Study: public land means more jobs - By Jason Bacaj - Analysis

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes.

-------

The article below quotes the head of Headwaters Economics Ray Rasker, who happens to be a former board member of the Sonoran Institute. A board member of the Sonoran Institute is Jerry Grebenc, while another board member for Headwaters is coincidentally Deb Grebenc. The article also notes that Chris Mehl, a left-leaning Bozeman City Commissioner, is a board member as well. 

We can see that Headwaters shares a connection the Sonoran Institute. And, if there is a personnel connection there is likely an ideology connection. And what is that ideological perspective? If you poke around the Sonoran website you'll find leftist buzz words like sustainability and smart growth., while the Headwaters website similarly adopts the same political perspective. 

We see this kind of ideological nepotism frequently, where over and over the very same people populate all sorts of foundations and study groups as board members. I think the idea is to create the perception that there is a broad level of support and intellectual weight that really isn't there.

The reason I'm mentioning all this is because the website for Headwaters describes itself as engaging in "independent nonpartisan research." So it is fair to conclude that Headwaters is hardly non partisan. We should therefore understand their pronouncements through the lens of left-leaning politics and environmentalist perspectives.

A quick review of the Headwaters report mentioned in the article allows us to conclude that Headwaters is essentially equating correlation with causation. They assert that employment increased at a higher rate because of the existence of public land. This is likely to resonate with Montanans, who are used to wide open spaces and low density of population. Of course, it is clever strategy to manipulate this attitude for policy advocacy. 

However, the report mentions nothing regarding other important economic factors, like tax policy, zoning, housing costs, the impact of the colleges, or tourism. In fact, these words are not even found in their report. Yet it concludes that the sole factor that draws people to places like Bozeman is open spaces. It seems that the conclusion was established first, and the report was created to prove the conclusion. 

It is then a quick jump to conclude that legislative action to create more open space is desirable, based on the faulty conclusion that such actions will drive prosperity. This is agenda-driven advocacy wrapped up in a scientific veneer.

It also seems clear as one reads the article that reporter Jason Bacaj accepted the Headwaters report uncritically and without any research. In fact, the whole article reads like a press release. Mr. Bacaj approvingly interjects an editorial comment in this "news" story: "It appears Bozeman residents are ahead of the curve, having approved a 20-year bond that will give the city up to $15 million to create more public parks, trails, athletic fields and natural spaces in town." Herein is contained the whole purpose of the story, that is, to cheer-lead for more taxation for trails and athletic fields.  

Mr. Mehl, Headwaters board member and city commissioner, is quoted: "As the economy changes, hopefully our elected officials will change as well. It's really a question of what the elected officials do with this data to make the state as a whole more competitive." With breath-taking glibness, he asserts that the report produced by his own organization is authoritative, and ought to be adopted by the government which he presides over! And reporter Jason Bacaj glosses completely over this glaring conflict of interest.

There is much else that could be pointed out in the Headwaters report. However, I think I've mentioned enough to call it and its conclusions into question. 
--------

All the parks and trails in and around Bozeman are more than just nice to look at: They're main drivers of the local economic engine, according to a new report by a local nonprofit economic research group.

The group Headwaters Economics says that over the last four decades, non-metropolitan counties in the West with more than 30 percent federally protected lands increased jobs by 345 percent. Much of that job growth has come in service industries like health care, real estate and high-tech. Similar counties with no protected land increased jobs by 83 percent.

Gallatin, Madison and Park counties fall in the former category, with each having at least 45 percent of its land set aside as public, according to Headwaters data. And the area is seeing growth in many of those service industries, particularly high-tech and real estate, said Ray Rasker, executive director of the nonprofit research group. The. time frame studied stretches from 1970 to 2010, but he said the local real estate industry is rebounding and contributing positively to the economy, even though the study period included the housing collapse.

"What people are doing is using the lifestyle of the West as a way to attract talent, and it bears out in the numbers," Rasker said. "The structure of the economy has changed tremendously."

Headwaters Economics focuses its research on community development and land management decisions and has delved into the topic of land and its economic value in the past. Rasker said they decided to jump back into the topic because of the recession, to "reeducate ourselves about what's driving the economy." Lance Trebesch, CEO and co-owner of event ecommerce company TicketRiver, said public land and recreational opportunities along with highspeed Internet connections have allowed him to build a successful technology company based in Bozeman and Harlowton. The key to it, he said, is attracting talent; and talented people are now able to pick and choose where they work, which amplifies the importance of an area's quality of life.

Rasker said Headwaters attributed the nearly two to-one job growth experienced in the western U.S. compared to the rest of the country solely to public lands, rather than other developments or area improvements, because of the number of data slices and models the nonprofit was able to incorporate into its analyses.

It appears Bozeman residents are ahead of the curve, having approved a 20-year bond that will give the city up to $15 million to create more public parks, trails, athletic fields and natural spaces in town.

The group hopes the Legislature will take a look at the study and consider what open land contributes to the economy by itself, in addition to the value of what can be extracted from it.

"As the economy changes, hopefully our elected officials will change as well," said Chris Mehl, policy director at Headwaters Economics and Bozeman city commissioner. "It's really a question of what the elected officials do with this data to make the state as a whole more competitive."

Jason Bacaj may be reached at jasonb@dailychronicle.com 582-2635.

Government subsidizing the exporting of jobs - FB conversation

S.W. posted this on FB:

Raising taxes on unemployed people is like trying to save gas by always driving downhill. Sooner or later you are gonna hit the bottom and it's gonna be a long push back up.

K.S.: what they should be doing is subsidizing jobs, but those subsidies keep getting voted down... Instead, we get tax breaks on job creators who either don't create jobs, or create low-wage PT jobs.

R.E.W.: Perhaps allowing tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas is not as good idea as it sounds?

S.W.: When I was at the bank they moved 5,000 jobs to south Texas and took advantage of the "Guest Worker" programs. We all lost our jobs.

Me: I hope jobs subsidies continue to be voted down. Government is the cause of the situation we are in.

R.W.: Humm lets see once? you work and earn unemployement for when you are laidoff and have to pay taxes on those benefits and also those benefits only last so long,,,,But you recive welfare and dont pay one red cent but get to be on evrey FREE program on the planet and it lasts a life time ?????? and dont do anything for those benefits. Things that make us go HUMMMMMM

R.E.W.: R.W., where do you get lifetime welfare? Not in the USA. There was a five-year limit put on it under Clinton. So ... will you change your mind on that subject?

R.E.W.: Rich, why do you say "Government is the cause ..." ? Is this a religious belief you have, or do you have some factual basis for blaming government for the export of 50,000 factories (not just jobs, but FACTORIES) out of the USA?

Me: R.E.W., why don't you rephrase your question, this time without a condescending comment?

R.E.W.: Rich - don't whine. Answer the question, or just concede you have a religious belief here: that you have no factual basis, it's just something you believe.

Me:  we can be respectful and exchange ideas, or you can be an asshole. You choose.

R.E.W.: Rich, why you think "religious belief" is disrespectful I don't know, but since you've resorted to potty words, I'll play along: Do you have some factual basis for blaming government for the export of 50,000 factories (not jobs but FACTORIES) out of the USA? (Or is it the request for facts that make me an "asshole" LOL?)

Me: Thank you sir. I did not make any statement about the exportation of 50,000 factories. I did comment that job subsidies, like so many government intervention into the private sector, cause the very problems they purport to solve.

R.E.W.: Rich, So what you're saying is that "the problem we are in" is the result of job subsidies - that the shortage of good-paying jobs in America is because government subsidizes good-paying jobs? Am I correctly characterizing your statement? Because, sir, an extraordinary statement like that requires extraordinary proof; do you have any facts to support the idea that the export of 50,000 factories is a smaller factor than any government subsidy of the jobs in those factory? I apologize if asking for facts appears condescending, but it's a habit.

R.E.W.: Here, for example, is a government action that would have ended government support for exporting jobs. Can we agree that it would be a good idea for government to stop encouraging the export of jobs: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/239029-republicans-blocked-the-democrats-insourcing-bill

"Senate Republicans blocked the Democrats’ ‘insourcing’ bill Thursday — creating a trend of failure for the week. The Bring Jobs Home Act would have ended tax breaks to companies that move jobs overseas and given a tax incentive to companies bringing jobs back to the United States..."

