ETHICS WITHOUT GODS

Originally found here. My comments in bold.
----------------------------------

This essay was written by Frank Zindler, former President and current Board Member of American Atheists.

One of the first questions Atheists are asked by true believers and doubters alike is, “If you don’t believe in God, there’s nothing to prevent you from committing crimes, is there? Without the fear of hell-fire and eternal damnation, you can do anything you like, can’t you?” (Frankly, I doubt that this question is asked at all. "Fear of hell-fire and eternal damnation" is a pejorative phrase used mockingly by atheists. I doubt anyone uses language like that besides them. In fact, I sincerely doubt that anyone asks atheists anything about their beliefs, since atheists are generally so belligerent, disagreeable, and offensive that few people would want to even talk with them, let alone risk bringing wrath down upon them by asking atheists a question.)

INTRODUCTION

It is hard to believe that even intelligent and educated people could hold such an opinion, but they do! It seems never to have occurred to them that the Greeks and Romans, whose gods and goddesses were something less than paragons of virtue, nevertheless led lives not obviously worse than those of the Baptists of Alabama! (Wait. Notice that the writer is suggesting that the above question/opinion, anecdotally provided, is in itself a reason to doubt the intellectual credentials of those who supposedly hold it. He does so by claiming that the Greeks and Romans led comparably virtuous lives, even though their gods were lacking virtue. In other words, the Greeks and Romans did not require morality from their gods in order to be just as moral as Baptists. I'll let that little sophistry sink in.) 

Moreover, pagans such as Aristotle and Marcus Aurelius - although their systems are not suitable for us today - managed to produce ethical treatises of great sophistication, a sophistication rarely if ever equaled by Christian moralists. (It seems the author is arguing against a position no one is taking. Even granting the above question/opinion accurately represents the situation, there is no suggestion in it that atheists cannot behave morally or pontificate at length with extraordinary insight about ethics. 

No, the question really is, upon what basis should a person act morally, and upon what basis should a person expect others to embrace that morality? It isn't that religion is required to behave morally. It's why there is any moral imperative for atheists to behave morally.

Also notice the diminution of Christian moralists. Of course the writer would hold them in low esteem! They are, after all, embracing objective morality descending from a Supreme Being. How else would an atheist characterize Christian thinkers?)

The answer to the questions posed above is, of course, "Absolutely not!" The behavior of Atheists is subject to the same rules of sociology, psychology, and neurophysiology that govern the behavior of all members of our species, religionists included. (A thesis which never has been in question. This is a typical strategy of anti-religionists. Mischaracterize, divert, obfuscate, and then refute the straw man.) 

Moreover, despite protestations to the contrary, we may assert as a general rule that when religionists practice ethical behavior, it isn't really due to their fear of hell-fire and damnation, nor is it due to their hopes of heaven. (So the writer negates his own initial assertion.) 

Ethical behavior - regardless of who the practitioner may be - results always from the same causes and is regulated by the same forces, and has nothing to do with the presence or absence of religious belief. The nature of these causes and forces is the subject of this essay.

PSYCHOBIOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS. (Having successfully answered the question no one has asked, he makes his thesis. Let's now see how he establishes it, or if he does.)

Part of SeaTac’s minimum wage measure struck

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

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

I found this interesting, not because of the arguments for or against increasing the minimum wage, per se (I discuss that in more detail here), but because the city of SeaTac is a perfect test case to see in a microcosm how the minimum wage increase affects unemployment and wages.

However, the main reason for the post today is to take a look at the actual figures involved. First, the population of SeaTac is 27,667 in 2012. The national labor participation rate is 58.6%. The minimum wage affects 4.7% of workers nationally.  Interestingly, the great bulk of these workers are 16-19 years old:

So, let's calculate: 27,667 * .586 =  16,213 total workers in the city of SeaTac. 16,213 * .047 equals 762. Therefore, this law, for all the hype about the poor and how they need our help, affects just 762 people. Imagine that.

I t occurs to me that people who make more than the $9.15 an hour but less than $15 will also be affected. I was unable to determine how many people that might be. But in any case, what we have here is a symbolic issue that helps very few people. 

What doesn't seem to be well understood is that the economy is not a closed system. A change made in one place, even under the auspices of "compassion," will have unintended effects elsewhere. The Left tends to ignore or poo-poo these effects, because once again, they're "helping people."

For the Left, this is how government is run, symbolically, so that the people can be manipulated. Good intentions are sufficient, and those who disagree with their methods or point out their bad results are deemed to be in favor of suffering, hunger, and poverty. 

So what results can we expect from SeaTac raising the minimum wage? As we have noted, a relative few people actually affected by this change, but it sends a message about what SeaTac thinks about its business climate. This will have a chilling effect, an effect that will not be apparent to the casual observer, or to those who are inclined to doctrinaire leftism. 

I think the situation will be marked by what will not be seen. That is, the businesses that decide not to locate there. The jobs that will not be created. The entrepreneurs that will not start businesses. It's difficult to quantify things that will not happen.

