County air quality receives ‘C’ grade - By Laura Lundquist - my commentary

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

----------
(Laura Lundquist is quickly establishing herself as an advocacy writer pretending to be a reporter. I've commented on her writing here, here, and here. It's hard to miss the regurgitation of press release talking points in this article.

The American Lung Association provided the air quality grades we are reading about here. The Gallatin valley has had THREE bad air days in four years, and received a "C" grade. But Looking at the ALA's rankings, we can see that there are cities that have chronic air quality problems. As you look through these lists, you will note that California dominates the poor air quality rankings. This is the same California that has the most stringent air pollution controls in the country. Apparently they aren't working that well. 

Absent from the writer's report is that Gallatin County improved from a D to a C. But what's really interesting is the ALA's chart of Montana counties. There's little or no data for almost all of Montana. Which makes me wonder, the "C" grade... what is it compared to? What is the data set? Is Montana really an at risk place for people to live? I spent a lot of time on the ALA website and could find precious little on state-to-state rankings. So can we ask, is the ALA simply trying to spread fear and get people on board with its big government agenda? Do we really need to ask?)

Chronicle Staff Writer
For the past few years, sooty air has occasionally blurred some of the Big Sky and posed health threats for Montanans, according to an American Lung Association report.

In its “State of the Air” national report released Wednesday, the American Lung Association graded nine Montana counties, and only three received high marks for overall air quality. That’s troubling news for
those with respiratory problems like asthma or emphysema.

Gallatin County received a “C” grade due to three days where the air quality reached unhealthy levels between 2009 and 2011, according to Department of Environmental quality records.

Flathead, Richland and Sanders counties sailed through those three years with no unhealthy air quality while Silver Bow, Lewis and Clark, and Ravalli counties flunked for the amount of pollution in their air. Silver
Bow County led with 19 days where air quality stayed unhealthy over a 24-hour period.

The nine counties are the only ones in Montana with air-quality sensors sensitive enough to measure soot particles as small as 2.5 micrometers, one thirtieth the width of a human hair. That may seem too small to cause problems, but tiny particles can get deeper into the lungs of people with respiratory problems and irritate lung passageways. Sneezing can expel larger particles, but micro particles can sneak by the body’s defenses and even migrate into the blood stream.

Studies continue to document how small-particle pollution can trigger illness, hospitalization and occasionally premature death.

So when the level of particle pollution is categorized as “unhealthy,” children and people with respiratory illnesses should limit prolonged outdoor exertion.

In Gallatin County, the worst year was 2009 when West Yellowstone had two of the three days where airborne soot exceeded the allowable limit.

In 2010, a sensor in Belgrade registered the one other unhealthy day, while a second day was just a notch below unhealthy. Last year, the DEQ moved the Belgrade sensor to Bozeman High School to better monitor the valley’s population center.

The cause of these three air quality events was not evident in the report. But Eric Merchant, DEQ air quality policy and planning supervisor, said in Montana, poor air quality is often caused by extended inversions,
where warmer air aloft keeps cold air locked in mountain valleys and air particles can accumulate for hours or days.

“Gallatin County, and most of eastern Montana, has pretty good air quality, but it can get elevated levels of particulates from wood stoves and car exhaust in the winter,” Merchant said.

This report did not include measurements from 2012, when the valley was cloaked in wildfire smoke and had at least a dozen summer days with unhealthy air quality.

Merchant said wildfires are one of the main reasons for maintaining the air quality sensors, although DEQ also uses them to demonstrate the state’s compliance with Clean Air Act standards.

The Environmental Protection Agency has provided funding for monitoring, but that may be lost or diminished now that the EPA budget has been cut in the sequester. The EPA is implementing mandatory furlough days for its employees in an effort to save money for important programs.

But Merchant said Montana is invested in the air-quality monitoring program.

“We have a very established program that is a department priority,” Merchant said. “These are important tools, particularly with Montana’s wildfires, to let people know when the air is unhealthy.”

Door to door in Boston - Is a warrant needed?

Wow. The police are going door-to-door. Hmm. Did they obtain a search warrant for each house?

R.W.: If a gun man was holding my family hostage in a back bedroom, I'm not sure I would want the cops to go file 1000 search warrant petitions and wait for a judge to sign them all. I would assume there is something in the law which covers an active pursuit.