R.E.W.: Or perhaps we can agree that when Pete Singer, owner of Delphi (formerly Delco Auto Parts), held GM hostage, demanding billions of taxpayer dollars or he'd collapse the auto industry by shutting down the manufacture of steering collumns, well it was a bad thing for government to surrender to the blackmail, especially since the blackmailer then used the money to export most of Delphi's jobs to China ... but not giving in to the blackmail would have been bad too. Government is not the problem; government is just a tool; the question is who is using the government for what purpose: http://truth-out.org/news/item/12210-greg-palast-mitt-romneys-bailout-bonanza

Me: What I am saying is the problems we are in are due largely to government interventions into the private sector, frequently exacerbating the problems it sets out to solve. Regarding your first link, I'm sure tinkering with the tax code seems like a solution, that is, if one could say that fixing a previous bad government intervention with yet another is a solution, but I'm at loss to explain how a tax credit like this will do what is claimed. Regarding your second link, I quote: "Singer’s fund investors scored a gain of $904 million, all courtesy of the US taxpayer." Does this sound like a government intervention solved a problem, or created one?

Let me put it to you. Can you name one government social or economic program that solved the problem for which it was created, so that the program was discontinued as a result?

Me: Truth-out? I guess I should quote idiot hannity or someone.

R.E.W.: Rich,  - are you saying that the facts I outlined about Pete Singer's Delphi Deal are not true, just because the easier source to cite is truth-out ?

R.E.W.: when you state "I'm at loss to explain how a tax credit like this will do what is claimed" are you not ignoring the fact that the tax credit ALREADY EXISTS ... it just works to help EXPORT JOBS? Do you want to say "Stop the tax credit for exports, and don't implement a credit for imports"?

R.E.W.: "Can you name one government social or economic program that solved the problem for which it was created, so that the program was discontinued as a result?" places a silly condition on program: that they permanently end continuing problems. You might as well say that glasses don't correct vision because you still need to wear them; some things, like power supplies, fire protection and health care, are ongoing issues and require ongoing solutions. (Although it is true that many anti-poverty and education programs have reduced the problems they attacked; I know several people personally who used government resources such as education to get their way into private sector jobs ... don't you?) Turn the question around: Can you name one private sector social or economic program that solved the problem for which it was created, so that the program was discontinued as a result?

R.E.W.: Finally, it might as well be stated that "... the problems we are in are due largely to government interventions into the private sector" is simply false. No evidence is provided for that statement, and in fact the very terms of the statement are not defined, e.g. "the problems we have". The one example we discuss (Delphi) are an example of the private sector driving itself to ruin, so that Pete Singer could take control, and then extort billions because otherwise his control of the production of steering columns would enable him to destroy the entire auto industry. That is not government's fault; you may disagree with the government decision to give in to the economic terrorist but you can't blame government for the terrorist's act.

Me:  *Sigh* "The facts I outlined" is an a prioi assumption of veracity which has yet to be established. Considering the far left source, I justifiably doubt their presentation is without bias.

Yes, yes, yes. The tax credit exists. Please note that I did not say that it didn't. If you think that simply because of a tax credit companies move their businesses out of country, you are naive. Similarly, if you think a company will move its operations back simply because the tax credit is modified, you simply don't understand how business works.

Me: So, I am assuming you concede that government does not solve social problems. Um, power supplies, fire protection, and health care are not social problems. But I think you knew that.

Me:  The private sector does not create or implement social programs. It is not an arm of government. Again, you appear to not to understand how the private sector works.

Me: "... the problems we are in are due largely to government interventions into the private sector" is an opinion, and cannot be false. An opinion is not a statement of fact. Since you have admitted that you don't know what I'm referring to, you cannot know if my claim is without merit.

R.E.W.: Not interested in discussing with someone who says facts don't matter because he's just expressing an opinion, but grateful that my first point was validated: it's a belief proof against fact, aka religion.

Me: Yeah, that's exactly what I said: Facts don't matter.

Making a show of compassion - FB conversation

FB friend B.R. posted this:

One of the key figures in the future of the Democrats.

Amen.

Me: He's right, but there's a catch. He wants people to show him their compassion, but as soon as anyone does it becomes bragging, not compassion. People who are out there in the trenches do not do it because Cory Booker wants proof.

B.R.: I don't think it has to be bragging. The Dalai Lama shows his compassion every day, in words, actions, donations, etc. He's not bragging; he's exemplifying his compassionate beliefs. I think Cory's saying that if someone wants their personal religious beliefs to be part of a public discussion or decision, they've got to demonstrate compassion.

Me: What do you think the reason is behind his remarks? He's calling Christians hypocrites! He's framed the issue so that he wins either way. Christians believe the scriptures that say to not let your good deeds be shown. Millions of Christians are giving sacrificially to help the poor and the hungry, and they labor in anonymity in keeping with their faith. If someone stood up and showed Booker what they do, then Booker (or someone like him) would jump all over them for their lack of humility.

You don't know what the dalai lama donates. You don't know if he's compassionate. You simply look at some superficial things and think you know his heart. You've made your decision by appearances. He may well be a compassionate man, but you don't know.

B.R.: Your assumptions about Christians are no more relevant than mine, or Cory's. Not all Christians believe their good deeds shouldn't be shown, and I'm pretty sure Cory's issue is not with the "people out there in the trenches". Additionally, you telling me that I can't determine if anyone is compassionate is another example of framing the issue so you win either way.

Me: Ben, I respect your intellect too much to let you get away with that. If all our opinions are irrelevant, why did you post Booker's, and why did you express yours?

So are you telling me that you do know for a fact that someone is compassionate as opposed to making a show?

Me: "Not all Christians believe their good deeds shouldn't be shown..." Irrelevant. The exception does not establish the rule.

B.R.: Thanks, I appreciate that. I've obviously displayed my intellect with enough consistency that you have come to understand me as an intellectual person. Similarly, it is possible for individuals to display their compassion with enough consistency that others may come to understand them as compassionate.

As for what some or all Christians believe, I think it IS relevant. Neither of us can know what even a majority of practicing Christians believe when it comes to the visibility of their compassionate acts. It's pretty hard to base a defense of all Christians on something so indeterminable.

Mr. Booker is illustrating a point: he wants people to show, not tell, their personal convictions. I like that point. I posted Booker's opinion because I want people to keep track of him as a political leader in the coming years, and because I respect his call for accountability.

Me: By that measure, he wants Christians to violate their beliefs, simply for the sake of proving to him that they are compassionate.

No, my take is that he's simply laying out damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't scenario. His motivation is political.

B.R.: I appreciate your points; this topic needs more dimension, not less. I will maintain, however, that many (percentage unknowable) Christians' reluctance to SHOW their universal compassion rather than just talk about it may have as much to do with their lack of a pragmatic track record as it does with their dogmatic humility.

Me:  If they are not showing you, then your statement is a product of lack of information and your conclusion is specious.

T.K.: Who gives a shit if people brag about being compassionate? Being compassionate is a good thing to brag about. It's a good quote, not a conspiracy. Settle down.

Me: T.K., you and I disagree, which does not make me wrong or a conspiracy theorist. I give a shit about bragging, and I don't really care if you don't like it.

O.F.: The point of being compassionate is in BEING compassionate, not in being perceived as compassionate. I totally understand Rich's point. The desire to be recognized for one's virtue is the seed of spiritual pride that has the ability to undermine entirely one's real character. That said, I don't necessarily believe that the above quote is an exhortation of Christians to "show off" their compassion but a reminder that one can talk a good game about loving their neighbor without doing anything to demonstrate it. Love is active. What is the context for this quote?

B.R.: I don't think there is one. He Tweeted it and put it on his fan page. A search revealed no larger quote or discussion, just links to see the words on different pages. However, that search did reveal more about how he personally has shown rather than simply tell: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20/cory-booker-food-stamp-ch_n_2167027.html

"Not content to simply rescue neighbors from burning buildings and invite cold Hurricane Sandy victims into his home, Cory Booker has a new plan to connect with his constituency. He's going to live on food stamps...."

Me: B.R., you'll have to forgive me for being cynical regarding politicians and their statements. And their photo-ops. I don't trust a thing he says as a result, and I also don't think that him living on food stamps is anything other than a calculated political opportunity.

O.F.: I'm gonna have to side with Rich on this and say that I'm no more impressed by this at face value than I am by Paul Ryan and his family showing up to be photographed in a soup kitchen.

Do Republicans appreciate living in civilized society? - Letter by Mary Vant Hull

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

-------------
You’ve probably heard, “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society,” (Oliver Wendell Holmes). (The truth of what he says is certainly debatable, but there is no causal relationship between the AMOUNT of taxation and the AMOUNT of civilization.)

