: K.T., I had a long discussion with some christians months ago, where I was making that very case - God does hate certain people. But that's a different topic. Because God does hate some people doesn't mean that they don't deserve his love. http://mountainmantrails.blogspot.com/2012/05/god-loves-everyone-fb-conversation.html

Me: "we" as in humanity.

K.L.:I can find many verses where God hates wickedness but none where the Bible says His creation is unloveable!

Hate the sin, love the sinner

K.T.: The scriptures are very clear on God's hatred for sin and the sinner (Rom 9:13). We are asked to love one another because we're not God and don't know who are his and who aren't. There is no man that deserves God's love. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. No man deserves or earns the love of God. All are worthy only of eternal damnation, but God in his grace and mercy chose to love, not because of man, but because he is love. For having God reveal himself to us and giving us the gift of faith we must be forever grateful. Without his love we'd never believe in Jesus

L.J.: The bible is pretty clear that prior to Christ, man abides under wrath. However, in Christ we are completely removed from the wrath of God and imputed the righteousness of Christ. All of mankind is the object of the intent of God's redemption manifest in Christ, but not everyone abides in it.....

Me: K.T., I've heard every one of those statements from the pulpit sunday after sunday year after year. None of them as of yet have a scripture that you can point to and say, "See, this scripture says we don't deserve God's love." I didn't say we don't sin and fall short of God's glory or that we can earn God's love. All of those don't address the question. The question is, what scripture tells us that we don't deserve God's love?

Me: L.J., true on all counts.

K.T.: The way you are stating things, "we" cannot mean humanity as there are basically two kinds of people. Those who believe and those who don't. Those who are of the seed of the woman or the seed of the serpent. God loves his people whom he made righteous. God doesn't love the wicked who refuse to believe. Your question cannot be answered if your "we" refers to humanity in general.

L.J.: I appreciate your thoughts, K.T., but there is a real theological hurdle with what you said in light of John 3:16. The word "world", kosmos in the Greek, referring to the world including it's inhabitants, is the object of God's affections. Those who don't perish are differentiated by belief, not by whether they are loved by God.....

Me: Thanks for your comments, everyone. I love it when we can get a good discussion going amongst wise and godly men.

Gotta make one last try, K.T.. Once again, you are correct, but the issue remains. Yes, God does not love the wicked. But the question... are they undeserving of His love?

L.J.: Rich, interesting question. Just a philosophical thought....... Did God create something in His own image and likeness, that is not deserving of His love? I am hard pressed to believe that God feels that mosquitoes are deserving of His love, but they were not created in "the image of God".

Me: L.J., what I'm grappling with comes down to what I would consider false teaching that results from taking biblical truth to the extreme. I think we mistake our low estate (Psalm 136.23) with how God ought to react to us. I don't have the answer, but I'm gaining great insight from you all.

K.T.: No man, not one, is deserving of God's love by himself. Only with faith in Jesus Christ is man worthy of God's love. John 3:16 must also be read in the light of Rom 8:18-25 which reminds us of the headship principle. When Adam sinned all men died because he's the head of creation. Rom 8 tells us that the "sons of God (believers) are the head of creation and the world is saved through them, for God so loved the cosmos(world) that he gave his only Son that whoever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. For God did not sent his Son into the world(cosmos) to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

Me: The fact that we do not have the ability to present ourselves with merit before God is the other side of the equation. I quite agree with you on that part. But it is God who imparts worth to us, worth which pre-exists our faith. "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Rom 5:8) Our act of faith is not the lynchpin that makes us deserving. Our faith makes us aware of what we did not know before.

L.J.: YES!!

K.T.: It's not our faith that makes us worthy, but the blood of Jesus Christ. Our faith is a gift from God for which we must indeed be very thankful or we'd never believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who came to redeem us back to God.

Me: Yeah, baby. That'd be truth.

Bozeman’s downtown post office scales back - my comments

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes.

I just have a quick comment or three. 

First, isn't it ironic that the USPS found out that it can't afford government either? 

Second, If this location can consolidate with the other location and have only a "...blip in service," then what was the purpose of having the office at all?

Third, it isn't true that "unlike the GSA, the USPS receives no cut of the federal budget." The USPS has a $12.1 billion loan from the US treasury. That sounds like a pretty big cut of the federal budget to me. And if it had to default on a $5.5 billion pension payment, do you suppose that there might be an impact on the federal budget at some point?

----------------------------

By LAURA LUNDQUIST

Chronicle Staff Writer Financial times are tough when one government agency gets no mercy from another.

During the next few weeks, the U.S. Postal Service will move some departments from its downtown Bozeman location in order to reduce the rent it has to pay to the U.S. General Services Administration, which owns the Babcock Street building.

All the mail carriers and some package handling tasks will be relocated to the Baxter Lane office, which is owned by the USPS, said Rick Newsome, downtown post office manager.

Bozeman postmaster Joel Bachofer said the changes are mostly internal and few customers will notice any difference.

Customers who put vacation holds on their mail will be aware because they’ll have to go to the Baxter location to get the held mail. Other services and the post office boxes will remain in the downtown office.

The changes mean the USPS can vacate 90 percent of the almost 26,000 square feet it’s renting in the Babcock Street building, which should make a big dent in the rent bill.

Bachofer said the GSA had increased the rent too much over the past decade.

The GSA adjusts rental rates for space every five years based upon property appraisals. It also charges operating costs that are adjusted annually.

From 2002 to 2006, the GSA charged the USPS around $320,000 a year, even though property values were soaring.

After a new GSA appraisal in 2007, the USPS rent jumped an additional $26,000 a year, at a time when mail volume was beginning to drop. Operating costs continued to increase.

Bachofer tried to compensate by downsizing the Babcock post office.

In January 2011, he gave up around 1,000 square feet and surrendered another 1,500 square feet in January 2012.

This year’s appraisal belatedly accounted for the drop in property values that started in 2008. As a result, the rent dropped to less than $275,000.

But it was too little, too late.

The USPS has made numerous cuts and changes over the past decade as its income has plummeted, thanks to the use of email, online bill payments and increasing pressure from competitors like UPS Inc. and FedEx.

Unlike the GSA, the USPS receives no cut of the federal budget. But since it’s not allowed to set its own rates or hours – Congress does that - it’s had few options but to shut down smaller branch offices.

Last year, the USPS reported losses of more than $5 billion. This summer, it had to default on a $5.5 billion payment into a health fund for future retirees, as required by Congress. So Bachofer is trying to find places to trim his costs and a $245,000 annual rent reduction will help. “Customers will see only that one little blip in service, but it will save us a bunch of money,” Bachofer said.

Fix the debt? How about fixing private pensions first - Scott Klinger

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposed. My comments interspersed in bold.

-------------

While America’s CEOs are fretting about the government’s so-called “fiscal cliff,” (The only ones I see fretting about the fiscal cliff are citizens who are concerned about the half-wits in D.C. who seem intent on destroying our country.) 

millions of American workers face a financial disaster that gets much less media attention. There’s a half-trillion dollar deficit in the nation’s worker retirement benefits.

The Great Recession, which decimated retirement assets, played a big role in building this lesser-known cliff. But many corporations could have avoided the problem by shoring up these funds during the boom years. Instead, they siphoned pension assets for other profit-boosting purposes (This doesn't quite make sense. Pension reserves are set by law, and pension contracts are legally enforceable mutual agreements. Some are negotiated by unions, others are offered as part of benefit packages to attract employees. If laws were broken by "siphoning" pension assets, then these companies need to be prosecuted. Otherwise, companies can do with their money what they please.).