That being said, some things can be predicted. One, it will be difficult for a teenager to land his first job. Two, it is likely that the unemployment rate in SeaTac, currently higher than the Washington rate, will remain higher. Three, the cost of goods and services will increase.

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

SEATTLE (AP) — A King County Superior Judge struck down the voter-approved $15 an hour minimum wage for the vast majority of workers the measure aimed to help.

Affordable Care Act for the people, despite Fox News - letter by Jack Kligerman

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

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

What you find here is a typical Leftist approach to an issue. You will find scapegoating, misdirection, non sequiturs, and general confusion-sowing in the name of "refuting" a position. In this case, the critics of the ACA. Read on:

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

 If you had been watching Fox News (Note the first scapegoat, Fox News. The fact that ACA was a disaster seems only to be related to Fox News in some way.) 

during the troubled rollout of the Affordable Care Act, the emotion you would have seen and heard repeated ad infinitum was glee; glee at the trouble the website was having (So Fox News commentators are represented as being filled with was glee. No documentation of this is provided, but more to the point, what problem is there with adversaries of ACA being happy that the failure they predicted turned out to be correct?)

(mistakenly assumed and presented to be trouble with Universal Health Care itself). (This is a curious statement. ACA isn't universal healthcare. In fact, the statistics show that more people have lost their healthcare as a result of ACA as have obtained it. But this misses a key point. The advocates of ACA are not interested in stopping here. They fully intend to use ACA as a stepping stone to a complete takeover of health care. Of this there is no doubt. So any criticism of ACA in the context of a government takeover of health care is perfectly justified.) 

You might elsewhere have caught one of the news clips about the 150th anniversary of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, the last words being “the government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.” Glee and “for the people,” however, never were put together on Fox News because Fox News can hardly be said to ever be “for the people” at large. (What is with these people about Fox News? Is Fox News [or any news organization for that matter] supposed to be advocating for some sort of "for the people" situation as described by President Lincoln? Are commentators on Fox News or anywhere else supposed to be taking a position that aligns with some sort of preconceived view of "for the people?"

What is even more strange is that the Gettysburg Address was a speech given by Lincoln decades after the Constitution was ratified by a previous generation of American heroes. It seems to me that the Constitution governs the operation of the country, not the Gettysburg address.)

Websites try to nix nasty comments

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

-----------------------------
The sole reason I posted this article is that the author seems to be only able to find nastiness on the Right. You see, those on the Right are bigots, they're so stupid they can't spell correctly, they're racists. 

Actually, those things aren't necessarily the worst thing a conservative can do. Just being offensive is sufficient.

As usual, the Left's response to dissent is to shut it down. Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson is a public example of much more pervasive strategy. And this article presents the issue in such a way as to make the average reader assume that all the bile is from those eeeevil conservatives.

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

NEW YORK (AP) — Mix blatant bigotry with poor spelling. Add a dash of ALL CAPS. Top it off with a violent threat. And there you have it: A recipe for the worst of online comments, scourge of the Internet.

Blame anonymity, blame politicians, blame human nature. But a growing number of websites are reining in the Wild West of online commentary. Companies including Google and the Huffington Post are trying everything from deploying moderators to forcing people to use their real names in order to restore civil discourse. Some sites, such as Popular Science, are banning comments altogether.

The efforts put sites in a delicate position. User comments add a lively, fresh feel to videos, stories and music. And, of course, the longer visitors stay to read the posts, and the more they come back, the more a site can charge for advertising.

What websites don’t want is the kind of off-putting nastiness that spewed forth under a recent CNN. com article about the Affordable Care Act.

“If it were up to me, you progressive libs destroying this country would be hanging from the gallows for treason. People are awakening though. If I were you, I’d be very afraid,” wrote someone using the name “JBlaze.”

YouTube, which is owned by Google, has long been home to some of the Internet’s most juvenile and grammatically incorrect comments. The site caused a stir last month when it began requiring people to log into Google Plus to write a comment. Besides herding users to Google’s unified network, the company says the move is designed to raise the level of discourse in the conversations that play out under YouTube videos.

One such video, a Cheerios commercial featuring an interracial family, met with such a barrage of racist responses on YouTube that General Mills shut down comments on it.

“Starting this week, when you’re watching a video on YouTube, you’ll see comments sorted by people you care about first,” wrote YouTube product manager Nundu Janakiram and principal engineer Yonatan Zunger in a blog post announcing the changes. “If you post videos on your channel, you also have more tools to moderate welcome and unwelcome conversations. This way, YouTube comments will become conversations that matter to you.”

Anonymity has always been a major appeal of online life. Two decades ago, The New Yorker magazine ran a cartoon with a dog sitting in front of a computer, one paw on the keyboard. The caption read: “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.” At its best, anonymity allows people to speak freely without repercussions. It allows whistle blowers and protesters to espouse unpopular opinions. At its worst, it allows people to spout off without repercussions. It gives trolls and bullies license to pick arguments, threaten and abuse.