Did you hear, Adam Smith’s, “The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities?” (The Wealth of Nations) (Does anyone really  think that Ms. Hull has read anything from Adam Smith, apart from some cherry-picked quotes? Unfortunately for her, Adam Smith is not advocating progressive taxation. Taxation in proportion to ability [i.e., income or wealth] is proportional taxation. That is, a flat tax. In actual fact, Adam Smith is refuting the very leftists who are misappropriating his writing.) 

Or French minister Anne-Robert Jacque Turgot, “...and the more a man enjoys the advantages of society, the more he ought to hold himself honored to contribute to those expenses.” (Who the hell cares what the French minister believes or says?)

Or Samuel Johnson, “...the right to tax ... “had been considered by all mankind, as comprising the primary and essential condition of all political society...” (This may be the first time I have sat with my fingers poised to type, but was unable to do so because of the sheer magnitude of ignorance on display. You know, anyone can look up these things to discover the context and meaning of what the author intended. We find that Samuel Johnson is an Englishman who is discussing the right of ENGLAND TO TAX THE COLONIES. Here's the real quote: "Of this kind is the position, that "the supreme power of every community has the right of requiring, from all its subjects, such contributions as are necessary to the publick safety or publick prosperity," which was considered, by all mankind, as comprising the primary and essential condition of all political society, till it became disputed by those zealots of anarchy, who have denied, to the parliament of Britain the right of taxing the American colonies."

  
Or Schuyler Colfax, Congressional Republican from Indiana, during the debate on land taxes to fund the Civil War in the 1860s, “I cannot go home and tell my constituents that I voted for a bill that would allow a man, a millionaire who has put his entire property in stocks, to be exempt from taxation, while a farmer who lives by his side, must pay a tax.” (Here we have a fairly obscure political figure presented as though he was some sort of highly respected authority on taxes, as far as what republicans believe. This, of course, is not the case. Nevertheless, I had no luck tracing the entirety of Mr. Colfax's remarks. But on face value, what do we find he was advocating in this short statement? He opposed TAX EXEMPTION. This is totally non-controversial. No one anywhere is advocating the tax exemption of the rich.)

The baby-sitting co-op that went bust teaches us something that could save the world - Krugman's errors

You can find the original article here, which I also posted previously here.

Though I'm not a Nobel Prize winning economist, I do know when I'm being bamboozled with Keynsian fairytales. Here's the mistakes I think Mr. Krugman makes:

Error #1) The Scrip is not currency, and can only be used for the purpose the group created it for. This means it's not fungible. Therefore the scrip more like a commodity than a currency.

Error #2) The co op members hoarded their scrip, and thus there was a lack of circulation. However, currency is generally not hoarded, it remains in circulation in some form (unless it's hidden in a mattress, it will be invested, deposited, or spent).

Error #3) Having a "central authority" print more scrip so that it can be borrowed does not solve the problem. Indeed, if more scrip can be printed, then the holders of scrip will lose confidence in its since it can be created arbitrarily. What should happen is the scrip should be loanable from member to member, which keeps the quantity and value of the scrip intact.

Error #4) This is a closed system, not an economy. There are no other factors that come to bear on the value of the scrip. It has value because the members agreed that it would represent a tangible item (babysitting). In other words, the scrip and the service are always one-for-one interchangeable.

This is a complicated subject, and further analysis could be employed. However, it is enough to say that this is not a good working example of why our economy should engage in Mr. Krugman's prescriptions. unfortunately, it has done just that, and has suffered as a result. 

The baby-sitting co-op that went bust teaches us something that could save the world

I've posted the article for fair use and discussion purposes. See if you can spot the errors from this Nobel Prize winning economist. I will post those errors separately.

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

By Paul Krugman Posted Friday, Aug. 14, 1998, at 3:30 AM ET

Twenty years ago I read a story that changed my life. I think about that story often; it helps me to stay calm in the face of crisis, to remain hopeful in times of depression, and to resist the pull of fatalism and pessimism. At this gloomy moment, when Asia's woes seem to threaten the world economy as a whole, the lessons of that inspirational tale are more important than ever.

The story is told in an article titled "Monetary Theory and the Great Capitol Hill Baby-Sitting Co-op Crisis." Joan and Richard Sweeney published it in the Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking in 1978. I've used their story in two of my books, Peddling Prosperity and The Accidental Theorist, but it bears retelling, this time with an Asian twist.

The Sweeneys tell the story of—you guessed it—a baby-sitting co-op, one to which they belonged in the early 1970s. Such co-ops are quite common: A group of people (in this case about 150 young couples with congressional connections) agrees to baby-sit for one another, obviating the need for cash payments to adolescents. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement: A couple that already has children around may find that watching another couple's kids for an evening is not that much of an additional burden, certainly compared with the benefit of receiving the same service some other evening. But there must be a system for making sure each couple does its fair share.

The Capitol Hill co-op adopted one fairly natural solution. It issued scrip—pieces of paper equivalent to one hour of baby-sitting time. Baby sitters would receive the appropriate number of coupons directly from the baby sittees. This made the system self-enforcing: Over time, each couple would automatically do as much baby-sitting as it received in return. As long as the people were reliable—and these young professionals certainly were—what could go wrong?

Well, it turned out that there was a small technical problem. Think about the coupon holdings of a typical couple. During periods when it had few occasions to go out, a couple would probably try to build up a reserve—then run that reserve down when the occasions arose. There would be an averaging out of these demands. One couple would be going out when another was staying at home. But since many couples would be holding reserves of coupons at any given time, the co-op needed to have a fairly large amount of scrip in circulation.

Now what happened in the Sweeneys' co-op was that, for complicated reasons involving the collection and use of dues (paid in scrip), the number of coupons in circulation became quite low. As a result, most couples were anxious to add to their reserves by baby-sitting, reluctant to run them down by going out. But one couple's decision to go out was another's chance to baby-sit; so it became difficult to earn coupons. Knowing this, couples became even more reluctant to use their reserves except on special occasions, reducing baby-sitting opportunities still further.

In short, the co-op had fallen into a recession.

Since most of the co-op's members were lawyers, it was difficult to convince them the problem was monetary. They tried to legislate recovery—passing a rule requiring each couple to go out at least twice a month. But eventually the economists prevailed. More coupons were issued, couples became more willing to go out, opportunities to baby-sit multiplied, and everyone was happy. Eventually, of course, the co-op issued too much scrip, leading to different problems ...

If you think this is a silly story, a waste of your time, shame on you. What the Capitol Hill Baby-Sitting Co-op experienced was a real recession. Its story tells you more about what economic slumps are and why they happen than you will get from reading 500 pages of William Greider and a year's worth of Wall Street Journal editorials. And if you are willing to really wrap your mind around the co-op's story, to play with it and draw out its implications, it will change the way you think about the world.

For example, suppose that the U.S. stock market was to crash, threatening to undermine consumer confidence. Would this inevitably mean a disastrous recession? Think of it this way: When consumer confidence declines, it is as if, for some reason, the typical member of the co-op had become less willing to go out, more anxious to accumulate coupons for a rainy day. This could indeed lead to a slump—but need not if the management were alert and responded by simply issuing more coupons. That is exactly what our head coupon issuer Alan Greenspan did in 1987—and what I believe he would do again. So as I said at the beginning, the story of the baby-sitting co-op helps me to remain calm in the face of crisis.

Fights over public meeting opening prayers continue - analysis

(This is what I've been talking about in so many of my posts here, here, here, and here. Once government oversteps its constitutional boundaries, all sorts of abuses are possible. My comments interspersed in bold. This article reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes.)

By JESSICA GRESKO

Associated Press WASHINGTON — It happens every week at meetings in towns, counties and cities nationwide. A lawmaker or religious leader leads a prayer before officials begin the business of zoning changes, contract approvals and trash pickup (in other words, the practice of prayer in government has a history going back to the Founders. One must conclude that the Founders themselves were in violation of the constitution, or were ignorant of what it meant Thank goodness we have such a better understanding of the constitution than the Founders!).

But citizens are increasingly taking issue with these prayers, some of which have been in place for decades. At least five lawsuits around the country — in California, Florida, Missouri, New York, and Tennessee — are actively challenging premeeting prayers.

Lawyers on both sides say there is a new complaint almost weekly, though they don’t always end up in court. When they do, it seems even courts are struggling to draw the line over the acceptable ways to pray (Herein lies the problem. The courts' struggles are because they are involved! The government has absolutely no authority to speak at all regarding religion.). Some lawyers and lawmakers believe it’s only a matter of time before the Supreme Court will weigh in to resolve the differences. The court has previously declined to take on the issue (as well it should, except to strike down all previous lower court interventions into religious expression), but lawyers in a New York case plan to ask the justices in December to revisit it. And even if the court doesn’t take that particular case, it could accept a similar one in the future.