When the pension deficits started to balloon, many corporations responded by slashing back their benefit programs (Unfortunately, many of these pension programs were overly generous. Many companies simply were dumb in agreeing to them, but in the midst of union negotiations with the ever-present threat of strikes, these companies simply gave too much up and are now taking the heat for their bad decisions. These decisions trickle down into the workers, of course, but the unions should've known better. Interestingly, to this day, even in the midst of this financial calamity, unions are still pushing for more and unwilling to give up anything.).

As a result, Americans today are more reliant on government-funded Social Security and Medicare programs than at any other time in the last 60 years (Government-funded? The standard position of the Left, which happened to be asserted in a recent letter printed in the local newspaper, is that SS is an insurance plan, an investment, funded by the taxpayers with segregated funds that are not co-mingled with the general fund. This must be a freudian slip to admit that SS is just another tax and spend welfare program.).

What’s even more outrageous is that the very same CEOs who have contributed to rampant retirement insecurity are now calling for cuts to these earned benefit programs for senior citizens (Oops, now they're earned benefit programs. This is false. See my comments about this here. 

While I certainly agree that certain corporations participated in the events that led to the crash, they are hardly the only players. Government is the 600 pound gorilla in the room. Government spends more money in a year than the total value of the top 20 US corporations combined! government sets policy, passes laws, and intervenes in the economy. Its economic impact caused by taxation, regulation, and oversight [or lack of] cannot be ignored. I would go so far as to say that had not government so deeply meddled in the economy, the crash would have never happened. CEOs are pikers compared to government.

And it's worth noting for the record that the author displays no outrage for the government "siphoning" dry the Social Security Trust Fund. I discuss that here.). 

Who deserves love - FB conversation

FB friend B.R. posted this:

You, yourself as much as anybody in the entire universe, deserve your love and affection. ~Buddha

Me: Which is to say, you don't.

B.R.: Um, what?

O.F.: rich, do you mean that no one is inherently deserving of love and affection?

O.F.: love is only freely given, so i could see your argument from one side: into the above quote could perhaps be read a note of obligation, which would remove that element of freedom which makes the idea of love meaningful.

O.F.:or do you mean it more from the protestant perspective that nature is fallen into sin and thus not worthy of love without the intercession of divine grace?

Me: B.R., it says that you deserve love as much as anybody. How does that comparison establish that anyone in the universe deserves love?

Me: I don't know if that's the protestant perspective.

L.W.: As Eastwood (as William Munny) says in Unforgiven, "Deserve's got nothing to do with it." You'd deserve love as much as anybody whether everyone deserved it or no one did. That's even assuming that love exists as some sort of Platonic ideal (I'd posit that Siddhartha Gautama/Shakyamuni/Buddha probably didn't), rather than as an ephemeral, functional social bond between organisms.

L.W.: It seems like a somewhat Protestant perspective. If not, to what do Sola Fide and Sola Gratia amount?

Me:  I don't know too many protestants who employ Latin...

B.R.: He's recommending that we love ourselves.

O.F.:  i would not presume to speak for all protestantism. that is a summation of a formulation of john calvin, i believe. perhaps luther. i will look for a source before standing by this any further, but it is a doctrine of some prominent figure of the reformation.

L.W.: Loving ourselves--I'm for it, for what it's worth!

Re: Protestants and Latin--The Five Solas were, collectively, a cornerstone of the Protestant Reformation. I grant that I've no idea how familiar therewith the modern Protestant layperson is. If you prefer, "Grace Alone" and "Faith Alone"; the point being that "grace" was defined by the Reformation as "unmerited favor."

Not to say that's what you were getting at (or that it wasn't); just pointing out that it's certainly A Protestant perspective, and a fairly important one to Protestant sects tracing lineage back to the Reformation.

Me: O.F., I just did a word search of the N.T., and could find no verse that even suggested that anyone was not worthy of God's love. Which was somewhat of a surprise. The verses that dealt with God's love were *unconditional* love, not love/unloved based on status.

O.F.: thanks, L.W.! i suppose semantically that i have taken this doctrine out of context by referring it to love between persons rather than the love of god for humanity, to which they originally refer. but i think that it is easy to extrapolate. if we are deemed worthy of the love of the supreme being (should there be one) and we are made in the divine image....

O.F.: you are absolutely right rich. the doctrines i'm (still without citation, sorry!) thinking of are non-scriptural.

L.W.: Well, O.F., love of [G/g]od(s) for humanity is only applicable if you believe that there is a deity that loves humanity--dubiously applicable to Shakyamuni, not applicable at all to a plurality of modern Buddhists.

Me: Love without a diety seems to me to be nothing more than a vague emotional state, the result of electrical impulses in the brain, lacking meaning and context.

God-given rights still subject to rational laws - Richard Benert's letter - commentary

This letter by Mr. Benert is a continuation of the the letters-to-the-editor conversation. Published here for fair use and discussion purposes. I have previously dealt with Mr. Benert here and here.

My comments interspersed in bold.

-----------

 In a recent letter, Jack Levitt tied American exceptionalism to liberty (not equality) and to our unique idea of God-given rights. In response, Patrick Hessman cogently argued the case for equality in a letter of Dec. 11, but a few words are in order, I think, about “God-given rights.” (I won't rehash Mr. Hessman's "congent" presentation, for it was anything but. You can review it along with my comments in the before-mentioned link.)

Somehow, God seems to have forgotten to tell mankind about “inalienable rights” to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” until quite recently. (Does Mr. Benert have a particular god in mind, or is he simply tossing out clever talking points? You will note that Mr. Benert's ignorant 23 word statement requires hundreds of words to refute. But so it is with the uninformed whose life philosophy is governed by bumper stickers and glib vacuous phrases. 

One might assume from Mr. Benert's letter that the concepts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were unknown before the enlightenment and suddenly sprang into human consciousness. Of course that is nonsense. But since Mr. Benert is leveling an accusation against God, let's see what the Bible has to say about these topics.

1) Life: God created us according to the Bible:"...from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." Gen 2:7. Genesis then goes on to note a somewhat curious detail. Genesis 2:9 notes that God put the Tree of Life in the garden: "In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." So when God drove Adam and Eve from the garden, He gave the reason why in Genesis 3:22: "He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live for ever.” Adam and Eve had access to eternal life, which was then prevented by their expulsion. But before, they could eat of it any time they wanted. 

Revelation 2:7 completes this thought: "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God." As does Revelation 3:5: "He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels." Clearly we have a right to life.

Fast forward many years. The apostle John tells us in John 1:12-13, "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God —  children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God." The true life, the life we receive by right, is eternal life, life in the Spirit, because there is no life without God. "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing." [John 6:63] The fullness of life is what Jesus came to give us (John 10:10), because the only other alternative is to have life stolen from us. We cannot have stolen what we do not possess! 

And lest you think I am conflating the right to eternal life with the right to natural life, there is this verse: "And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you." [Romans 8:11]

2) Liberty, synonymous with freedom: Isaiah 61:1 establishes that the work of God is freedom: "He has sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners..." Captivity, bondage, and slavery are all going to fall because of the work of God. This harkens back to the fact that God released the Israelites from the slavery of the Egyptians, and as a result Israel was commanded to set their slaves free: "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: I made a covenant with your forefathers when I brought them out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. I said, ‘Every seventh year each of you must free any fellow Hebrew who has sold himself to you. After he has served you for six years, you must let him go free.’" [Jer. 34:13-14]

We begin to see that though slavery was a common feature of the ancient world, God was moving his people away from it. It is not the purpose of this post to document the biblical issues of slavery. You can find excellent discussions of that here and here. Suffice to say, it is God's highest purpose for mankind to be set free. "...that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God." Paul writes, "For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord’s freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men." [1Co. 7:22-23] John writes this in Jn. 8:32: "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” 

Speaking in the spiritual sense, Paul writes, "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery." [Gal 5:] Interestingly, Paul recognizes that spiritual freedom is linked to physical freedom, freedom that can be abused: "You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature..." [Gal 5:13] Peter writes about true freedom: "They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity — for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him." [2 Peter 2:19]

This freedom is expressed as a law, which of course creates a legal right: "...because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death." And it is quite fair for us to note that the idea of slavery is offensive, because it violates our moral sensibilities. We recognize instinctively that freedom is a right. As we have already seen, God's intention is to give us that right.