But anonymity has been eroding in recent years. On the Internet, many people may know not only your name, but also your latest musings, the songs you’ve listened to, your job history, who your friends are and even the brand of soap you prefer.

“It’s not so much that our offline lives are going online, it’s that our offline and online lives are more integrated,” says Mark Lashley, a professor of communications at La Salle University in Philadelphia. Facebook, which requires people to use their real names, played a big part in the seismic shift.

“The way the Web was developed, it was unique in that the avatar and the handle were always these things people used to go by. It did develop into a Wild West situation,” he says, adding that it’s no surprise that Google and other companies are going this route. “As more people go online and we put more of our lives online, we should be held accountable for things we say.”

Nearly three-quarters of teens and young adults think people are more likely to use discriminatory language online or in text messages than in face to face conversations, according to a recent poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and MTV.

The Huffington Post is also clamping down on vicious comments. In addition to employing 40 human moderators who sift through readers’ posts for racism, homophobia, hate speech and the like, the AOL-owned news site is also chipping away at anonymous commenting. Previously, anyone could respond to an article posted on the site by creating an account, without tying it to an email address. This fall, HuffPo began requiring people to verify their identity by connecting their accounts to an email address, but that didn’t appear to be enough and the site now also asks commenters to log in using a verified Facebook account.

“We are reaching a place where the Internet is growing up,” says Jimmy Soni, managing editor of HuffPo. “These changes represent a maturing (online) environment.”

Pajama Boy and leftist rhetorical tactics

It's interesting to note the kind of person Pajama Boy is. It's even more interesting to note that this is the kind of person Obamacare views as representative of who would appeal to those who would buy government healthcare. However, he's not a typical American at all. He's an extremist, an outlier, a Leftist operative. He encapsulates all of what's wrong with the political Left.

In several of my prior posts I have noted how leftists debate. Apparently Pajama Boy employs these tactics as a deliberate strategy This post, which was unattributed, perfectly describes these leftist rhetorical tactics. It's nice to know that other people have noticed this too.

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

"The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. [He] had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day."

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

Although the author ascribes a procession of strategy, in actual fact any of these can manifest at any time as might be convenient to your interlocutor. To recap:

1) The stupidity of their adversary

2) play stupid 

3) Pretend not to understand

4) If challenged, they change the subject

5) They quoted platitudes, often irrelevant or incorrectly applied 

6) If you win a point, the next day, they act as though nothing previously had happened

There are more tactics the Left uses to neuter debate as well, like

1) Personal attacks

2) Logical fallacies, like Straw Men, Appeals to Authority, and Non Sequiturs.

3) Escalating profanity

4) Mocking

5) Accusations that their adversaries are shilling (knowingly or not) for corporate interests

6) Blaming a person's thinking on Fox (Faux) News or the Koch brothers

7) Tacitly granting a point but moving the goalposts in order to make you prove a new point not originally under discussion

8) Never, ever, admit they are wrong.

9) Exiting a debate when they are losing, frequently with a parting insult.

It’s Conservatives Who Really Want Christ Out of Christmas - By Dean Obeidallah

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
------------------------------------------------------
This idea that supporting government programs is the same thing as being a good Christian has been out there for quite some time now in Leftist circles. The argument is so vapid as to be embarrassing, but it doesn't stop the Left from repeating it incessantly. Let's read:
-------------------------------------------------------------- 

It’s Conservatives Who Really Want Christ Out of Christmas

By Dean Obeidallah

December 17th 20135:45 AM

They’re terrified America’s tiny number of atheists will change the meaning of the holiday. But conservatives are the ones who are really at war with its message.

The War on Christmas is on! This epic battle pits the forces on the right who demand that we say “Merry Christmas” to everyone regardless of their faith—or lack thereof—against those who prefer to say “Happy Holidays.” (There is no such demand. As is typical for the Left, the issue is misdefined so as to create a straw man. The micro-issue is the editing of "Merry Christmas" from our language because of it being "offensive." The larger issue is the visceral hatred the Left has for any public expression of religion, unless that expression is to denigrate it.)

How fierce has this so-called “war” become? Well, Sarah Palin is travelling across the country alerting people that “angry atheists” want to “abort Christ from Christmas.” Palin is like a modern day Paul Revere—you know, the guy Palin told us warned the British in 1775 that the British were about to attack the colonists.

Bill O’Reilly, the “Father Christmas” of the War on Christmas, recently clamored that there are dastardly people who want to, “banish any mention of Jesus in the public square.”

And apparently these atheists—who represent about 1.6 percent of our population—are so dangerous that it compelled Texas Governor Rick Perry to enact the “Merry Christmas law” earlier this year to ensure that public school teachers could say “Merry Christmas” without fear of attack. (Another typical Leftist strategy. Mr. Obeidallah isolates the supposed offenders down to a small group, that is, atheists. Apparently, this insignificant group couldn't have any effect at all. However, the size of a group bears no relation to its capability to influence. Michael Newdow single-handedly brought the state of California to its knees. But really, this isn't even the issue, since the entirety of the Left is hostile to public religious expression, which means the atheists are not the only players on the side of curtailing public religious expression.) 