Lawmakers who defend the prayers cite the nation’s founders and say they’re following a long tradition of prayer before public meetings. They say residents don’t have to participate and having a prayer adds solemnity to meetings and serves as a reminder to do good work (to add to that, this is a free speech/freedom of assembly/religious freedom issue. "Congress shall make no law... is pretty clear, isn't it?).

“It’s a reassuring feeling,” said Lakeland, Fla., Mayor Gow Fields of his city’s prayers, which have led to an ongoing legal clash with an atheist group. The City Commission’s meeting agenda now begins with a disclaimer that any prayer offered before the meeting is the “voluntary offering of a private citizen” and not being endorsed by the commission (an unneccessary proviso. It should be enough to read the 1st amendment aloud and leave it at that.).

Citizens and groups made uncomfortable by the prayers (Discomfort is hardly a reason to make policies or laws. I have no interest at all in your comfort) say they’re fighting an inappropriate mix of religion and politics (inappropriate is a matter of taste. We should not be mixing comfort or appropriateness into how the law comes to bear).

“It makes me feel unwelcome,” said Tommy Coleman, the son of a church pianist and a self-described secular humanist who is challenging pre-meeting prayers in Tennessee’s Hamilton County.

Coleman, 28, and Brandon Jones, 25, are urging the county to adopt a moment of silence at its weekly meeting rather than beginning with a prayer. A number of groups are willing to help with complaints like those filed by Coleman and Jones.Annie Laurie Gaylor, the co-founder of the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation, says complaints about the prayers are among the most frequent her organization gets.

Gaylor’s organization sends out letters when it is contacted by citizens, urging lawmakers to discontinue the prayers (free speech for thee but not for me...). Other groups including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State send out similar letters.

Ian Smith, a lawyer with Americans United for Separation of Church and State, says his organization has gotten more complaints in recent years. That could be because people are more comfortable standing up for themselves or more aware of their options, but Smith also said groups on the right have also promoted the adoption of prayers (Actually, religion haters make noise at a level much greater than their numbers, and the rest of us must kowtow to their feelings at the expense of religious liberty).

Brett Harvey, a lawyer at the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian group that often helps towns defend their practices, sees it the other way. He says liberal groups have made a coordinated attempt to bully local governments into abandoning prayers, resulting in more cases.

“It’s really kind of a campaign of fear and disinformation,” Harvey said.

Courts around the country don’t agree on what’s acceptable or haven’t considered the issue (which again, is the problem. The court has no business deciding what acceptable speech is, or acceptable religious practices are. Such an idea ought to be summarily rejected by any thinking individual). In 1983 the U.S. Supreme Court approved prayer before legislative meetings, saying prayers don’t violate the First Amendment’s so-called Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another (this clause is always given preeminence, while the "free exercise thereof" clause is the ugly step sister.). But the case didn’t set any boundaries on those prayers, and today courts disagree on what is permissible (Ugh. There is its again. Can you imagine? The courts disagree on what a person can say? This ought to be outrageous!).

For example, one court ruling from 2011 says that prayers before legislative meetings in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia should be nondenominational or non-sectarian. That means the prayer leader can use general words like “God” and “our creator” but isn’t supposed to use words like “Jesus” ‘’Christ” and “Allah” that are specific to a single religion (Ah yes. Here we have the censorship of speech in the name of "neutrality.").

The law is different in courts in Florida, Georgia and Alabama: In 2008 a federal court of appeals overseeing those states upheld the prayer practice of Georgia’s Cobb County, which had invited a rotating group of clergy members to give prayers before its meetings. The prayers were predominantly Christian and often included references to Jesus (Jesus, the most offensive name on the planet. No one gets offended by the name of Zeus or Odin).

Towns that get complaints, meanwhile, have responded differently. Some have made changes, some willingly and others with misgivings. Other towns have dug in to defend their traditions.

Citizens in Lancaster, Calif., for example, voted overwhelmingly in 2010 to continue their prayers despite the threat of a lawsuit. Mayor R. Rex Parris says the city of 158,000 has already likely spent about $500,000 defending the practice, and he expects to spend more before the case is over. He said the issue is worth it because it has brought the town together (That's one of the strategies. Make it expensive to defend free speech, and you gain a defacto win for religion haters).

Other towns have gone the opposite route, stopping prayer altogether when challenged. Henrico County, Va., stopped prayers recently after lawmakers reviewed recent court decisions and determined it would be too difficult to police the content of prayers (Can you imagine? Government policing the content of prayers? So rather than engage in one egregious practice, they implement another: Banning free speech!).

Higher taxes on wealthy won’t trigger new crisis - Jack Kligerman - analysis

Our responses in bold.

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

The claim that raising taxes on the wealthy would throw us back into a recession because the “job creators” — the wealthy 1 or 2 percent of the population — would no longer have extra money to spend (assuming that they do not have everything they want already) and would therefore cause great job losses is a fairy tale (polite language for “a lie”). (Typical for the Left, Mr. Kligerman confuses two concepts: High income earners and wealthy people. The two are not the same. Leftist rhetoric attacks the highest wage earners as the top 1%, but they are not necessarily rich. But the real problem is his simplistic equation. Jobs are created when there's work to do, not simply when there's money to spend. 

The problem in the economy is not that the rich aren't spending their money [or by an extension of Mr. Kligerman's logic, that they aren't being taxed enough so that government can spend it], it is because there is not enough work to be done, because people aren't buying things. However, to speak to his point, it doesn't matter how much a person has or earns when it comes to taxation. Taxation takes money from the person who earned it and gives it to someone who did not. It has absolutely zero to do with how much the taxee can afford. Taxes are not based on affordability, they are based on the need for government to raise revenue.)  

After all, a millionaire who had $1 million 10 years ago, when the Bush tax cuts went into effect, would today, without investing any of that money and just letting it accumulate at the .046 percent tax rate savings, have a total of $1,714, 438 (by compounding the savings). (Um, no. The accumulated amount would be 1,004,509.12. The lump sum accumulation described by Mr. Kligerman would need to earn a rate of 5.55% to get to $1,714,438 in 10 years. But even then, the earnings themselves are subject to taxes.)  

Someone who had $10 million 10 years ago, would have $17,154,380. And someone who had $100 million 10 years ago would have $171,154, 380. This has nothing to do with new revenue on their part. It would happen automatically. (Automatically? So a person who is thrifty and responsible, who sets aside some of their money, invests wisely, and manages to increase his savings is getting there automatically? Nonsense.)

Federal judge rejects Nativity displays in Santa Monica - analysis

A lot has already been said about this, but I do have a couple of comments. Posted here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments at the end.

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

LOS ANGELES (AP) — There’s no room for the baby Jesus, the manger or the wise men this Christmas in a Santa Monica park following a judge’s ruling Monday against churches that tried to keep a 60-year Nativity tradition alive after atheists stole the show with anti-God messages.

U.S. District Judge Audrey B. Collins rejected a motion from the Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Committee to allow the religious display this season while their lawsuit plays out against the city.

Collins said the city was within its constitutional right to eliminate the exemption that had allowed the Nativity at the oceanfront Palisades Park because the change affected all comers — from Christians to Jews to atheists — and provided other avenues for public religious speech.

The coalition of churches that had put on the life-sized, 14-booth Nativity display for decades argued the city banned it rather than referee a religious dispute that began three years ago when atheists first set up their anti-God message alongside the Christmas diorama.

The judge, however, said Santa Monica proved that it banned the displays not to squash religious speech but because they were becoming a drain on city resources, destroying the turf and obstructing ocean views. Churches can set up unattended displays at 12 other parks in the city with a permit and can leaflet, carol and otherwise present the Christmas story in Palisades Park when it is open, she said.

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

The first paragraph is remarkable. I cannot recall another instance where the writer characterized the nativity issue this way. "Atheists stole the show with anti-God messages" sounds unusually hostile to the atheist position. In the interest of fairness, however, though the bias happens to go my way this time, it is still bias and is not appropriate in a news story.

The judge says that the city of Santa Monica (ironically named after Saint Monica, the Mother of Augustine) is within its constitutional rights to act the way it did. Um, wow. For all the noise the Left makes about corporations not being people, here we discover that a city has constitutional rights. But of course, governments do not have rights. They have constitutional duties and restrictions, nothing else. As such, they can only act if they have specific authorization to do so in the documents that created them and grants them power. 