3) happiness: We see in Psalm 68:3 that happiness is pronounced as a blessing: "But may the righteous be glad and rejoice before God; may they be happy and joyful." Here, it is not the present state, but rather something to be hoped for, dare I say, pursued? King Solomon writes this: "I know that there is nothing better for men than to be happy and do good while they live." [Ecc 3:12]. Clearly one cannot be happy without pursuing it! " King Solomon cements the deal: "Moreover, when God gives any man wealth and possessions, and enables him to enjoy them, to accept his lot and be happy in his work — this is a gift of God." These possessions, gifts of God, make men happy.

Social Security should not be on the chopping block - Letter by Elizabeth Marum - comments

This is a letter to the editor recently published by the Bozeman Chronicle. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments interspersed in bold. I have previously discussed SS here and here.

------------------
Social Security has successfully lifted seniors out of destitute poverty for 77 years (This success of a program still leaves seniors having to choose between food and medicine {"In 2001, 8.4% of households with seniors were food insecure"}. Depending on the day and the political point being made, either seniors are being lifted out of poverty by this successful program, or they're starving to death because we are so stingy and greedy. Which is it?), 

and has allowed the most vulnerable — seniors, survivors and disabled persons — the dignity to manage a minimal lifestyle (Minimal lifestyle? Is that the goal of the left wing for our seniors? Is that what they think is fair and equitable? This is what they think is dignity, to be barely scraping by, depending on a small government check just to exist? Really?). 

Social Security is not part of the federal budget, and never has been. (This is a strange assertion. Why would the author be so concerned with whether or not SS is part of the federal budget? Is it because of the general {accurate} perception that government is corrupt and wasteful? Ms. Marum is correct, though. SS is indeed "off budget" in the sense that its income and payouts are not part of the general fund ledger. But that is hardly a plus, as we shall see.)  

It’s securely (Yes, securely. Not insecure at all...) 

placed in a trust fund, invested in 30 year treasury bonds, where it grows by 15 percent a year (The "assets" of the Trust Fund are indeed "invested in treasury bonds." However, this is really only an obfuscation. The Trust Fund dollars are removed from the Trust Fund when received and added to the General Fund where they are spent. The treasury issues bonds to the Trust Fund in the place of the cash, which, of course, are debt instruments. The "assets" of the Trust Fund, therefore, are IOUs. No cash, just bonds. The Trust fund is therefore a liability, not an asset. We will need trillions of dollars to pay back the bonds, which will come from us, the taxpayers. 

But what about that 15% growth she cites? A quick google search yielded no results. This must then be considered a fiction. Especially since according to the treasury, the actual 30 year bond yield is 2.94%. That yield, which of course itself is sourced from taxpayer money, is deposited into the Trust Fund, which then is immediately used to purchase more treasury bonds, the proceeds of which are deposited into the treasury to be spent. Are you catching on to this little shell game?). 

Treasury bonds are considered the safest investment in the world, and that’s why all kinds of investors buy them, including foreign governments (Whew, What a breathtaking misrepresentation. These treasury bonds are not marketable, by congressional decree. They are special treasury bonds that can only be bought by the Trust Fund. No investor or foreign government owns one. And as we have seen, they are not investments at all, for the "yield" is a shell game.). 

In addition, it’s an earned benefit, a public insurance plan (Well, no. It is certainly not an earned benefit or an insurance plan. Flemming Vs. Nestor established just the opposite, that there is no legal right to benefits. Indeed, the ruling specifically noted that congress can increase, decrease, or eliminate benefits as they see fit under Section 1104 of the 1935 SS Act.). 

Beneficiaries have paid into the system just like we’ve purchased car insurance, many of us for decades (Again, no. Beneficiaries have not paid into the system. This suggests a voluntary action. That money has been extracted by the government, without choice. And, Social Security definitely is not insurance, it is a tax with a promised future benefit for those who qualify. It does not follow insurance actuarial rules, it does not collect money or pay benefits according to sound financial insurance practices, and benefits are not tied to any known economic principle. There is no account with a stated dollar value for anyone, and those who receive benefits are not tapping into their own money, they are being funded with today's workers' taxes.) 

Current budget negotiations are more about ideology and less about how to trim the budget and solve the fiscal problems. It’s a cruelty test to see if we will tolerate it.

Why else would a $100M cut in cost of living adjustments be proposed when it will directly hurt 198,230 Montanans whose average benefit in 2011 was just $1,081 a month (Wait a second! Didn't Ms. Marum just write, "Social Security has successfully lifted seniors out of destitute poverty?" Now the average benefit is "just" $1,081 per month. So which is it, a glowing success or an inadequate benefit?)? 

Many seniors — women especially — make far less than that. The proposed cuts to the already bloated defense budget are $122M. 

It doesn’t just matter to recipients, either. Nationally, Social Security has a multiplying effect of 1.7 on each dollar as the modest monthly benefits are spent locally on housing, food, utilities and essentials (What? This is utter nonsense. Each dollar of SS paid out was first taken from the pocket of another person. Thus, that person does not get to spend this dollar for any multiplier effect, someone else does. There is only one multiplier effect. Once the person is denied it by forfeiting the dollar, another "inherits" the multiplier effect by him spending that dollar instead. This means the net benefit is, yes, zero. 

Further, I would contest that there even is a multiplier effect greater than the effect of the free market left to its own processes. But more to the point, the multiplier effect is simply another way of saying the effect "trickles down." Yes, once again the Left simultaneously approves of and despises something depending on political expediency.). 

For those not entirely dependent upon it (Why make this distinction? Is Ms. Marum making a tacit admission that SS does not, in fact, lift people out poverty?), 

it offers a quality of life and pays for a few extras growing local main street businesses ("A quality of life," not "a better quality of life," which is obtained by coercing people to part with their money so that retirees can receive benefits. Years ago, their money was taken from their own pockets in order to fund those who were on social security back at that time. Had we been able to be left to our own choices, we would be able to save, spend, or invest this money ourselves with much better results. Or lost it on the ponies or the stock market. But it is our own money after all, which we should be able to do with as we see fit. That is, until the government decided to lay claim on it "for our own good.").  

In 2011, Social Security paid $2.57 billion to Montanans. (And by extension, took $2.57 billion from others. )

Remember, it’s hard to drive income into rural areas where there are fewer opportunities for high-paying jobs and where our population is rapidly aging (More nonsense. There is no stated goal of SS to "drive income" into rural areas. There is no evidence that SS successfully does this. And finally, there is no demonstrable benefit for such a thing. But let's grant her the point for the moment. If indeed SS "drives" income into rural areas, Ms. Marum must now concede that SS is not a savings plan, it is a redistributive tax with an economic objective to allocate money according to geography as a social engineering mechanism. This has nothing at all to do with individual savings plans, insurance, or individual account accumulations. Ms. Marum has ceded her entire presentation up to this point; indeed, she must abandon it in favor of governmental micromanagement of the rural economy). Social Security works for Montana. Let’s keep it that way!