But here’s the glaring hypocrisy of the right: they want to keep “Christ in Christmas,” but they don’t want to keep Christ’s teachings in the policies they advocate. (Is Mr. Obeidallah suggesting that public policy ought to be governed by religious doctrine? Really?) It’s as if there are two Jesus Christs. There’s the one in the Bible who advocates helping people in need, especially the poor. And then there’s the Jesus that conservatives worship, whose philosophy is to callously slash programs that help the less fortunate, from food stamps to health insurance to unemployment benefits. (Note how Mr. Obeidallah provides us with a false binary equation. There are only two possibilities: Support government programs or hatefully starve people.) 

I’m not a religious scholar, (That is becoming increasingly apparent.) but it doesn’t take a Ph.D. in religious studies to comprehend the basic teachings of Jesus. The New Testament is filled with passages where Jesus implores his followers to care for the poor. Arguably the best known is Matthew 25:34-36, where Jesus discussed the importance of helping people in need: “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” (Which is exactly what millions of Christians do every day. Despite an intrusive government helping themselves to their pocketbooks, Christians and compassionate people sacrificially buy food, housing, and medicine for those in need. They give of their time, resources, and talent to meet the needs of the poor and the sick in their communities and all around the world. They open their homes and their wallets. Yet for their sacrifice they're met with derision from the likes of Mr. Obeidallah.)

Yet the same people who demand that we keep Christ in Christmas also support cutting programs advance Jesus’s philosophy. We saw that in September when House Republicans voted to slash $40 billion from the food stamps program. (I persistent false meme promulgated incessantly by the Left, which I discuss here.) If this had become law, it would’ve result in nearly four million Americans being deprived of these desperately needed benefits. So much for the, “I was hungry and you gave me food.” (Mr. Obeidallah apparently confuses government programs with feeding people. Which suggests that he thinks that people who do not support these programs in the way he expects them to are in favor of starving people. The is absurd on its face. No further comment needed.)

Despite Jesus words, “I was sick and you took care of me,” conservatives have waged a war to destroy Obamacare which would provide health insurance to millions of Americans who can’t afford coverage. In fact, 20 States with Republican governors and Republican-controlled legislatures have refused to expand Medicaid under Obamacare, making it more challenging if not impossible for the impoverished residents of these States to afford health insurance coverage. (Mr. Obeidallah is becoming a one note samba. Since his premise is faulty, everything he builds upon it is faulty as well.)

And what would Jesus do about the 1.3 million Americans whose unemployment benefits will end just a few days after Christmas? Well, conservatives apparently believe Jesus would say “no” to any extension. Indeed, Rep. Kevin Cramerrecently cited this passage from the Bible as a reason to slash benefits for the poor: “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.” Interestingly, during the federal government shutdown in September, Congressman Cramer was the only member of the North Dakota Congressional delegation who didn’t donate his salary to charity.

Here’s the reality: Christmas will be fine, but without our help, the poor won’t be. Christmas is not in danger of becoming homeless nor concerned about having enough food to eat to be able to concentrate at school or at work.

We rarely hear about the poor in our nation unless they are being demonized by the right as “lazy” or abusing the system. (This isn't even close to true. Witness Mr. Obeidallah's own article, upon which we are presently commenting. He and others like him are continually decrying the lack of compassion the Right has, and they've been doing this for decades. All we hear about is the plight of the poor and how government has to do more. Endless emotional pleas for the children. The elderly are choosing between food and medicine. Mr. Obeidallah is making an astonishingly false claim.)  America’s needy are invisible to most of us- including the 16 million children in this country who live in poverty. (Ahh, there we have it. Right on cue. The children...)

Yet the focus of the right’s outrage is when a public school chooses to sing non-religious Christmas songs and opts for more secular ones.  Or when a huge nativity scene can’t be constructed on government property. (Whaaa? Wait, I thought it was only those insignificant atheists who were doing thes things?) Why isn’t their outrage directed at those who support policies that cause suffering to our most needy fellow Americans? These are the actions that truly contradict Jesus’s teachings. (Mr. Obeidallah has yet to provide us with the teaching of Jesus where He instructs us to support government programs.)

And not only is supporting these social programs consistent with Jesus’ philosophy, (Mr. Obeidallah has yet to provide us with the teaching of Jesus that indicates this claimed consistency.) they are good public policy. A recent study found that the social safety net created by President Lyndon Johnson as part of the “war on poverty” has actually reduced poverty over the past 50 years. (Let's look at the actual numbers. Here's a chart from census.gov:

You will note that the poverty rate was already declining precipitously leading into the "war on poverty." That trend continued for a few years after, then leveled out. The poverty rate has hovered around 12% ever since. Apparently, Mr. Obeidallah is mistaken.