Ordinarily I would argue that the US constitution applies specifically to the federal government, so state and local documents are the ones really applicable. But that is not the contemporary interpretation of the reach of the constitution, so I'll simply use it to say that "Congress shall make no law..." That is, no government agency or body has the authority to make laws or rulings regarding religion, whether pro or con. 

But why not take a look at the charter of the City of Santa Monica to see what powers it grants the city? In section 400 we find this: "The enumeration in this Charter of any particular power shall not be held to be exclusive of or any limitation upon, this general grant of power." That sounds eerily like the 9th amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In other words, the city of Santa Monica claims power for itself in a manner like the US constitution restricts government power!

So although the Charter grants power to do pretty much anything that is not prohibited elsewhere in the document, we must conclude that it grants itself this power illegitimately, on the basis that the exercise of this power would be at the expense of the powers claimed by the people.

The article continues: "Santa Monica proved that it banned the displays not to squash religious speech but because they were becoming a drain on city resources, destroying the turf and obstructing ocean views." This is pretty thin stuff. The expense incurred by the City is perhaps the only instance I know of a government body actually taking steps to lower an expenditure. But I would venture to say the the expenditure was made because of the suit brought by the atheists. So the translation is, "We allowed the nativity scene until we started having to pay our attorneys to defend the lawsuit, so rather than spend any more money we'll just knuckle under to their strong arm tactics and violate the rights of those who are less likely to sue us."

Pathetic.

Israel the aggressor - FB conversation

I posted this on FB:

"GAZA (Reuters) – Four members of the same family – four-year-old twin boys and their parents – were killed in an Israeli air strike in Gaza on Monday, the Hamas Health Ministry said."

So the "Hamas Health Ministry" is now a legitimate news source, according to Reuters?

B.R.: Can you give me a brief overview of your perspective of the Israel/Hamas conflict?

Me: Two groups of people who hate each other are bombing the shit out of each other.

B.R.: Oh good, then we share the same perspective. Do you have an allegiance or bias toward one or against the other? And if so, why?

Me: Probably toward Israel. They won the 1967 war, and to the conqueror goes the spoils. But also, they are a tiny nation surrounded by their enemies who want their land, not because they're entitled to it or even need it, but because they want to wipe them out. I frequently end up rooting for the underdog, it seems.

B.R.: Cool, thanks. Have you seen any compelling arguments that Israel is actually the bully in this present-day conflict?

Me: Israel is aggressive when it launches attacks. In a sense I respect that. Much better than the namby-pamby way we waged the Iraq war (not that I supported that war, I didn't. I just figured that once we were there, we ought to have played it to win and kicked ass.) Thing is, the issue is way beyond who started it. Israel has its country, established by acclamation, and their enemies can't stand that. Israel will do what it deems necessary to protect that. We might not agree with their methods, but it's really none of our business. The US needs to keep its nose out of other nations' business. Your perspective?

B.R.: I'm completely impartial; I have neither the information nor the emotional attachment required to take a position. I'm trying to learn more, but the more I learn, the less I want to side with either group. It's very tricky to weigh in on the US' involvement in other countries' military actions. On one hand, I want to intervene in Syria. On the other hand, I don't. I'm very glad we entered World War II, in fact I wish we'd entered sooner. There doesn't seem to be a simple line between the instances we should stay out of and the instances we should enter into. Or at least, with every president, that line either shifts or becomes fuzzier.

Me: I understand the intervention difficulty. WWII, we were attacked. That is a good reason to enter a war. Oil, well, I'm not so sure.

Americans urged to get one HIV test - analysis

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

-------

This little bit of news reads like a press release. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is a government agency with an advisory board made of of healthcare professionals. Their website has this logo and motto: 

Take health care into your own hands

I note this only because the motto is completely at odds with the whole thrust of government activity in the healthcare market, including ACA. Quite the opposite of the motto, healthcare is systematically being taken out of our hands by people who think they can choose for us better than we can choose for ourselves. 

Thus this article, which tells us that The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has a new recommendation for us: universal HIV testing. 
-------------

WASHINGTON: There’s a new push to make testing for the AIDS virus as common as cholesterol checks (well, no. Cholesterol checks are done more than once in a lifetime, while this HIV proposal is once for everyone.).

Americans ages 15 to 64 should get an HIV test at least once — not just people considered at high risk for the virus, an independent panel (of a government agency) that sets screening guidelines proposed Monday.

The draft guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (This is the same group that famously recommended that "...women in their 40s should not routinely have mammograms and that women between ages 50 and 74 should have mammograms every two years instead of annually.") are the latest recommendations that aim to make HIV screening simply a routine part of a checkup, something a doctor can order with as little fuss (Because we don't want people fussing about being tested for something they have little risk of contracting) as a cholesterol test or a mammogram. Since 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also has pushed for widespread, routine HIVscreening. 

Yet not nearly enough people have heeded that call: Of the more than 1.1 million Americans living with HIV, nearly 1 in 5 — almost 240,000 people — don’t know it. Not only is their own health at risk without treatment, they could unwittingly be spreading the virus to others. (There is only one reason that this recommendation is being made. It is to continue the thrust into the public consciousness of certain preferred issues and make them a part of our thinking. Consider that the Task Force is proposing testing based on a premise, that is, a number of people are unaware of their condition and are spreading HIV. Let's run the numbers. 1.1 million infected people constitutes .035% of the population (I bet that you thought it was much higher given the amount of hysteria surrounding funding, etc). Of those, 240,000 people are unaware of their condition, an infinitesimally small percentage of the population. 

For this number, the Task Force deems it necessary that EVERYONE get tested. By contrast, according to the CDC, every year 210,000 women get diagnosed with breast cancer, 935,000 are diagnosed with heart disease, and 215,000 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer. 

There is no real possibility of bringing the risk of contracting these conditions to zero. But with HIV, you can. Remain celibate until marriage, marry someone who is the same, and remain faithful after, and you will never catch HIV.

But the real irony of the whole situation is that there is no contingency to the testing, so testing will not reduce the incidence of HIV. No one is asked to change their behavior or cease engaging in risky activities. Well, except condoms, but that is the, shall we say, prophylactic argument used to insulate advocates from their critics. 

In other words, the only thing gained by universal HIV testing is a person will know they are infected, but precious little else. The disease will not be stopped, it will not even be reduced. But the cause de jour will receive all sorts of press coverage, complete with sob stories and mentions of how eeeevil conservatives are for not caring and for not increasing HIV research funding.)

GOP would do well to craft inclusive policy - Letter by Jay Moor

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

---------------------
Bill O’Reilly of Fox noticed. “[I]t’s not a traditional America anymore,” he said. “The white establishment is the minority.” Neo-cons, neoliberals and the oligarchs — the white establishment — saw it coming and decided an open democracy (open democracy is the enemy of the Left. If the Left ever let it slip what they really believe, they would never win another election. Their modus operandi is to obfuscate. They whip up peoples' emotions with bumpersticker slogans and empty rhetoric, trotting bogeymen and monsters to scare people. As we read the rest of his letter, you will find these techniques everywhere.) 

no longer worked to their advantage. So they let loose an engine of change powered by nihilist politicians, an activist Supreme Court, ALEC, a corrupted Congress, rigged elections, faithbased constituencies, profitoriented media and a co-opted Republican Party (I know it's a 300 word letter to the editor, but all we have here is a list of devils. Let's see if Mr. Moor actually substantiates any of his assertions).

Daines a prefect (sic) corporate puppet, won’t fix politics - Letter to editor by Cara WIlder

Here's another local letter writer who values compromise so much. I dealt with this leftist template here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My responses interlaced in bold.

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

In their recent column (“Daines can reach across aisle for Montana” Nov. 11, 2012), the Chronicle editorial board came to the bizarre conclusion that Steve Daines will end partisan gridlock in Washington (The hallmark of a good leftist: subtly change what was actually written and then refute the new statement. The Chronicle wrote that they hoped he would end gridlock, not that he would.) and act as a rational voice for Montanans as our congressman-elect. Really? Were they actually buffaloed by Daines’ aw-shucks-goodol’-boy “moderate” routine during the campaign? (If you read Mr. Daines' website or do any other sort of research about him, including his critics and his opponent Ms. Gillian, there is no indication anywhere that he was representing himself as a moderate)  Daines has absolutely zero experience in Washington, making him the perfect corporate puppet. (Nonsense statement. Everyone who is in D.C. was at the level of zero experience. Might we ask how much experience his opponent has in D.C.? Might we also ask about Obama's level of experience the day he darkened the door of the oval office?) His carefully scripted campaign, using the hollow slogan, “More Jobs, Less Government,” (Hollow? Can you say "hope and change? For some reason the Left is highly offended by the idea of less government. Anyway, I dealt with his campaign slogan here) was bought and paid for by pro-life, pro-coal Super Pacs, including FreedomWorks, founded by Tea Party sugar daddy David Koch (naturally, only republicans accept money from PACs and sugar daddies *cough* George Soros *hack* Peter Lewis *choke* Bill Mahar). 