Elizabeth Marum

(Wow, this is truly an ignorant explanation of how SS functions. Not a single assertion made by the author has a factual basis. She so misunderstands the transactions taking place that one must consider the possibility she is deliberately misrepresenting the situation.)

Pregnant drinking is ok - FB conversation

I posted this on FB:

Sitting in the hot tub, 13 degrees, no wind; my Fat Tire is staying nice and cold as the snow drifts down. According to the label, the Surgeon General says the pregnant women should not drink alcohol. Pondering. Pregnant women have been prosecuted for drinking while pregnant, yet that selfsame can get an abortion then go out and have a beer to celebrate...

D.G.: AFAIK laws allowing women to be prosecuted for negligent harm to their own fetus are generally proposed by pro-lifers; are you aware otherwise? Seems like that paradox is a symbol of our uneasy compromise.

J.L.: Holy Cow Rich... Are you TRYING to pick a fight on Christmas Eve?

Me: Haha, J.L.! Naw, in the quiet solitude of the hot tub and the soothing effect of a beer one starts thinking.

Me: I wonder how there could be an uneasy compromise if this is a life at stake. Are you suggesting that you support a pregnant woman choosing to drink?

D.G.: AFAIK, yes, small amounts of alcohol during pregnancy are in fact harmless.

Me: So you are different than these pro-lifers only be degree, not principle.

J.L.: I am pro life. But I admit that I ride the fence. But my concerns are the usual ones... Rape, incest, ect. I in no case however would advocate for a late term abortion. The paradox that sends me over the cliff is all the pro choice proponents who are opposed to the death penalty. The typical pro choice lib will advocate for late term abortion all the while fighting tooth and nail to keep some degenerate, rapist, child killer from the gallows. Crazy...

U.S. Mint testing new metals to make coins cheaper - Analysis

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments first, and the article is below.

--------------------

On December 4th I republished an article by Kevin Freking which described the government's desire to replace paper $1 bills with a coin. Supposedly it was to save the government $4.4 billion over 30 years, mostly because the coins last so much longer. 

But today's article by Joann Loviglio discusses the fact that coins are too expensive to produce. The article also references some of the same information as the December 4th article, so apparently the two reporters are using the same source information. This makes me wonder if these reporters receive a press release and simply regurgitate its contents.

What both articles seem to agree on is that currency is expensive to produce, and certain changes are needed in order to save the government money. Of course, the amounts involved are peanuts compared to the trillions of dollars of debt.

The last thing I want to address is a quote from the article attributed to Dick Peterson, the Mint's acting director: "We produce 6 billion pennies a year. Our customers want them.” Sir, we are not your customers. We are not engaging in a business transaction with the government. The government has constitutional authority to create currency, and it is one of the ways private parties transaction business between themselves. You are not a party to those transactions, you merely facilitate them. 

------------------

By JOANN LOVIGLIO

Associated Press PHILADELPHIA — When it comes to making coins, the Mint isn’t getting its two cents worth. In some cases, it doesn’t even get half of that. A penny costs more than two cents and a nickel costs more than 11 cents to make and distribute. The quandary is how to make coins more cheaply without sparing our change’s quality and durability, or altering size and appearance.

A 400-page report presented last week to Congress outlines nearly two years of trials conducted at the Mint in Philadelphia, where a variety of metal recipes were put through their paces in the massive facility’s high-speed coinmakingmachinery.

Evaluations of 29 different alloys concluded that none met the ideal list of attributes. The Treasury Department concluded that additional study was needed before it could endorse any changes.

“We want to let the data take us where it takes us,” Dick Peterson, the Mint’s acting director, said Wednesday. More test runs with different alloys are likely in the coming year, he said.

The government has been looking for ways to shave the millions it spends every year to make bills and coins. Congressional auditors recently suggested doing away with dollar bills entirely and replacing them with dollar coins, which they concluded could save taxpayers some $4.4 billion over three decades. Canada is dropping its penny as part of an austerity budget. To test possible new metal combinations, the U.S. Mint struck penny-, nickel- and quarter-sized coins with “nonsense dies” — images that don’t exist on legal tender (a bonneted Martha Washington is a favorite subject) but are similar in depth and design to real currency. Test stampings were examined for color, finish, resistance to wear and corrosion, hardness and magnetic properties. That last item might be the trickiest, as coin-operated equipment such as vending machines and parking meters detect counterfeits not just by size and weight but by each coin’s specific magnetic signature. Except for pennies, all current U.S. circulating coins have the electromagnetic properties of copper, the report said.

A slight reduction in the nickel content of our quarters, dimes and nickels would bring some cost savings while keeping the magnetic characteristics the same. Making more substantial changes, like switching to steel or other alloys with different magnetic properties, could mean big savings to the government but at a big cost to coin-op businesses, Peterson said.

The vending industry estimates it would cost between $700 million and $3.5 billion to recalibrate machines to recognize coins with an additional magnetic signature. The Mint’s researchers reached a lower but still pricey estimate of $380 million to $630 million.

Another challenge for the Mint is the rising cost of copper (used in all U.S. coins) and nickel (used in all except pennies).

Only four of the 80 metals on the periodic table — aluminum, iron (used to make steel), zinc and lead — cost less than copper and nickel, the report stated. Lead isn’t an option because of its potential health hazards.

“Pricing of steel, aluminum and zinc are pretty close to each other ... there are promising alternatives for the nickel, dime and quarter,” Peterson said. “There wouldn’t be any advantage to shift the composition of the penny, so we offset that cost with (savings from) other denominations.”

Pennies may not be cost-efficient, but they won’t be getting pinched as long as they’re in demand.

“We produce 6 billion pennies a year,” Peterson said. “Our customers want them.”

Concurrent Technologies Corp., a Pennsylvania-based scientific research and development company, is working with the Mint on the alternative materials study under a $1.5 million contract awarded in 2011.

The Philadelphia mint, established in 1792, is the country’s oldest and largest. Circulating coins are made there and in Denver.

Merry Christmas and constitutionality - FB post

I sent this question to FB friend B.R.:

Wondering what your opinion is on Happy Holiday vs. Christmas, banning nativity scenes, stuff like that.

B.R.: My brief take on it: there's no requirement for sharing a sentiment with someone. If you know they don't celebrate Christmas, it's polite to use a different phrase. I don't think we need to impose a standard on the nation, though. Most of the changes we see from "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays" or "Seasons Greetings" are marketing attempts to keep their reach as wide and general as possible.

As for nativity scenes, I love them dearly and love to see them on private property, in homes, businesses, and churches. If a nativity scene is set up on public property, and citizens in that area don't appreciate it, they can speak up and the community can decide what to do. If it were my community, I'd rather petition to put up MORE spiritual and religious icons around this holiday time, rather than stripping them all, but that's just me.

B.R.: Also, the idea of there being a "War on Christmas" is pretty silly.

D.G.: I know you didn't ask me :), but my 2c: a lot of countries in Europe have official state religions, but are actually more secular than the US.

While I personally am against the government putting up religious symbols, I think that in most cases it's such a gray area that we would be much better off leaving it up to community discretion rather than making a constitutional issue of it.

Me: D.G., you answer questions I didn't ask you and don't answer ones I did ;)

The government has been putting up religious symbols since the beginning of the country. Since the founders were obviously engaging in unconstitutional activity, should those symbols be purged?

Me: B.R., what's polite is a standard to which civilized people engage. If this were the case, we would never here the F-bomb in public. It seems the standard of politeness only goes one way.

D.G.: I engage when I feel like I have the knowledge, time and energy for a discussion. I do admire the breadth of your areas of interest, and I'm already someone describes myself as a 'professional dilettante.' ;)

Constitutional interpretation is a huge other topic. Like I said above, I /don't/ think we should make a constitutional issue of religious symbols. So it sounds like we agree on that.