Me: Probable cause, Rick. They can enter without a warrant with probable cause. Beyond that, being secure in our persons and property is inviolable.

K.M.: So were warrantless wiretaps. Slippery slope!!

S.H.:  It is called "hot pursuit." If I recall my old Criminal Procedure correctly, hot pursuit is an exception. If the police searched a homeowner's house, finding the bomber, the bomber had no right to privacy in that house, because he did not own it. On the other hand, if the cops found a bunch of illegal drugs belonging to the real homeowner, then there could be complications for charges against the true homeowner.

Me: I defer to you, my friend. Does a door to door search qualify as hot pursuit? It seem to me they are not following a suspect into private property, they are searching to find someone whose location is not known. A property owner shouldn't have to forfeit his rights in that situation?

R.K.: Unbelievable, people had there legs blown off and your worried about someone on private property. I haven't seen all of the news did someone ask for a warrant?

Me: Do you think that a terrible tragedy should mean the police gets to barge in and search your house without probable cause? What other excuses should the government have to declare that they can throw out the constitution?

Me: If the government come to my door, they're going to have to respect my rights, "emergency" or not.

R.K.: I think that anyone that questions this at such a tragic time is STUPID! and yes I think they can and should barge in, it could protect the innocent property owner or save his life. Your way out line on this one.

R.K.: I hope your house doesn't catch on fire. It's the government that puts the fire out you know.

Me: Yup, I'm stupid to question the police searching my home without probable cause. They should just barge in and tear it apart. They should also be able to round up Japanese people and inter them in a camp, legalize slavery of blacks, and...

O.C.: They aren't searching to incriminate you, dumbass... You think SWAT guys give a shit about your grow op or the hooker? (well ok, they might call you on the hooker...)

Probable cause doesn't even come into play here because the search has nothing to do with the home owner (other than assuring their safety). If charges were brought against a home owner due to observations during these searches, they would be cut down in court.

'Searches' while under martial law (which they basically were) and profiling/internment/slavery are completely separate unrelated issues.

Please take this the wrong way... But I'm starting to think your brain is just one big pile of mush with no boundaries on any ideas. Everything seems to be interrelated with you, to the point where every topic is the same topic, thus it is impossible to have a meaningful conversation with you that doesn't just spiral into meaningless bullshit.

I bet you get that alot tho, huh?

Gay marriage vs. other relationships - FB discussion

I posted this:

And why not? Seems perfectly logical to me.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2303908/Jeremy-Irons-claims-gay-weddings-used-inheritance-tax-dodge.html

Oscar-winning actor Jeremy Irons has added an unusual dimension to the same-sex marriage debate, by saying it could lead to fathers marrying their sons because laws do not cover incest between men.


Me: When two people love each other they should be able to marry. Are a man and his son somehow not included? Or a mother and her daughter? Grandfather and grandson? Once it is decided that marriage could not longer be limited by gender combinations, obviously neither it can be by other variables.

B.R.: I just made the same noise at you that your profile photo is making at the world.

Me: I had hope for a thoughtful, logical response, but instead all you offer is an insult.

B.R.: I would say the same about your post. You've joined forces with Scar The Evil Lion to conveniently suspend the rules of reason. You're simply throwing up another dust cloud into this crystal clear issue.

"Once it is decided that marriage could not longer be limited by gender combinations, obviously neither it can be by other variables." Really? This is simply illogical. The legal system does, in fact, have ways of changing SPECIFIC policy details without allowing ALL variables in the door. Face palm...

Currently, marriage is allowed for non-related heterosexual adult couples. The next step is for marriage to be allowed for non-related adult couples, regardless of heterosexual or homosexual orientation.

Incest is NOT ON THE TABLE. Pedophilia is NOT ON THE TABLE. Beastiality is NOT ON THE TABLE. Necrofilia is NOT ON THE TABLE. Group marriages are NOT ON THE TABLE. Polygamy is NOT ON THE TABLE.

Jeremy Irons' vapid statements, which you are bafflingly associating yourself with, present no reliable argument against gay marriage. They are stale air and poppycock. Jeremy Irons is being a troll.

When you offer up one tangible reason that gays and lesbians should not be allowed equal rights and access to marriage, then we can have a thoughtful, logical conversation. So far, in this effort, you have repeatedly failed.

Me: May I respectfully point out the egregious flaws in your reasoning?

Workplace discrimination against gays - FB conversation

FB friend B.R. posted this:

Be aware.