In lockstep (oh, those goose-stepping neo Nazi republicans. Godwin's law alert!) with the extreme wing (leftists love that word "extreme." Ms. Gillian herself used it to describe Mr. Daines multiple times. Of course, it is a word that is used for its emotional content, a rhetorical devise to marginalize a person without actually dealing with fact, reason, or logic) of the Republican party, Daines has promoted a balanced budget amendment via broad federal spending cuts in agencies including the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency, and pushed extending the Bush tax cuts for ‘job creators’ as a means to stimulate the economy. (damned good ideas, all of them.) The board uses Sen. Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act as an example of good legislation that outgoing Congressman Rehberg stalled with extreme partisanship (there's that word "extreme" again. And of course, the left never is partisan. They never hold legislation hostage or cause it to die in committee. They never make back room deals or hide crucial evidence from the public.) and Daines will be able to negotiate by reaching across the aisle. Why would we believe Daines would perform any differently than hyper-partisan (hyper-partisan? There once was a day that people used to admire principles) Rehberg once he gets to Washington? Daines is beholden to the same corporate donors, and espouses the same philosophies on all the major issues as his predecessor (hopefully this isn't true. Rehberg compromised too much. I hope Daines sticks to his guns and avoids getting co-opted by this fake "compromise" crap). 

The Chronicle, for some inexplicable reason, endorsed Daines over State Sen. Kim Gillan, who offered an excellent track record of proven bipartisan success in Helena. (not to impugn the writer in any way, but I'd have to see proof of this.) I certainly hope the Chronicle is right about Daines being the bridge for bipartisanship in Washington, but I’m not holding my breath. Unless I am really missing something, it appears we’re sending a carbon copy of our last congressman to join the ranks of the most partisan, lowest-rated Congress in U.S. history (And the senate, controlled by democrats polls extremely low as well. Perhaps Ms. Wilder might explain that?).

Cara Wilder 

Inevitably, compromise according to the leftist template is the ability to agree to a bit less spending, a bit less bigger government, and a bit less loss of liberty in the name of  bipartisanship. So instead of driving 100 mph towards the cliff, we'll only do 85.

So the letter writer thinks that Mr. Daines is not a compromiser, that he won't be satisfied reducing the headlong plunge to 85. Heaven forbid, he might want to stop the car! We can't have that.

Man challenges ban on offensive speech - Bozeman Chronicle - my analysis

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My commentary below.

-------------
HELENA (AP) — The Montana Supreme Court could be left sorting out which profane words are OK to hurl at someone as it weighs the case of a man who argues a sexual slur he used against a public employee is constitutionally protected speech.

Randall Jay Dugan of Belgrade used a sexual slur with a Gallatin County Victim Assistance Program worker during an October 2009 phone call, after the worker said she would not help him obtain a protection order against his children’s mother, who was to be released from prison. He then hung up.

Dugan was convicted under the state’s Privacy in Communications law, which prohibits the use of electronic communication to offend another person with obscene, lewd or profane language.

Dugan’s public defender, Kristen Larson, argued the state law is overly broad and violates free-speech rights in both the Montana and United States constitutions.

She argued that Dugan did not call with the intention to harass, but only used the slur after becoming exasperated with the call.

“It is important to remember that this case began with Mr. Dugan needing help,” Larson said of Dugan’s worries over the mother’s release from jail. “He was afraid she would take his children.”

The argument faced some skeptical questions from the justices.

“Are you saying the constitution no longer allows us to protect that public servant from being reamed out in a lewd way by someone who calls on the phone?” asked Justice James Rice.

Dugan called the female Gallatin County victim services’ representative a “f------ c---.”

Justice Brian Morris said the court could be put in the position of sorting out which naughty words are OK.

“If he had called the victim here a bitch, would that violate the statue?” Morris asked. “How about a jerk?”

Other Montana Supreme Court cases have held that words exchanged in face-to-face confrontations that could reasonably start a fight are not protected speech.

State prosecutors argued that Dugan’s slur constituted such “fighting words” that are not protected by the First Amendment. They argue the law is fair warning on what sort of conduct is forbidden.

Assistant Attorney General Tammy Hinderman argued that Dugan had earlier been loud and disruptive in a meeting in the county office and had been told to call back later — which led to the exchange he was charged with. And she argued the county worker has a protected privacy interest from such abusive language while in her office.

But justices quizzed prosecutors on the case, which involves telephone calls, emails or other communication technology. They pointed out that similar prosecutions around the country that have withstood constitutional scrutiny included repeated occasions of profanity over a long period of time — while Dugan used the sexual slur and then hung up.

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

In a surprisingly even-handed AP report, the issues are fleshed out well enough that people on either side of this issue might make some reasonable conclusions. It's not often I commend the AP...

The issue presented is this: Does government have the authority to decide amongst various kinds of speech, based on obscenity, offensiveness, or even good manners? What does the First Amendment say? "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..." And the Montana Constitution? Article II, Section 7: "No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech or expression. Every person shall be free to speak or publish whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty."

But the law in question, 45-8-213, says that a person violates the "privacy in communications" law if  "...with the purpose to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy, or offend, communicates with a person by electronic communication and uses obscene, lewd, or profane language, suggests a lewd or lascivious act, or threatens to inflict injury or physical harm to the person or property of the person. The use of obscene, lewd, or profane language or the making of a threat or lewd or lascivious suggestions is prima facie evidence of an intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy, or offend."

We must conclude that 45-8-213 violates the Montana Constitution! "No law shall be passed..." seems pretty clear. But beyond that, can you imagine that it is illegal in Montana to annoy or offend someone? I'm frankly surprised that the floodgates aren't already opened up with all sorts of lawsuits from "offended" people.

The quote from Justice Rice is worthy of note: “Are you saying the constitution no longer allows us to protect that public servant from being reamed out in a lewd way by someone who calls on the phone?” Well Justice Rice, what does the constitution say? And where do you think you get the authority to protect anyone from being reamed out? You are a judge, you interpret the law. You judge the matters brought before you and rule based on the laws that constrain you. You are not a police officer charged with protecting people. And what about the protection of the citizen who has free speech rights that are being evaluated by a government entity to determine if those words can be said?

Having said all that, I do believe that people have to be responsible for what they say. The best way, I think, is for the people to set their own standard of behavior and be free to enforce it. It wasn't too long ago that if a lady's honor was insulted, her husband or a brother would pay a visit to the offender and offer him some timely advice. Most sensible people would listen to such advice. No courts are required.

Wal Mart policies increase employees reliance on public assistance - moveon.org

I discuss Wal Mart here and here. 

This is one of those things when you just can't quite come to grips with as far as its veracity. Even assuming it's all true, it just doesn't seem to line up. Add to that the obvious lack of the full picture as a result of of making vague claims, and what we end up with is something incomplete at best and deceptive at worst.

Regarding the first claim, I googled "80% wal mart food stamps" and could find no news report that documented this assertion. In fact the first 20 listings were left-wing websites. And several of the advertisements which appear when you do searches were government ads seeking foodstamp enrollees. Which suggests, of course, that government WANTS people to be on foodstamps. And it appears they are pretty successful, since I did find that 51% of the nation is on food stamps. So I wonder what the problem is that so many Wal Mart employees are supposedly on food stamps. Isn't that a good thing?

So Wal Mart gets $2.66 billion of government help. I googled this as well, and a bunch more left-wing sites came up. It appears that this claim is related to the first claim, just recalculated and then attributed to "help" that Wal Mart is supposedly getting. I thought at first that the "help" was tax breaks, infrastructure, and that sort of thing, but no one was claiming that. Apparently, Wal Mart pays its employees too little and as a result the government "helps" by making up the difference. 

But my wife works at Wal Mart, and she notes that Wal Mart surveys the local economy of the towns where their stores are located to determine the prevailing wage, then adjusts that number upward to attract quality employees. In other words, Wal Mart researches the environment and then competes for employees by offering higher wages. My wife has worked for them for nearly 6 years, and has gotten promotions, raises, and bonuses every year. She has great benefits and working environment. Plus, when she was out for 11 weeks after shoulder surgery, they saved a job for her. It's really too bad that real-world examples like this are not more available to counter the capitalist-hating, success-bashing leftist meme.