B.R.: I don't swear around people I know don't like it. Isn't that polite enough?

Me: Not trying to set any sort of standard for you, Ben. If saying merry christmas violates a standard of politeness (this was your criteria), then there are certainly other things people might say to each other that might violate that standard, don't you think?

Me: Since opponents of religious symbols are claiming constitutional grounds for their objections, I think that pony has already left the corral.

B.R.: There's an important distinction for me: I say "merry Christmas" to my family and friends, and "happy holidays" to strangers.

I think saying "Merry Christmas" is very polite, no matter who's saying it or who they're saying it to. The non-specific alternative phrases are polite too, but they're less presumptuous and more inclusive. It's like using "Ms" with a stranger instead of "Mrs" or "miss". Look, if you're in an area where everyone clearly celebrates Christmas, then say "Merry Christmas". I'm in Seattle, where there's a crazy variety of faiths, traditions, and preferences, so I say "Happy Holidays". Frankly, when I say that, I'm saying it because New Year's Eve happens right after Xmas and I think of this time as "the holiday season". I know zero Kwanzaa celebrators. I know zero Hanukkah celebrators, or at least zero who say anything about it. But it's a time of good will toward men (and women), so when talking to folks I don't know, I use more inclusive language.

Me: Seems like you're walking on eggshells, tailoring your greetings to your perceptions on how they will be received.

I think your approach is flawed, however. I think you ought to base your holiday greetings on your orientation, worldview, and religious persuasion, not on what you think someone else's might be. After all, you are who you are, and screw 'em if they don't like it...

Treasury to sell remaining GM shares - commentary

This article is found here. Reproduced for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments interspersed in bold.

-------------------------
The Treasury Department announced plans on Wednesday to sell the 500 million shares of General Motors it still owns, closing the books on the $51 billion bailout that started four years ago (At one point the government owned 61% of GM, while unions owned 17.5%!).

But even with the $12 billion to $14 billion Treasury will likely recoup from the stock sales, taxpayers will probably lose out on the GM bailout when all is said and done (Yup, we the taxpayer bears the risk of these hairbrained government schemes, and we always seem to lose. At least when I invest in the stock market myself, I get to choose the stocks I buy and how much money I risk, and because it was a voluntary decision, I get the gains or losses myself by my choice.).

Treasury said GM has agreed to repurchase 200 million shares by the end of this year for $27.50 a share, a nearly 8% premium above Tuesday's closing price. Shares of GM jumped more than 7% in early trading Wednesday on the news.

Treasury intends to sell its remaining 300 million shares through various means in an orderly fashion within the next 12-15 months, subject to market conditions. Sales could start as soon as January.

After the repurchase of shares by GM, there will still be $21.6 billion of bailout funds yet to be returned to taxpayers. The average sale price on the remaining 300 million shares would have to be nearly $72 in order for Treasury to break even. That's nearly triple Tuesday's closing price. (We were continually told that this would be a money maker for the treasury, weren't we?)

GM started to receive bailout funds in late 2008, with the bulk of the money being used to fund its operations during its 2009 bankruptcy reorganization (We were also told that the bailout was going to prevent GM from going bankrupt.).

Although GM has returned to profitability since the bailout, the stock has not done as well as hoped. Treasury is getting less than the $33 per share it received at the time of GM's initial public offering in November 2010. GM CEO Dan Akerson has apologized for the automaker's weak stock price despite strong earnings (It certainly helps profitability to not have to pay taxes.).

Still, it is estimated that 1.5 million jobs were saved by keeping General Motors and smaller rival Chrysler afloat through bailouts, according to the Center for Automotive Research. That's why many economists argue that the bailout worked, even if taxpayers are not completely repaid (This is a fallacious argument. It assumes a static equation, which is the same mistake that government regularly makes when it computes the additional revenue of tax increases, revenue which never seems to materialize. The economy is dynamic. Had GM and Chrysler shut down operations {which probably wouldn't have happened without the bailout, since it later went bankrupt anyway}, the demand for automobiles would have shifted to other manufacturers. GM and Chrysler sell millions of cars per year. Those buyers would not simply decide not to buy. They would have bought a Ford or a Toyota. So all the other car makers would have increased sales and hired displaced workers to build their cars. 

Which means that those 1.5 million jobs saved would likely be much smaller, since many of them would have found jobs elsewhere, even outside the automotive industry. But even assuming that this number is correct, we need to note that $51 billion of taxpayer money was put at risk to save those jobs.).

Van Conway, a Michigan restructuring expert, said the overall hit to the economy might have been hundreds of billions of dollars if GM and Chrysler had gone under, due to the loss of businesses across many different sectors (Again, this is based on the assumption that the equation is static. But even if true, an impact of few hundred billion dollars is not that big a deal in an economy measuring $15.7 trillion.).

"If we had not bailed out GM and Chrysler, it would have affected companies that no one ever thought about," said Conway.

GM has bounced back to earn record profits in 2011, as it recaptured its title of the world's leading automaker. It is hiring workers once again (Again, it's a lot easier to obtain record profit one doesn't have to pay taxes, or pay off bondholders with depressed stock, or cap CEO pay. And, we don't know what the current economic situation would be had the bailout never happened.).

"The auto industry rescue helped save more than a million jobs during a severe economic crisis, but TARP was always meant to be a temporary, emergency program (No one can know this for a fact.). The government should not be in the business of owning stakes in private companies for an indefinite period of time," said Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability Timothy Massad (He's only partly right. The government should NEVER own stakes in private companies.).

Despite the success of GM since 2009, the bailout remains controversial. It was a major point of contention during the recent presidential election. Mitt Romney argued government funds should not have been used the bailout. GM has been eager to have Treasury sell its remaining stake due to the opposition of some potential car buyers to the deal, who mockingly referred to the company as "Government Motors." The final sale of stock will also remove limits on executive pay at GM (This a is crucial piece. A significant number of people did not buy GM cars because of the bailout. In fact, there are a lot of car buyers who will never buy a GM product again. We need to note that pundits have not calculated the lost jobs or lost revenue from this.).

"This announcement is an important step in bringing closure to the successful auto industry rescue (The claim to success is doubtful. We can point to Ford as a control subject which did not get a TARP bailout even in the face of its own financial difficulties, and not only survived, but prospered.), it further removes the perception of government ownership of GM among customers, and it demonstrates confidence in GM's progress and our future," Akerson said in a statement Wednesday.

Benefits for gay couples rejected - Matt Gouras - analysis

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My responses interspersed in bold.

-------------

Associated Press HELENA — The Montana Supreme Court on Monday rejected an “overly broad” request that gay couples be guaranteed the same benefits as married couples, but left the door open for advocates to modify their case and try again (This is curious. "Gay couples" cannot marry in Montana, so they currently are of different status than married couples. Usually the argument offered is that gay marriage solves the benefit problem, but here the benefits are sought even though marriage isn't possible. That would make the relationship a contractual one, that is, a voluntary agreement between parties to grant rights and obligations as spelled out in the contract. This is a routine activity, done every day in order to define and protect the parties involved. So one might wonder what exactly is being litigated before the Montana supreme court.).

The plaintiffs promised to do so, declaring they are “on the right side of history” and will inevitably win ("On the right side of history" is the latest catch phrase. It's one of those statements that sound profound and noble but really means nothing. If you google it you will find that it proliferates the web, with almost every citation related to gay issues. Gay marriage advocates latched on to the phrase and it didn't take long until every leftist was using it. 