Now let's take a look at more recent history, and the accomplishments of President Obama in particular, who has presided over the largest increase in government spending in the history of the world. Government chart found here.

Those leading the fight to keep Christ in Christmas need to answer this simple question. What do you think Jesus would care about more: feeding the hungry and caring for the sick or requiring that all Americans say “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays”? The answer is clear to anyone who has ever read the Bible. (Which apparently Mr. Obeidallah has not done.)

An Atheist's View On Life

I thought this was kind of clever:

Human compassion binds us together - letter by Jim Petersen

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

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

Dec. 10 marked the 65th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This was one of the first acts of the United Nations. Witnessing humanity’s greatest atrocities (both Allied and Axis), the drafters recognized the need to assert that all humans have rights. These rights are not derived from government or religion. (Ok, so where are they derived? Mr. Peterson does not give us this answer, but we can assume that they must come from the U.N. Let's see how this perspective plays out in the rest of his letter.) 

These rights call to us from our shared consciousness. (Metaphysical nonsense. Somehow, "rights" magically appeared in our shared consciousness, whatever that is, and they speak. Never mind that there is no such thing as a shared consciousness, or that rights are a legal creation.)

The conscience that bound us as communally dependent, social beings walking from the savannahs of Africa out across the land masses of our shared home, Earth. (So this shared consciousness binds us together, I assume in an "it takes a village" sort of togetherness. Mr. Peterson is apparently laying the groundwork for socialism.)

Consider the recent days. On Veterans Day, we honor those who served to secure our rights and liberties. Must we go to bloody war to show our dedication to these rights? (Wars are fought for many reasons, some just and noble, others not so much. Sometimes we go to war to defend these rights, sometimes we want to spread democracy. War is sometimes necessary, but many of the most recent wars were more like invasions. Nevertheless. those who serve don't get to decide their service based on whether or not they agree with the political decisions involved. As such, they are worthy of due honor.) 

On Thanksgiving Day, we are implored to show gratitude for American bounty? Should gratitude be shown only one day? And as word came of Nelson Mandela’s last breath, many honored his actions and words that changed a country. He helped to heal through reconciliation, not retribution. I offer his words:

“Our human compassion binds us the one to the other — not in pity or patronizingly, but as human beings who have learnt how to turn our common suffering into hope for the future.”

My world still suffers from injustice. We all can make the goal of universal justice a reality. I take responsibility. Join me. Act. (So we can piece together his train of thought for a plan of action. 1) We have a shared consciousness from which springs our rights. 2) We are interlinked and dependent on each other. 3) There is injustice in the world, and war does not solve it. 4) He wants us to act. 5) Support the U.N.

65 years ago came the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Nothing has changed, and things have in fact gotten worse. It is this impotent organization, routinely ignored by tyrants and dictators, that is supposed to bring about "universal justice?" Yeah, right.)

Let Mandela speak: “It always seems impossible until it is done.”

Jim Petersen

Livingston

Most Women Under 40 Haven't Heard the Pro-choice Moral Argument - Donna Schaper

Originally found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
------------------------------

I find it interesting when the Left wrestles with the logic of their various positions. At times there is an honest effort to really explore the ramifications of what they believe. 

Here is one such attempt. Unfortunately, trying to be logical is not the same as succeeding to to be rational. Read on:
------------------------------

The Supreme Court will listen again to another anti-abortion niggle -- and therefore, It is time to positively repeat the moral argument in favor of what the Court has already decided. (I frankly wasn't aware there is a moral argument. It seems the oft-repeated talking points center on "keep your hands off my body" statements. So it will be interesting to see what the systematically expressed moral case is for abortion.)

I write with great weariness. We have done this before. (Apparently, repeating the same talking points over and over again has made the author weary. However, if the pro-choicers had made convincing arguments in the first place, or any arguments at all for that matter, then perhaps she wouldn't be in this situation.) 

It is painful to have to fight for what is already won, (Winning a court case is not the same as winning the argument or making the moral case.)

even more painful for one Christian to have to argue with another one about the freedom of the human to make choices. (This is what I mean by inadequate logical thought processes. The author cannot even frame the issue properly. The argument is not about human freedom to make choices, it is about a particular choice and whether that one choice is moral.

A couple of paragraphs later the author will begin to talk about abortion as a moral choice, so she tacitly acknowledges that the issue is not about generic choice.) 

Understanding liberals - FB Conversation

Excerpts from "The Manifesto of the Fascist Struggle:"

We demand:
a) The quick enactment of a law of the State that sanctions an eight-hour workday
b) A minimum wage
c) The participation of workers' representatives in industry commissions
d) The same confidence given to the labor unions as is given to industry executives or public servants
e) The nationalization of all the arms and explosives factories
f) A strong progressive tax on capital that will truly expropriate a portion of all wealth
g) The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics

B.R.: Actually I think you got that from "The Manifesto of the Ultimate Straw Man"

Me: Ben, Italy. By the way, ever read the communist manifesto? Reads like a liberal wet dream.