For those who think we don't need federal legal protection for LGBTs, this map shows where you can still be FIRED simply for being gay. And it happens daily. We have much work to do.

Me:  Incorrect.

B.R.: Source?

Me: You first.

P.N.: Partly true:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/firedforbeinggay.asp

B.R.: Rich - thank you for asking me to provide the sources, I like practicing accountability in these matters, and it helped me learn a lot. Here's a good start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LGBT_employment_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States.svg

B.R.: Oh cool! Hey Rich, here's another source to back it up. http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Employment_Laws_and_Policies.pdf

Me:  The issue is being characterized incorrectly, or may I suggest, deceptively. "States where you can be fired for being gay" is as meaningful as saying "States were you can be fired for wearing red shoes." The correct characterization is "States that do not have specific employment laws protecting gays."

My state, Montana, does not. Its anti-discrimination statute reads, " It is an unlawful discriminatory practice for... an employer to refuse employment to a person, to bar a person from employment, or to discriminate against a person in compensation or in a term, condition, or privilege of employment because of race, creed, religion, color, or national origin or because of age, physical or mental disability, marital status, or sex..." 49-2-303

However, Montana is not an "at will" state. (http://employeeissues.com/at_will_states.htm). After satisfying a probationary period, an employee can be fired only for cause.

You'll note in the link I supplied that there is quite a variation amongst states regarding employment law, so to suggest that people can be summarily fired is simply inaccurate.

And we can't overlook other factors that govern employment, like union membership, contract employment, temporary employees, the self-employed, and individuals who work for politically progressive private employers. Taken together, the picture you posted is at best factually incorrect, and at worst, intentionally hyperbolic.

B.R.: Great, thanks for even more detail. If I concede to all your references and points, will you agree that LGBT workers deserve legal protection equal to non-LGBT workers?

Me: No bargain is necessary. The issues are what they are.

I happen to think that all anti-discrimination laws ought to be repealed. These are voluntary associations amongst private parties, and the government has no business intervening in our right to freely associate.

K.S.:  "States that do not have specific employment laws protecting gays" translates to me, "States where you can lawfully be fired for being gay." The issue stretches beyond political technicalities and into the fabric of our society so deeply that sure enough, homophobic people within said states will (and have) take advantage of the lack of any laws protecting gay employees; thus, firing them unfairly with no other reason other than the fact that they are gay. Certainly, this may be masked under some other lame guise but it still doesn't give the gay community any safeguards against discrimination in the workforce; a blazing issue because other minorities do have such laws protecting them from discrimination.

B.R.: Does the government have any business protecting any citizens from harm? Your scenario is terrifying when viewed from the perspective of any minority in America. I respect and have learned greatly from your perspective on personal freedom, but your dismissal of LGBT civil rights and your preference for the freedom to discriminate both reek of unconsciousness and unexamined privilege.

K.S.: Moreover, all states are "at will" states. Meaning they can all get fired but the states listed above fall into loopholes that prevent them from getting sued.

Me: K.S., perhaps you should read the link. All states are not "at will."

B.R.: You mean the part that says, "Virtually all states are employment at will states, meaning that all states uphold the Doctrine to some degree. To what degree states uphold the Doctrine regarding employers' rights to discharge employees varies by state." ?

Me: I mean the part that says, "Montana is unique in the degree at this writing, in that it upholds employment at will only when new-hires are working during a probationary period (defaults to six months from hire date under Montana law). Outside of that, employers in Montana must have good cause to discharge employees."

K.S.: I read your link but per the definition of federal law, all states are "at will" states. Meaning, people hire at will and similarly, a worker can quit at will. Where it differs is when public-policy exceptions come into play. This is what allows said states to circumvent discriminatory laws and openly discriminate upon employees because they do not have the exception. Implied Contract Exceptions convolute the issue even further, placing the burden of truth of unlawful firing solely on the employee. This is what I meant when I said that the issue stems far beyond the notion of "at will." What is disturbing is that the states wherein you can be fired for being gay, have buffers in place to protect *them* from egalitarianism. Egalitarianism, by definition, is democracy; something that the US proudly purports to be. This is an interesting and alarming concept to ponder because these states use the notion of democracy to practice open discrimination because egalitarianism means equality. In other words, they are equal and have the "right" to NOT practice equality. Messed up, isn't it??