So are they "on the right side of history?" Depends on what part of history one embraces. If we're talking about 6000 years of recorded history, the law, morality, biology, and the perpetuation of the human race, well, the gay rights issue is definitely not on the right side of history. If, however, we link gay rights to the struggle for civil rights by African Americans {a dubious link in my opinion}, then it is not so much history as it is a break from history. That is, blacks have a long history of being persecuted and abused. It is only relatively recently that the trends of history have been broken and African Americans have gained their rightful status. Gays, by this attempted association, want also to break with history, not be on the right side of it.).

The court wrote in Monday’s 4-3 decision that a lower court was within its discretion when it earlier dismissed the request.

In that earlier decision, a Helena district court judge dismissed the six couples’ case last year after state prosecutors argued that spousal benefits are limited by definition to married couples. A voter-approved amendment in 2004 defined marriage as between a man and a woman (So the lower court's ruling was based on the same logic I used above. But as I also mentioned, what is sought by gays is remedied by entering into a contract. Of course, this presently-available remedy does nothing to advance the cause. The cause is not about rights or fair treatment, it's not about toleration or acceptance, and frankly, it's not even about celebration. The real objective is to wipe out religious, traditional morality from the face of the earth. Ultimately, gay marriage is not about love, it is about hate, hate towards those who oppose the gay lifestyle, hate towards those who would have a different opinion, hate towards those who embrace religion and its precepts.).

District Judge Jeffrey Sherlock based his ruling in part on the state’s marriage amendment, and said that an order to force state lawmakers to write new laws would violate the separation of powers The majority justices upheld that decision. The court wrote that the gay couples want the court to intervene “without identifying a specific statute or statutes that impose the discrimination they allege.” (This is a rare event. The justices are concerned about separation of powers. This is laudable. The justices recognize the limits of their authority. But I am surprised that the plaintiffs didn't bother to take the time to identify the egregious laws. That would seem to be a basic step.)

But the high court also said the legal complaint can be changed and re-filed with the lower court if it specifically cites state laws that are unconstitutional.

“It is this Court’s opinion that plaintiffs should be given the opportunity, if they choose to take it, to amend the complaint and to refine and specify the general constitutional challenges they have proffered,” Montana Supreme Court chief justice Mike McGrath wrote for the majority. The advocates argue the legal rights they seek would not be barred by the voter-approved definition of marriage since they are not seeking specifically the right to marry.

One dissenting justice, however, noted the state is citing the marriage amendment in its legal arguments.

And Justice James Nelson, in a lengthy 109-page dissent, wrote that he thinks the marriage amendment itself unconstitutionally conflicts with fundamental rights. He said the marriage amendment was a religious based attack meant to demean homosexuals (His complaint has nothing to do with the law and how it should be applied. The Constitution of Montana, in Article XIII, Section 7, reads, "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state." So, Judge Nelson, where specifically in this short statement is religion and the demeaning of homosexuals?).

“But future generations — indeed, most young people today — will not fear, much less honor, the sexual-orientation taboo,” Nelson wrote. “Indeed, a not-too-distant generation of Montanans will consign today’s decision, the marriage amendment, and the underlying intolerance to the dustbin of history and to the status of a meaningless, shameful , artifact.” (Do you notice the demeaning statements, the attempt to disenfranchise and marginalize the people of Montana the majority of whom voted for this amendment? His statements reek of moral indignation, which leads us to wonder why he thinks his morality should be adopted over anyone else's. Indeed, he is one of a very select few people in Montana who possesses the power to impose his morality. Amazingly, he even thinks that the court has the right to judge the constitutionality of a constitutional amendment!)  Among the rights (I think this term "rights" is being misused. These are privileges that are being sought. Rights can only be safeguarded or violated, not established or created) the couples are asking for in the lawsuit filed in 2010:

1) Inheritance rights, and the ability to make burial decisions and receive workers compensation death benefits. 

2) The right to file joint tax returns, claim spousal tax exemptions or take property tax benefits. 

3) The right to make health care decisions for a spouse when that person cannot.

4) Legal protection in cases of separation and divorce, including children’s custody and support. (As mentioned above, all of these things can already be achieved by entering into a legal contract.)

Social conservatives who oppose granting those rights (Again, these are not constitutional rights we are talking about, they are privileges, they are contractual rights facilitated by law and established by mutual agreement of parties), and who supported the marriage amendment, lauded the high court for rejecting the request.

“The people of Montana believed in traditional marriage when they passed the Montana marriage amendment, and they’re not willing to consider any laws that will weaken marriage,” said Jeff Laszloffy, president of the Montana Family Foundation and author of the marriage amendment (This may be true, but the problem isn't really that traditional marriage is under attack {although it is}, it is that government has involved itself in marriage at all. Marriage is a religious institution which has been co-opted over time by the government. If one searches the word "marriage" in the Montana Code Annotated, one will find 182 results. These laws regarding marriage simply means that the state has made marriage a matter of legislation, not religion. The ideal solution is to get the state out of marriage altogether. Let the churches marry those whom they deem eligible, and restrict the state to its proper venue: law. If additional laws are needed regarding contracts, then pass them. But those things should not come to bear on marriage).

The Montana attorney general’s office argued throughout the case that the plaintiffs need to cite specific laws they believe are unconstitutional.

“The majority opinion recognized that orderly resolution of the plaintiff ’s claims would require consideration of specific statutes, as is the typical manner in which constitutional challenges to statues are resolved,” assistant attorney general Michael Black said in a statement.

The Montana ACLU, involved in the case from the start, said the Supreme Court decisions leaves open a path to victory for the advocates. Plaintiffs in the case expressed optimism.

“We’re encouraged by the decision because the justices said that we could pursue the protections we are seeking,” (Wow, that is optimism. They lost the case, but are so happy.) said Mary Leslie, who was unable to apply for death benefits after a partner was killed (Unfortunately, we don't know what sort of death benefits are being referred to. Life insurance names beneficiaries according to the owner's preferences, so that isn't it. Private pension systems generally also allow the owner to name whomever. Frankly, I can't think of a "death benefit" situation where an account owner cannot name his or her beneficiary of choice.). “Legal protection is essential, not just for our families, but for all same-sex couples. We won’t stop until every loving couple (Should non-loving couples not be treated fairly?) is treated fairly." (I would surmise that most of the problem is not due to the law, but to the negligence of parties involved who didn't take the time to protect their interests by implementing a contract. Or even, it is possible that they deliberately chose not to do so in order to create an issue and a subsequent lawsuit. Maybe I'm too cynical, but since we see people faking hate crimes, it wouldn't surprise me at all it some gay couple somewhere decided to "take one for the team" in order to gin up sympathy.)

Teachers carrying assault rifles - FB conversaton

FB friend R.W. posted this:

A.G.: Everyone in Israel serves in the military, so has military training with these weapons. To suggest giving our school teachers assault rifles to go with their teaching credential is unfortunately ludacris.

B.W.: I could see this if we were at war with Canada............

R.W.: First of all. I'm not sure this is an "ASSAULT Rifle" Second, there are many in the teaching profession that have fire arm training, either through Military service or law enforcement, and to say there should be NO protection for our children is ludacris, evidenced by the number of defenseless children gunned down in the past couple decades.

Me: Ludicrous, by the way. Which it's not at all. What's ludicrous is the idea that a armed, disturbed person can enter a gun-free zone with impunity and murder people, with no one to stop him.

A.G.: Of course the kids need protecting. But to even compare Israel to the US is ridiculis. ;) We need different solutions here. This photo poorly attempts to simplify a very complicated problem, which is an insult to our intelligence and turns a blind eye to an array of other critical factors.

Me: Why is the comparison ridiculous? And why do you expect a single picture to adequately express the nuances of the issue?