B.R.: You don't understand liberals as well as you think you do, buddy.

Me: With the exception of e and g, everything on the list has been accomplished. Apparently you disagree. Why?

B.R.: The main reason you misunderstand liberals is that you overgeneralize. Yes, EACH item on the list is likely favored by SOME liberals. But not EVERY item is favored by EVERY liberal. Yet you speak about liberals as if they all share the same values, priorities and agenda. That may not be your actual worldview - hopefully it's not - but your rhetoric does consistently illustrate it as such. It's a repeatedly incorrect negative generalization, and it undermines your intelligence.

Me: Before you continue your personal attacks, please produce a single liberal that disagrees in principle with any part of the liberal agenda.

B.R.: I'm not personally attacking you, so feel free to drop the victim act. If you really feel that my last comment was a personal attack, then I get the feeling you're not even considering what I'm saying. You use Facebook to attack the imaginary boogie man of Liberalism on a regular basis, with no care to delineate or clarify who in fact you are attacking. I'm taking an opportunity to show you your own blind spot, in the hopes that you'll be more respectful of those you neither know nor understand.

There is not one kind of liberal, and there is not one liberal agenda. If you have a problem with a particular liberal issue, then I request that you address the particular liberals who apply to that issue, rather than applying it to all liberals and thus treating us all as hive-minded and inferior.

To entertain your challenge, I submit myself: I disagree with many propositions and actions that are praised by a majority of liberals. Just like you don't deserve to be lumped in with the whole of conservatives, Libertarians, Christians, whatever groups you may or may not identify as a member of, no liberal deserves to be boiled down to a cartoonish state by cynicism and judgment.

Me: You're not attacking, but I am. You're responding in an informed way, I'm not. I have a blind spot, you don't. I engage in cartoonism, you don't. Ok, I understand.

B.R.: In turn: Yes, I'm not making personal attacks on you, I'm calling you out for treating others poorly. We're both responding in an informed way, but you never show evidence that my views and words have changed your mind in any way. No, we both have blind spots, and our continued communication is in part due to the value I find in the blind spots of mine that you have pointed out. No, I do not engage in cartoonism, and I dare you to prove otherwise. No, I don't think you do understand, but I'd appreciate it if you tried to instead of simply trying to win or escape.

Me: Name the people I'm treating poorly.

Me: I play to win just like you do. Otherwise you wouldn't insist on evidence that I've changed my mind.

B.R.: Some people you're treating poorly, by generalizing all liberals in a negative and judgmental way: James Rapson, Jim Strange, Ben Rapson, Amber Rapson, Michael Rapson, Cate Buck, Warren Buck, Michael Jeppesen, Oliver Franklin, Alex Kuller.

I don't play to win, I play to affect change. Again, if you really think after all this time that I'm just playing to win, then you've been focusing on winning instead of listening to and considering my perspective.

I don't need notches on my Facebook post, I need people to stop labeling, judging, and shunning one another so much. Especially those they don't know or don't understand.

Me: Ben, you're playing games with me. General statements do not redound to individuals. I don't know most of those people, yet I've hurt them because 1) I make general statements about liberals, 2) the statements are not positive statements, 3) some of your friends are liberals, 4) they are therefore being treated poorly.

Utter and complete nonsense. That is the biggest load of shit I've ever read from you. You are beneath that. You have an admirable intellect that you are wasting on useless rhetoric.

Playing to affect change means you want to win. Don't parse words with me.

B.R.: Sigh. Willful ignorance, hard at work.

Me: You win, I'm an ignorant idiot. Well done.

B.R.: I never win. You know how I would win? If, just once, you issued a response somewhere in the ballpark of, "Ya know what, Ben, I recognize and understand what you're saying, and I'm going to keep it in mind when I'm putting my statements of opinion out on Facebook in the future." What a trophy that would be.

RISING RICHES: 1 IN 5 IN US REACHES AFFLUENCE - By HOPE YEN — Dec. 9, 2013 5:45 PM EST

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

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

WASHINGTON (AP) — Fully 20 percent of U.S. adults become rich for parts of their lives, wielding extensive influence over America's economy and politics, according to new survey data. (Hmm. A new class of people to demonize. They're not actually rich, they just were for part of their lives. And they're not really rich, they're affluent. Or were. Or something. Anything goes when it comes to impugning the successful.)

These "new rich," made up largely of older professionals, ("New rich" sounds like a good thing to me. More people being successful is, or used to be, a desirable outcome in society.) working married couples and more educated singles, are becoming politically influential, and economists say their capacity to spend is key to the U.S. economic recovery. ("Their capacity to spend" is what they are important for. Not for their ability to be role models. Not for them being able to teach others how to be successful. Not even for showing the nature of intact nuclear families. No, their importance is in their capacity to spend. Or actually, to be taxed.) But their rise is also a sign of the nation's continuing economic polarization. (A polarization brought about by continual leftist rhetoric dutifully repeated by the media.)