Me: Terrified, B.R.? What a strange choice of words. People who have freedom always take a risk, but I value freedom more than I fear risk.

K.S.: Even the "freedom" to discriminate?? But isn't that taking away other people's freedom?

Me: Egalitarianism: "a political doctrine that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights, or as a social philosophy advocating the removal of economic inequalities among people or the decentralization of power." Calling egalitarianism democracy is a category error.

K.S.: Egalitarianism means equality. Democracy sits on the platform of fairness and equality.

B.R.: Terrified is a pretty middle of the road way of describing what I'm talking about and what you're not acknowledging. Ever been fired for something you can't control? Ever been excluded by your peers with no way of confronting them about it? Ever been bullied by people that hate you for no good reason? Ever been cornered and intimidated because of your personal lifestyle? Ever been mocked publicly and screamed at and spit on and urinated on? Ever had your ass groped by a stranger? Ever had your dick grabbed by another man?

Me: We discriminate all the time. I discriminated against every other woman in the world when I proposed to my wife. I chose a hamburger without cheese, thus discriminating against cheeseburgers. I bought my house in a neighborhood that didn't have mobile homes.

Me: Democracy does no such thing. Democracy is a horrible system of governance.

Me: B.R., yes to many of those situations. In no instance did I run to government like a child to demand they punish the perpetrators.

Expanded Medicaid good for Montana - letter by Juliette Vail - analysis

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold. ------------------ (I have already demolished these Medicaid expansion arguments here, here, and here. Given the frequent editorials and AP articles published in the Chronicle, with very few voices of dissent, it would appear that the paper is engaging in advocacy. I will therefore avail myself of every opportunity to counter the propaganda here in my blog.)    I want SB 395 to reach the governor’s desk. This week, Democrats and a few Republicans showed the foresight, intelligence, and commitment to our state that we expect from our elected officials when the Montana Senate passed the Medicaid expansion by a vote of 26-24. Medicaid expansion is one of the most important proposals before our Legislature this session, and as the Legislature is entering its last weeks, I am so thankful that it is on the move!    Simply put, Medicaid expansion would result in 70,000 Montanans with access to affordable health care and 13,000 jobs created in our communities and state. (Please read the above links for a debunking of these fake benefits.) The trickle down benefits (Whoa, did she just advocate trickle down? I thought trickle down was a failed experiment. I thought President Reagan was a buffoon for believing that economic benefits at the top trickle down throughout the economy. And now we have a sadly misinformed letter writer who thinks that trickle down only works if it is government money.) of these populations are incredible and mean healthier families and communities, a boost for our economy, and an improved future for our state. We can’t afford to miss this opportunity, and we need to send SB 395 to the governor’s desk as soon as possible. ========================== (Though I won't comment on the guest editorial below, since it simply regurgitates the same talking points, I did want to publish it in order to note for the record that even accomplished business people have bought in to the inane logic of the Medicaid expansionists. I am pretty sure that I will never again frequent the businesses of these folks.)  -----------------------------

Economy reason enough to support Medicaid expansion
By BILL JOHNSTONE, DEAN FOLKVORD AND RAY KUNTZ

   This week is the deadline for the Montana House and Senate to pass a Medicaid expansion bill from one chamber to the other. As business leaders deeply committed to the health of Montana’s economy and workforce, we strongly support accepting federal funds to expand eligibility for the state’s Medicaid program. While there are several reasons for our support, we want to emphasize one — the substantial, positive and long-term impact on economic growth and job creation that Medicaid expansion will produce in
comparison to the investment required by the state.

   The independent Montana Bureau of Business and Economic Research has produced a thorough, well-supported, and thoughtful economic analysis of the potential economic ramifications of Medicaid expansion in Montana. The essential findings of the analysis are these:

   Over the first eight years, expansion would bring approximately $6 billion of new funds into the state — on average, roughly $750 million per year. Montana would very quickly create and sustain 12,000 to 14,000 new highpaying jobs. To place that in context, that’s 30 percent more than the existing total mining and logging jobs in the state.

   Montana would provide health care insurance, and all the health and societal benefits that come with it, to approximately 60,000 to 70,000 Montanans.

   And what does Montana need to contribute to receive these substantial economic benefits for our people? For the first three years, federal funding would cover 100 percent of the costs, other than relatively small
administrative costs. Over the first eight years, we need to contribute roughly $70 million per year. However, based on the bureau’s analysis, between reduced uncompensated care costs and increased state and local tax revenues from the expanded economic activity, the net present value cost to Montana is roughly ... $0.