Regarding Medicaid, well, this is another undocumented claim that I cannot locate the source of. Wal Mart has several great health insurance plans that are relatively inexpensive and have good coverage. Not everyone qualifies, of course, but that is the rules of the game: You know them, and you agree to work for Wal Mart or any other business based on the terms offered. And with the onerous requirements the government places on businesses the size of Wal Mart, it's a wonder they offer coverage at all.

Context, however, is everything. There is little we can discern about this compilation of "facts" about Wal Mart. We do not know how they calculated their figures or what they included. We can be sure, however, that the purpose of this is to continue to fan the flames of resentment about the success of Wal Mart, and truly, any excuse will do. Check out the links I provided, which offer some counterpoint to the nonsense promulgated by the Left.

Compromise and donkeys - FB conversation

FB friend B.R. posted this:

Pretend one is an elephant. This is the new bipartisan strategy. Sound good?

Me: step six never happens.

B.R.: how do you mean?

Me: Compromise is only a one way street in politics.

B.R.: You're saying the only compromise that ever happens is one side giving into the request of the other? There's no mutually beneficial compromises in politics?

Me: Pretty much. "Compromise" has been invoked for many years in politics, but compromise has always manifested as one side giving in to the other. You will recall that the debt ceiling deal in August of 2011 was characterized as being republican obstructionism. The same happened during the government shutdown under Newt.

The reason your comments captured my interest was today's opinion piece in my local paper: http://mountainmantrails.blogspot.com/2012/11/steve-daines-can-reach-across-aisle-for.html - And another one here: http://mountainmantrails.blogspot.com/2012/10/voters-should-support-compromise-in.html

Compromise, as far as I can tell, is when Republicans are persuaded to agree with Democrats.

J.R.: I can't believe that these poor folks are called "Obstructionists" just because they announce their intentions publicly and privately to never cooperate with the other side.

Me: Republicans: Public pronouncements, but private caving vs. Democrats: public pronouncements, but private inflexibility.

K.B.: I wish the GOP would quit signing all those pledges! As one media analyst remarked, "What is this, the Boy Scouts?"
When you sign a pledge, you've attached your name, your reputation, and your honor to a single idea, thereby making it impossible to embrace any alternatives without looking like a doofus and a weakling.
Pledging a single, inflexible point of view and then vowing to maintain it no matter what has no place in politics. Politics, by its very nature, is a fluid thing.
Anwar Sadat compromised. The West gave him the Nobel Peace Prize and hailed him as a hero. At the same time, he was the most despised person in all the Arab world. The extreme point of view won out when Sadat was assassinated.
Compromise is much more civil. And nobody needs to get killed over it.

K.B.: Or, to give a more modern example, the elder Bush said "Read my lips! No ... New ... Taxes!!"
When necessity forced him to depart from that pledge, it cost him all hope of a second term.

Me: Only one alternative has ever been tried: increasing taxes and spending more money. Increasing taxes has never reduced the national debt. I applaud those politicians who have the courage to try another way.

B.R.: What other way?

K.B.: If you are going broke, two things make a lot of sense ...
1) Cool it on the spending, and
2) Think of ways to bring in more money.

Me: Lower spending. Hasn't been tried yet. Cut spending for five straight years and I will embrace every tax increase you propose. If still needed.

J.R.: Are you kidding? "Lower spending," also known as "austerity measures," has been attempted as a solution many, many times throughout history (in the US and throughout the world) in response to recession. It always has the same effect: it prolongs the recession. Recent examples include Japan (mid-90s to present) and currently in Europe, notably Greece.

Me: Except that "austerity measures" are comprised almost exclusively of tax increases and benefit delays. I challenge you to find a single austerity measure that has cut total real spending by any amount. http://mountainmantrails.blogspot.com/2012/11/greece-narrowly-passes-crucial.html

http://mountainmantrails.blogspot.com/2012/10/austerity-in-czech-republic-is.html

Sorry to refer you continuously to my blog, but I have already covered this ground there.

J.R.: Examples of recent significant austerity cuts include those in Ireland, Spain, Greece, and the UK making drastic cuts in social welfare and aid to families with dependent children, as well as broad reductions in wages for government employees, ranging from 3 year freezes to as much as 25% wage cuts.

Me: I have noticed some reports of that nature, but what I asked for was an austerity measure that cut total real spending by any amount. My point being, there is no government austerity, there is only taxpayers having to pony up more dough.

J.R.: Hmm, maybe I don't understand your point. The examples I gave represent direct reductions in government spending... Are you looking for austerity measures that reduce the SIZE of government (e.g. eliminating the Dept of Homeland Security)?

Me: Well, if a department is eliminated, the government can still grow (remember the "peace dividend?"). The elimination of a department has never happened anyway.

However, austerity in common parlance is the reining in of expenses, cutting back and reducing obligations. No government has ever done this in an attempt to avert a financial crisis.

Austerity as it applies to government means enhancing the financial take of government at the expense of the taxpayer. Therefore, the only party experiencing austerity in this scenario is the people.

J.R.: Gosh Rich, I'm trying but I just can't figure out where our disconnect is. You're saying that no government has ever reined in expenses, cut back, and reduced their obligations, and it seems to me that the examples I offered did exactly that. Is your main point that "austerity measures" ultimately hurt people without truly shrinking the size & power of government itself?

Me: Sorry for my lack of clarity. This might represent a paradigm shift of sorts, since the news so poorly reports the issue.

Your examples in some fashion represent reductions in benefit payouts, "cuts" if you will. However, we may also call that a tax increase, since the net effect is to deprive someone of money they would have otherwise had.

But we must note that this says nothing at all about the totality of government spending, because most certainly that saved money was spent elsewhere, plus even more money, and certainly, enhanced by additional taxation.

Those "cuts" were only cuts to specific expenditures, not cuts to government. And they were very small compared to the increase in taxes, removal of deductions and tax credits, and the delay of benefits eligibility. In any case, you can see that government imposed no austerity on itself, it only did so on its people.

Just to restate, unless government expenditures were subject to a real reduction as compared to prior expenditures (or even kept flat!), there has been no austerity.

O.C.: Your examples in some fashion represent reductions in benefit payouts, "cuts" if you will. However, we may also call that a tax increase, since the net effect is to deprive someone of money they would have otherwise had. "

No. If your definitions are that muddy and you're willing to make blurry statments like that then no one reasonable will ever be able to follow your logic. Come again?

Your last paragraph is much clearer though.

Me: My premise is that there is no government austerity. Only the people themselves are being made to sacrifice. Giving up a benefit is a sacrifice of the people, not government. My assertions remain intact.

B.R.: Then how can a government take actual austerity measures?

Me: Ahhhh... you nailed it. The people always bear the cost of government. Every place the government takes wealth from some of the people and pays it out to others, it creates a group of people who will be hurt by government if it cannot pay its obligations.

Austerity for government would represent a fundamental shift in structure that it will never do. there is too much power at stake, and government never willingly gives up power.

B.R.: Then what's the definition of "lower spending", since you say it's the real solution that we haven't tried yet?

Me:  When the actual amount spend this year is lower than the prior year. I'll accept flat spending as an acceptable definition, since inflation is part of the equation.

B.R.: Even though the people will be the only ones negatively affected by that lowered spending?

Me: We have seen the results of the interruption of the flow of cash in European nations. This is the nature of entitlement.

The decision ultimately is not if people will be hurt, it's which ones. You can be sure that government won't be.

Steve Daines can reach across aisle for Montana - Bozeman Chonicle - my analysis

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. Comments after the article.

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

With his election to the U.S. House, [conservative] Steve Daines’ life just took a dramatic turn. But as a freshman congressman, he has a chance to nudge the politics in Washington toward an equally dramatic change.

Partisan politics has halted nearly all meaningful action in Washington. Extremists in the House have hijacked that chamber. In the Senate, the filibuster rule has been invoked on an unprecedented level to stop any significant legislation in its tracks. The only thing that will break this gridlock is a willingness to compromise on the part of all parties.

That’s where Daines comes in. And he can start with some willingness to compromise on an issue of critical importance to Montanans: the resolution of management policy for the state’s public lands.