They extend well beyond the wealthiest 1 percent, a traditional group of super-rich millionaires and billionaires with long-held family assets. The new rich have household income of $250,000 or more at some point during their working lives, putting them — if sometimes temporarily — in the top 2 percent of earners. (The A.P. simply reports this as if it were fact. With all due respect, income is not a measure of wealth.)

The new survey data on the affluent are being published in an upcoming book, and an analysis by The AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research provided additional information on the views of the group.

In a country where poverty is at a record high, (Um, WHY is poverty at an all-time high, with a President who so cares about the poor?) today's new rich are notable for their sense of economic fragility. They rely on income from their work to maintain their social position and pay for things such as private tutoring for their children. (The A.P. is SO concerned about what the "new rich" spend their money on, as if it was any of their business. And of course they "rely on income." What an idiotic statement!) That makes them much more fiscally conservative than other Americans, polling suggests, and less likely to support public programs, such as food stamps or early public education, to help the disadvantaged. (Ahh, here we are. They're evil, greedy, and hate the poor. Took a while, but they finally got to it.)

Last week, President Barack Obama asserted that growing inequality is "the defining challenge of our time," signaling that it will be a major theme for Democrats in next year's elections. (He's been President for 5 years. Why hasn't he done anything about it? Economic inequality has increased markedly during his administration, and despite his "laser-like" focus on the economy, it's gotten worse?)

"In this country, you don't get anywhere without working hard," said James Lott, 28, a pharmacist in Renton, Wash., who adds to his six-figure salary by day-trading stocks. The son of Nigerian immigrants, Lott says he was able to get ahead by earning an advanced pharmacy degree. He makes nearly $200,000 a year. (What? He doesn't even qualify for the "new rich.")

After growing up on food stamps, Lott now splurges occasionally on nicer restaurants, Hugo Boss shoes and extended vacations to New Orleans, Atlanta and parts of Latin America. He believes government should play a role in helping the disadvantaged. But he says the poor should be encouraged to support themselves, explaining that his single mother rose out of hardship by starting a day-care business in their home.

The new research suggests that affluent Americans are more numerous than government data depict, encompassing 21 percent of working-age adults for at least a year by the time they turn 60. That proportion has more than doubled since 1979. (More people becoming affluent is a GOOD THING.)

Even outside periods of unusual wealth, members of this group generally hover in the $100,000-plus income range, keeping them in the top 20 percent of earners.

At the same time, an increasing polarization of low-wage work and high-skill jobs has left middle-income careers depleted. (There's that word "polarization" again. You know, things can only become "polarized" when outside forces come to bear, forcing attitudes to change. This is an artificial state cultivated by the Left in order to gin up resentment.)

"For many in this group, the American dream is not dead. They have reached affluence for parts of their lives and see it as very attainable, even if the dream has become more elusive for everyone else," says Mark Rank, (Clearly Dr. Rank doesn't even know what the American Dream is. It isn't about becoming wealthy. It's about working hard, having a family, going to church, volunteering in the community, being productive members of society. Some people do better than others, but in past times no one considered being wealthy a necessary part of the American Dream.) a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, who calculated numbers on the affluent for a forthcoming book, "Chasing the American Dream," to be published by the Oxford University Press. (Dr. Rank is nothing more than a leftist professor hawking his books. This "news" article is simply an advertisement for Rank.)

As the fastest-growing group based on take-home pay, the new rich tend to enjoy better schools, employment and gated communities, making it easier to pass on their privilege to their children. (What a shock! The affluent have better jobs and houses? You don't say! And we can't have them passing on their wealth and ideals to their children! That will just create a whole new generation of successful people! Horrors!)

Because their rising status comes at a time when upward mobility in the U.S. ranks lowest among wealthy industrialized counties, the spending attitudes of the new rich have implications for politics and policy. It's now become even harder for people at the bottom to move up. (How is this possible, with decades of wealth redistribution, trillions of dollars of poverty programs, and endless handouts and freebies? Things are worse after all of this? Well, that just means we need to do more of them.)

The group is more liberal than lower-income groups on issues such as abortion and gay marriage, according to an analysis of General Social Survey data by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. But when it comes to money, their views aren't so open. (Open? Liberal = open? Dear readers, do you see the inherent bias in this characterization? It's assumed to be true that conservative people aren't "open." Which assumes a perspective for viewing openness.) They're wary of any government role in closing the income gap. (Yes, because IT HASN'T HELPED.)

In Gallup polling in October, 60 percent of people making $90,000 or more said average Americans already had "plenty of opportunity" to get ahead. Among those making less than $48,000, the share was 48 percent

Sometimes referred to by marketers as the "mass affluent," the new rich make up roughly 25 million U.S. households and account for nearly 40 percent of total U.S. consumer spending.