A.G.: Israel is a country in a constant state of war, surrounded by hostiles, with it's entire citizenry enlisted in mandatory military service. To show this photo and say "See? We should be like Israel and have all our teachers pack assault rifles!" is like showing a a photo of swiss cheese and saying "See? The Swiss don't have school shootings - it must be the cheese!". I don't expect a single picture to adequately represent the nuances of the issue - unless it posted with that intention. Otherwise, why post it. There are too many ways our culture and Israel's differ to even bother listing here. They completely eradicate any possible veracity of this photo's intended message.

Me: The picture shows someone carrying a firearm, for the purpose of... protecting school children in a potentially dangerous environment. The picture makes a correlation with our situation, which is that a teacher carrying a firearm might be able to... protect school children in a potentially dangerous environment. Mentioning swiss cheese and the Swiss is like comparing driving a car with sleeping.

So there's a plethora of unstated reasons? Could you state one or two?

A.G.: Rich - c'mon...you strike me as an intelligent fellow. I don't believe you didn't follow the swiss cheese analogy. Second, I already gave you three examples of how one can't compare Israel and the US when it comes to this issue. You can address those (incredibly significant ones) first before I call in the plethora.

Me: Your response is puzzling. You invented an irrelevant analogy, which supplied us with no insight and said nothing at all about the matter at hand. I did note your examples, but again they do not come to bear on the issue.

The choices made by a government as far as military service or the way it responds to its enemies or what its state of war are not relevant. America is constantly at war, it is surrounded by enemies, it has a standing army, navy, air force, and marines. Much of our citizenry served, and many citizens carry arms. None of this matters. The issue is not war or government, it is the fact that a disturbed individual murdered people and what things might have averted the tragedy.

Now you will note that I respond directly to your points, and I expect the same courtesy.

Let’s value life over profits - Analysis of Bruce Gourley's letter

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My commentary interspersed in bold.

---------

During this season of giving, America continues to have a problem with the greatest gift of all: “life ... abundantly” (Jesus’ mission, according to the Gospel of John). (Usually when a Leftist quotes Scripture it is to bolster their agenda. And usually it's a display of ignorance.

That's certain true of Mr. Gourley's letter. He takes a true statement of Scripture, elevates it out of context, and applies it so as to condemn others who he views as not measuring up. This is an easy way to tell if someone is accurately handling the Scriptures, if the objective is to attack one's opponents.

Let's quote the passage in full so that we get the context. John 10:7-11: 

"Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." 

Note that Jesus is making several claims here. He is the door, anyone who comes to him is saved, everyone else are thieves and robbers, and then the central claim, He came that we might have life, and have it more abundantly. 

We see from this passage that Jesus came to give life to people who are already physically alive ["I am come that they might have life..."], so the life Jesus gives, the abundant life, is the life beyond the physical. John confirms this a few verses later in verse 28: "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish..."So clearly, the greatest gift is not just a generic physical, healthy existence. 

So let's compare Mr. Gourley's version of abundant life with Jesus'. We see later in his letter that Mr. Gourley equates life with government healthcare, and contrasts this life with evil corporate profits, i.e., capitalism. But Jesus is talking about salvation (new life, i.e. born again) and living in the spiritual blessings that come from finding pasture with the Good Shepherd, not about government healthcare or economic theory.) 

Corporate America too often tells consumers that materialism is the abundant life, while paying workers as little as possible in order to increase lucrative CEO salaries, and hiding corporate profits overseas to avoid paying federal taxes. For their part, ordinary American citizens too often confuse true abundance with materialism and sail through life on the winds of selfishness. (A Leftist litany of talking points. Ordinarily I would address these accusations one by one, but when someone like Mr. Gourley simply pukes up a bunch of slogans, what's the use? I mean, really. These are tossed out unthinkingly, probably because he read them on some leftist website. They have no meaning, context, or references.

Mr. Gourley is blaming capitalism and advocating for marxism. Interestingly, in the rather long letter he never actually says what he thinks we should do or what changes need to be made. He carefully hides his agenda, alluding to this or that, but never coming out and saying what he is truly advocating. This is classic agitprop, the language of tyrants and oppressors the world over.)

Judge extends temporary block on new medical pot rules - Analysis

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes.

------------

Several years ago, Montana voters approved a medical marijuana ballot measure, which led to a proliferation of MM providers. Sometime later the Feds came in and raided these providers and prosecuted them, So, the Montana legislature passed a law which rolled back parts of the ballot measure. This rollback was subsequently put to ballot, and passed by a significant margin. So the same voters who approved of MM also approved of the legislature's actions to limit it.

District Judge Reynolds had blocked the legislature's restrictions. This ruling was appealed to the state supreme court, which overruled Reynolds. Now Reynolds is forced to revise his ruling, but rather than do so, he is extending his block while he considers the arguments.

So, both the legislature and the people approved of these restrictions, and the state supreme court told this district judge he is wrong. His response? He's going to do whatever the hell he wants. 

If this isn't tyranny, I don't know what is.

The article concludes with some sob stories, which is the very strategy that was used when the issue of MM was first brought before the people. Apparently it is these sorts of emotional appeals that carry a lot of weight with Reynolds, law be damned.

----------------------

 HELENA (AP) — A judge on Thursday extended his temporary block of restrictions on medical marijuana providers while he considers whether the state can eliminate access to the drug for some of the most seriously ill patients in the interest of curbing abuse.

District Judge James Reynolds did not immediately rule on whether to grant a preliminary injunction that would indefinitely block the state from implementing a ban on compensation for medical marijuana providers or limiting them to distributing marijuana to three people. Instead, he left in place a temporary restraining order while he considered the arguments from the two-hour hearing.

The state Supreme Court this fall overruled Reynolds in the case and said there is no constitutional right to access medical marijuana. The justices sent the case back to Reynolds, telling the judge to review the restrictions in the 2011 law by determining whether they are rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

Reynolds acknowledged that he was struggling with the high court’s order, particularly on how the state law allowing some use of medical marijuana can be reconciled with the federal ban of the Schedule I drug.

But while Reynolds did not issue a ruling, he said he believes the state’s restrictions on medical marijuana providers to be “logistically and rationally unreasonable.” Other provisions of the 2011 law that have gone into effect squeezed out other medical marijuana users except for the most ill patients, Reynolds said. The parts of the law now being challenged would require those patients to grow their own marijuana if they are unable to find a provider to do it for free, and many of them are physically unable to do.

“I think that’s irrational,” Reynolds said.

Assistant Attorney General Stuart Segrest said the state has met the Supreme Court’s requirement that it prove the law is rationally related to a state interest. It is within the state’s rights to implement the restrictions because they allow authorities to curb abuse, and the restrictions do not cut off patients’ marijuana access, he said.

Segrest added that a voter referendum last month that upheld the law takes away the argument that the Legislature acted against the will of the people by passing the law.

Montana Cannabis Industry Association James Goetz said the restrictions are irrational because they only cut off access to those who need medical marijuana the most. He said a July memo that purportedly came from U.S. Attorney Mike Cotter — but which Cotter would not confirm as his — shows that federal prosecutors don’t plan to go after smallvolume providers or users of medical marijuana.

An Associated Press request for the memo under the Freedom of Information Act has been pending for more than two months.

Goetz presented three medical marijuana users — two cancer patients and a woman with numerous illnesses including leukemia and scoliosis — who testified they would not know where to find the drug if their providers went out of business and they could not physically grow their own.

“At 65, how do I find somebody underground to do it? I don’t know what to do,” said Melva Stewart.

Two medical marijuana providers testified they would likely close down if the provisions banning compensation and limiting patients were enacted, and said it would be difficult and expensive for patients to grow their own.