   In our businesses, we make investment decisions every day based on cost/benefit analysis and return on investment. As a business decision, the proposed expansion of Medicaid clearly makes sense.

   We also believe there are other business reasons to support expansion. Most Montana businesses incur substantial costs in order to offer health insurance to their employees. Those costs are driven higher for businesses because we all pay part of the price for uncompensated care for the uninsured. In 2011, Montana health care providers were uncompensated for over $400 million worth of health care to the uninsured. That uncompensated care results in cost-shifting to businesses, taxpayers, and individual consumers of private insurance. Expanding eligibility to Medicaid would reduce uncompensated care by approximately $104 million from 2014 to 2021.

The result: lower health care costs for all of us.

   We appreciate that the Affordable Care Act is controversial and was opposed by many. How we pay for and deliver quality health care to our citizens will continue to be one of our greatest challenges and the topic
of considerable discussion and debate. Undoubtedly, the dialogue will continue, and the public and private solutions to our health care needs will evolve. If and when those changes occur, our state and our businesses
will need to respond and adapt.

   However, at present the Affordable Care Act is the law of the land. Our businesses and citizens will pay the incremental taxes and penalties imposed by the Act irrespective of whether Montana opts in to Medicaid
expansion. It would be especially unfair and illogical for Montanans to pay their fair share of these costs, and be denied the benefits we have helped fund.

   Lawmakers on both sides of aisle have often and sincerely pledged that jobs and the economy are their number one priority. We hope they will thoughtfully and objectively consider the unique opportunity before us to substantially increase good paying jobs, meaningfully expand economic activity in the state, cut costs for businesses, and positively impact our citizens and the state we all love. As the head of the state Chamber of
Commerce in another conservative state recently put it, “This is not a political issue; it’s an economic issue.” We hope the Montana Legislature will reach the same conclusion.

   Bill Johnstone is CEO of Davidson Companies in Great Falls, Dean Folkvord is CEO of Wheat Montana Farms and Bakery in Three Forks, and Ray Kuntz is CEO of Watkins & Shepard Trucking in Helena. The above views are not official positions of their companies, but the viewpoints of the individuals. 

Secretary of State Linda McCulloch's latest email

When Montana Secretary of State Linda McCulloch sends out her periodic emails, there is always something in them that gives me pause. Here's a couple screen shots from the latest one:

In this short blurb she tells us several questionable things.

1) Dedicating a month to certain people recognizes "the importance of continuing to ensure equal opportunities for ever race and gender..." Oh, isn't it wonderful? I feel so warm inside knowing that equality has been furthered by these courageous actions! Our Secretary of State is doing so much to create opportunities. But wait. What's her job again? Is this what she is charged to do by the laws of Montana?

2) She has a "personal conviction." She's committed to "protecting your voting rights." *Sigh* I don't even know what to say. Is this personal conviction a duty outlined by the laws of Montana, or is it an agenda of an activist elected official? I suspect she's thinking of HB 30, which would roll back Election Day voter registration , and HB 108, which modifies voter eligibility. You see, but insisting that people identify themselves, that means peoples' rights are being curtailed. Like a typical leftist, she thinks of voting as a sacred act, one that should have absolutely no impediments.

3) She wants us to contact our legislators to tell them how important our right to vote is. Doesn't she mean that she wants us to contact our legislators to tell them to vote right?

Here's the other part of the email:

"A monumental victory for young Americans." Actually, a monumental victory for Democrats, since young people tend to vote for them. This amendment did absolutely nothing for anyone in terms of liberty or civil rights, despite Mike Mansfield's hyperbole. If "youngsters" (that is, those between 18 and 21) were being discriminated against, then what about 17 year olds? Are they being discriminated against?

This is the thing about the misuse of words. They lose meaning. Every law creates two groups, each on opposite sides of it. There are those whom the law favors or gives privilege to, and there are those whom the law is against. Every law is discriminatory, and that's a good thing! Laws against theft discriminate against thieves. Laws  restricting the age of drivers keep young, inexperienced people off the roads. Laws against murder are unfairly weighted against murderers. Exactly as it should be.

We want discrimination. We need it. We need the law to be against things and for other things. That's what it does.