Three years ago, [liberal] Sen. Jon Tester introduced his Forest Jobs and Recreation Act — a mix of timber harvest and wilderness designation for land on Montana national forests. The act was the product of negotiations between wilderness advocates, timber industry representatives and recreation activists. The bill would set aside portions of national forest land as wilderness and recreation areas, but would also mandate the harvest of designated volumes of timber over a specified period of time.

The bill holds promise for all Montanans. Timber mills will get more wood, which means jobs for loggers and millworkers. And wilderness advocates and recreationists will get more areas designated for their activities.

But outgoing Montana Rep. Denny Rehberg [conservative] stopped the legislation over partisan issues that most Montanans don’t care a whit about.

Daines can change that.

Montanans have been deadlocked for decades over how to manage millions of acres of roadless lands within the state’s borders. The holy grail of a statewide wilderness bill is nowhere in sight. But if the entire Montana congressional delegation can get behind Tester’s bill, it can likely win passage and set a precedent for resolving the fate of other public lands in the state.

Steven Daines can change the way things have been done in Washington for the past few years by looking at this legislation with an open mind. We encourage him to do just that.
------------
Mr. Daines was elected because of his stances on the issues. He is under no obligation to get along with or compromise with anyone. In fact, I hope he stands firm on his principles and does not cave to the pressures of office. If he manages to do that, he will be one of the precious few who doesn't get co opted by the power structure of D.C.. 

Notice that it is "extremists in the House...," as if there weren't extremists until the TEA party came along. If only we could get those people out of there, something (in favor of the democratic agenda) might get done! But as far as I'm concerned, the less legislation that is passed, the less liberty gets frittered away.

"Compromise" has been invoked for many years in politics, but compromise has always manifested as one side giving in to the other. You will recall that the debt ceiling deal in August of 2011 was characterized as being republican obstructionism. The same happened during the government shutdown under Newt.

Compromise, as far as I can tell, is when Republicans are persuaded to agree with Democrats.

Republicans: Public pronouncements, but private caving vs. Democrats: public pronouncements, but private inflexibility.

Some campaign tips for Republicans - letter by Tom Noble

My comments below. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes.
-------------
Tom Noble writes: Stop thinking of yourselves as the only people in the country who work for a living; you’re not. Don’t try to win elections through voter suppression, it’s illegal, and it only worked once (2000). Don’t employ the incredibly cynical tactic of changing parties in an attempt to confuse and coerce the electorate (Mike Comstock).

Don’t compare immigrants to farm animals. Don’t try to tell women how their bodies work. If you’re a federal judge, you shouldn’t email racist cartoons of the president. Stop trying to “quick fix” our economy by inventing bogus financial products. Stop trying to give away our publicly owned resources to corporations.

Try reading something other than “Atlas Shrugged,” and getting your news somewhere other than Fox. If you do, you may discover that you’re not quite as smart as you think you are. Remember, ignorance and arrogance go hand in hand.

An old adage in business management is: “lead, follow, or get out of the way.” You’ve bungled your chance to lead, and if you don’t want to follow, you’ll find yourselves out of the way. You’re a lot closer to irrelevance than you might think.
------------
Contained in this letter is just about every leftist bumper sticker slogan there is, presented to us in a fashion that suggests that the author is providing self-evident truth. Mr. Noble, a Leftist, offers suggestions to IMPROVE the republican party? Why, so that republicans might improve their chances of winning? Really? Let's analyze a few of his claims.

1) Stop thinking of yourselves as the only people in the country who work for a living; you’re not. This remark obviously comes from the controversy surrounding the video of Romney explaining his election strategy regarding tax cuts would not resonate with the 47% who do not pay taxes. The meaning has since morphed to Romney doesn't care about the 47% to Romney thinks the 47% are lazy to this latest incarnation: The 47% don't work for a living. But of course, no republican has ever suggested that they are the only people who work for a living, so the entire premise of Mr. Noble's remark is nonsense. 

Atheists and values - FB conversation

FB friend B.R. posted this:

Yeah, I'm totally cool with this. In fact, when a declared atheist is elected to office, I hope he/she takes their oath over whatever book brings them the most inner peace and faith in humanity.

America's First Ever Hindu Congresswoman Will Take the Oath of Office Over the Bhagavad Gita jezebel.com

Me: I notice your two provisos for atheists, inner peace and faith in humanity. Why should they value them?

B.R.: Why shouldn't they? Belief in a determined God-figure is not required for inner peace and faith in humanity. I know many atheists who possess both provisos, and a few folks who believe in God but have neither.

Me: You miss my point. On what basis would you suggest that an atheist value the things you value? What other people possess is not relevant.

B.R.: Oh. Well. Then you can consider it wishful thinking. I pray that all human beings find inner peace, but obviously it's not a prerequisite for being an elected official. I would hope that elected officials have faith in humanity, but again it's not for me to say whether they do or not. Basically, I assume that Christians take the oath of office over the Bible because it represents their set of beliefs. Since atheists inherently have different beliefs, I hope they would choose a bound book that represents those beliefs. Inner peace and faith in humanity are just the ones I think are important. They can choose for themselves.

Me: Well said. You should have no expectation that they assent to the same values as you, or any values at all. But even to suggest that there is desirability for an atheist to select a symbol representative of their beliefs is in itself a moral imperative you are imposing. Further, to suggest that an atheist has any beliefs that should be explained or be adhered to is presumptuous. An atheist's values are of no interest or value to anyone other than the atheist.

D.G.: I disagree, Rich. A candidate's values are significant to me. I don't care what belief system those values arise from, and some values--e.g. prizing knowledge & accuracy--are often unrelated to belief systems that are traditionally considered religious or moral. But a candidate can't specify in advance how they'll respond to every possible policy issue, so their values are quite relevant to their performance in office.

B.R.: Thanks, I agree that it's foolish to expect them to have the same values. However, I'm completely satisfied to imposing an imperative that an elected official should take the oath of office by using a book that means something to them morally.

"Further, to suggest that an atheist has any beliefs that should be explained or be adhered to is presumptious." - Life has led me to understand that everyone has beliefs they adhere to, regardless of their religious commitment or lack thereof. I've never met someone without beliefs.

"An atheist's values are of no interest or value to anyone other than the atheist." - Why not? Why are they of any less value than a religious person's, especially in the scenario that they're an elected official?

Me: D.G., I quote agree, a candidate's values are significant to me as well. But we are talking specifically about atheists. An atheist's values, if any, are chosen based on whatever criteria he might deem important, and abandoned or modified in the same way. You or anyone else who might place expectations on an atheist to value something or perform or believe in a certain way is an imposition of your values upon the atheist. The atheist as well has no moral imperative to impose his on you. One might justifiably wonder how an atheist can govern without imposing values.

Me: B.R., it is true that everyone seems to have values. This is not being disputed. It is the nature of those values, how they are arrived at, and the obligations we might put on ourselves to act or not act on them that is the issue. If values are personal and individually determined, embraced, modified, and rejected, then they are only relevant for the individual.

Feminism - Mark Minter - FB discussion

Once Upon A Time..."Because it is unwise to risk the good we already have, for the evil which may occur."

We hope you get out there and vote-- a lot of people fought (against ideas like these!) for your chance to do so!

Me: Interesting that you post that. http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/system-failure/

B.R.: Interesting how? I read your link - Mark Minter's spitting a lot of sexist delusion there, my friend. What's your take here?

Me: Specify.

B.R.: "You all need to understand in no uncertain terms, women despise you, they think little of you. They believe you brutish and violent, bull headed, and fundamentally stupid. They see you as big children that must be controlled and disciplined in order make you useful to them. And if you are not useful to them, if you do not provide those things that they wish from you, actually, more correct to say, those things they need from you, then you will not be a part of their lives." This is an idiotic perspective from a man who has personal issues with the women in his life. This is a clear example of a man who has an insecure relationship to femininity. This is hate-bred ignorance from a place in American history that is quickly dying off. This is the mind of the past, shut off from the potential of the future. This is a completely unfair perspective, from a man who is choosing the pretense of emasculation over the optimism of equal rights for both genders.

Me: Femininity or feminism? There's a big difference. I don't happen to agree with everything he says, but your a priori dismissal is unwarranted. The real question is not how much he might offend feminist sensibilities, but is there evidence that what he is saying could be true.

Me: “I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” – Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor
“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” -– Valerie Solanas
“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” — Andrea Dworkin
“Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear” — Susan Brownmiller
“The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men.” — Sharon Stone
“In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” — Catherine MacKinnon
“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” — Sally Miller Gearhart
“Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” – Catherine Comins
“All men are rapists and that’s all they are” — Marilyn French
“Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release.” — Germaine Greer.