School privatization reduces choice; public schools ensure innovation, local control - analysis

This opinion piece appeared in today's Bozeman Chronicle. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My commentary interspersed in bold.

----------------

(Before I get started, does the title of this opinion piece seem Orwellian? If there are other schools to chose from, how does that reduce choice? And how do private schools reduce innovation? And why would they have impact on local control? Let's see if these questions get answered by the authors.)

By DENISE ULBERG, ERIC FEAVER, DAVE PUYEAR, LANCE MELTON, MARK LAMBRECHT AND KIRK MILLER 

Guest columnists In recent public policy discussions regarding the use of public funds to pay for private education in Montana, there are critical facts that are lost in the details (Well, there is no such thing as "public funds." Government has no money of its own. It must take private money from private individuals before it has any money at all. So the authors believe there are critical facts missing from the debate? Let's see if there are "critical facts," or even if there are "facts" at all.).

Using public funds for private education essentially makes “private” education now “public,” (Actually, allowing taxpayers to keep their own money to spend as they see fit is not making "private" education "public". The only way this can be viewed this way is if a person's money does not belong to them, that is, all money belongs to the government.) 

only without the accountability, rights and choices made available to the public when interacting with their existing public schools. (Their perspective seems to be that private activities like private schools ought to function as an arm of government and fulfill government's objectives. But private entities are private for a reason. They have their own objectives. The fact that private schools have different objectives than public school goals is the precise reason why they exist!) Each of the following rights or choices under current law would be notably absent if public funds were used to support private schools:

1. Your choice of which trustees to vote for and elect to represent the community and oversee how the school district spends taxpayer funds (Do private schools not have boards? Of course they do, and they are invariably selected by the parents of students. If anything, the choice is better, since parents chose according to their world view).

2. Your choice of whether to support requests for funding and other voted matters required to be placed before the voters by public schools (What? Private schools are funded by tuition paid by the parents, as well as by charitable gifts and other fund raising. Parents "choose" request for funding by selecting the private school and paying the tuition.).

3. Your right to observe, participate in and challenge the deliberations and decisions of public schools through open meeting laws (The puzzlers stack up. Private schools have board meetings according to their bylaws. Their meetings are as they choose to have them. Public school boards have closed meetings regularly. What are the authors talking about?).

4. Your right to know and assess how well the schools you are supporting with your taxes are performing on various standardized measures of student performance. Private schools are exempt assessing and disclosing their performance to the public (Parents will not allow their student to attend any school for very long if they think their child is not being adequately educated. Most certainly these parents know how their schools are performing! As far as the public's right to know, it doesn't exist when it comes to what private individuals and organizations are doing. The public has no right to know what takes place at a private school. If they want to find out, well, they probably know how a phone works. I'm quite sure that most private schools would be happy to answer their questions).

5. Your right to enroll your child in a school. Unlike public schools, which are required to serve all resident school-aged children, private schools have the right to deny admission for a variety of reasons that would be unlawful if used as a basis for denial of admission in a public school (Enrolling your child in a private school is a mutually voluntary agreement, with an exchange of value. The parents pay the school, and the school educates their children. It is quite proper that there is no right to enroll, because a private organization serves its own interests. 

The authors seem to be complaining that the obligations and burdens public schools labor under as imposed by a myriad of laws and regulations ought to be imposed on the private sector as well; that is, because it's bad for them, it ought to be bad for private schools too.

However, private entities are not government entities. They do not serve anyone else's purposes but their own. They do not advance the societal goals of government. They have no obligation to kowtow to the latest pop culture initiative. That's exactly why parents choose them.).

Innovation and an ever-expanding range of options and choices within our public schools:

Montana’s public schools have innovated throughout the state to meet the needs of children in each community (This is irrelevant. What public schools do or not do does not come to bear on a parent choosing a private school. And on what basis do the authors claim that public schools are unique in this regard? These "innovations," are they automatically beneficial? I remember my public school experience at a progressive public high school. Innovative? Sure. Effective? No. 

A fine-sounding yet empty claim. In what way do they innovate? How specifically are these innovations different or better than private schools? Does the result of these innovations actually meet the needs of children in each community? How? And why should this override a parent's decision to put them in a private school?).

Montana’s school districts are eager to engage their communities in meaningful and thoughtful discussions regarding how to best serve Montana’s school-aged population (Good for them. Again, irrelevant, because parents choose privates schools according to what they value, not what the authors value.

And just try to disagree with public schools staff. Heaven help you if you contest an inappropriate book or want to keep your child out of questionable classroom activities. You'll find out very quickly how they value discussion.

If you do manage to engage a discussion, you'll likely experience a variation of the Delphi Technique, which is a way of conducting meetings that manipulate decision-making, discourage dissent, shame dissenters, and achieve pre-determined outcomes while simultaneously making it seem like the decision was reached by consensus. You can be sure that if you showed up at a public school board meeting that your dissent would not be tolerated.).

These discussions have resulted in choices that flourish throughout the state. (How can choices flourish? Does this mean as a result of choices, certain things are flourishing? Or that there are many choices now? Choices don't flourish.)

Open enrollment with no tuition for out-of-district students in a large majority of our public schools; four-day school week programming; online learning options available through the Montana Digital Academy; courses taken for concurrent high school and college credit; Montessori schools; International Baccalaureate programs; parttime enrollment for home school students; and even religious instruction release time are just a few of the innovations available in Montana’s public schools (Isn't amazing what can be done with oodles of taxpayer money? And did you notice the "release time" for religious instruction? This "innovation" has been around for decades, but fell out of favor for a while because of "church-state" issues. So apparently it is innovative to eliminate inflexibilities. In other words, "we were not doing this well, so we fixed it, and then we call it innovation.").

The bedrock principles that promote innovation and choice in Montana’s public schools include:

1. Collaboration with parents and taxpayers (This "collaboration" yields unnamed benefits.).

2. Accountability to voters through their rights to elect trustees; approve or disapprove discretionary levies; and demand transparency through access to information regarding school performance and expenditures (Making the same points again, as if private schools do not do these things).

3. The engagement of classroom teachers and other educators as the sources of both ideas for innovation and delivery of instruction, (Sounds like the authors are starting to scrape bottom in search of bullet points.) and

4. The assurance that all such offerings are provided on a nondiscriminatory basis in pursuit of the full development of the educational potential of each student as required under the Montana Constitution. (Which is one of the many reasons parents choose private schools, I'm sure.)

With all of the choices available within our accountable statewide system of public schools, why would we sacrifice any, much less all of the benefits for children above by using public funds to pay for private education in any form that lacks the accountability, transparency and voter control present in our public schools? The short answer is that we should not accept anything less and should in fact be pursuing an increased presence of the voice and role that the public currently enjoys in influencing the decisions of our public schools as they work to serve the children of this state.

Denise Ulberg is executive director of the Montana Association of School Business Officials; Eric Feaver is MEA-MFT president; Dave Puyear is executive director of Montana Rural Education Association; Lance Melton is executive director of Montana School Boards Association; Mark Lambrecht is executive director of the Montana Quality Education Coalition; and Kirk Miller is executive director of the School Administrators of Montana.

(After reading their point-by-point elucidation of the superior nature of public schools, are you left feeling like this is pretty thin stuff? It seems like the best they can say is that "private schools aren't like us," yet these grand differences are overblown, being primarily in terminology and presentation rather than substance. Private schools are not public entities seems to be their chief complaint, yet it is very thing that prompts parents to choose private schools. 

And given the manifold flaws of government-run enterprises, it's a wonder there are any students at all attending them. Granted, Montana fares better than a lot of places, but remember that the authors are supporting public schools as a concept, not necessarily Montana schools specifically.)