While paychecks shrank for most Americans after the 2007-2009 recession, theirs held steady or edged higher. In 2012, the top 20 percent of U.S. households took home a record 51 percent of the nation's income. (And paid a record 86% of all income tax.) The median income of this group is more than $150,000.

Once concentrated in the old-money enclaves of the Northeast, the new rich are now spread across the U.S., mostly in bigger cities and their suburbs. They include Washington, D.C.; Boston, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco and Seattle. By race, whites are three times more likely to reach affluence than nonwhites.

Paul F. Nunes, managing director at Accenture's Institute for High Performance and Research, calls this group "the new power brokers of consumption." Because they spend just 60 percent of their before-tax income, often setting the rest aside for retirement or investing, he says their capacity to spend more will be important to a U.S. economic recovery.

In Miami, developers are betting on a growing luxury market, building higher-end malls featuring Cartier, Armani and Louis Vuitton and hoping to expand on South Florida's Bal Harbour, a favored hideaway of the rich.

"It's not that I don't have money. It's more like I don't have time," said Deborah Sponder, 57, walking her dog Ava recently along Miami's blossoming Design District. She was headed to one of her two art galleries — this one between the Emilio Pucci and Cartier stores and close to the Louis Vuitton and Hermes storefronts.

But Sponder says she doesn't consider her income of $250,000 as upper class, noting that she is paying college tuition for her three children. "Between rent, schooling and everything — it comes in and goes out." (Yeah, net worth is a more important metric of wealth than income. Duh.)

The new rich's influence will only grow as middle-class families below them struggle. The Federal Reserve said Monday that the nation's wealth rose 2.6 percent from July through September to $77.3 trillion, a record high, boosted in part by a surging stock market. But the gains haven't been equally distributed; the wealthiest 10 percent of U.S. households own about 80 percent of stocks.

Both Democrats and Republicans are awakening to the political realities presented by this new demographic bubble.

Traditionally Republican, the group makes up more than 1 in 4 voters and is now more politically divided, better educated and less white and male than in the past, according to Election Day exit polls dating to the 1970s.

Sixty-nine percent of upper-income voters backed Republican Ronald Reagan and his supply-side economics of tax cuts in 1984. By 2008, Democrat Barack Obama had split their vote evenly, 49-49.

In 2012, Obama lost the group, with 54 percent backing Republican Mitt Romney.

"For the Democrats' part, traditional economic populism is poorly suited for affluent professionals," says Alan Abramowitz, an Emory University professor who specializes in political polarization.

The new rich includes Robert Kane, 39, of Colorado Springs, Colo.

A former stockbroker who once owned three houses and voted steadfastly Republican, Kane says he was humbled after the 2008 financial meltdown, which he says exposed Wall Street's excesses. Now a senior vice president for a private equity firm specializing in the marijuana business, Kane says he's concerned about upward mobility for the poor and calls wealthy politicians such as Romney "out of touch."

But Kane, now a registered independent, draws the line when it comes to higher taxes. "A dollar is best in your hand rather than the government's," he says.


Associated Press Director of Polling Jennifer Agiesta, News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius, and writers Suzette Laboy in Miami and Kristen Wyatt in Denver contributed to this report.

Tax unearned income for Social Security - letter by Julie Quenemoen

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

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

Julie Quenemoen is a gift that keeps on giving. She wrote a previous letter and now doubles down on her error. Read on...)
There are many opinions about Social Security and one can dredge up just as many “facts” to prove them, spuriously or otherwise. The argument that the purchase of U.S. Treasury bonds increases our national debt is unconvincing. These bonds are purchased by individuals, companies, other nations and the Social Security Trust Fund. (False. Social Security's own website says, "all securities held by the trust funds are 'special issues' of the United States Treasury. Such securities are available only to the trust funds." Another government website tells us this: "There are two general types of such securities:

• Special issues—available only to the trust funds
• Public issues—marketable Treasury bonds available to the public.

It should be clear that these are not "spurious" facts.) 

The legislative and executive branches of our government are responsible for how these funds are spent. Is it reasonable to make the claim that anyone who purchases U.S. Treasury bonds is responsible for increasing our national debt? Ridiculous! Again from the SSA website: "Because the government spends this borrowed cash, some people see the trust fund assets as an accumulation of securities that the government will be unable to make good on in the future." Note the government spends the trust fund money. That means the obligation to pay it back remains, with the funds received from the obligation are gone. I'd say that increases the debt. As to whether or not the government will be able to make good on these debts remains to be seen. At least SS is admitting the situation.

Interestingly, the Trust Fund is managed by the Bureau of Public Debt. I did not know that.)

There are many lenses through which we can view our country. We can distrust and fear government, or we can participate in governance for the mutual benefit of all governed; we can isolate ourselves and fight against new ideas, or we can get involved and make a positive difference; we can exclude our fellow citizens or incorporate them into identifying solutions. Guess which I prefer? (Notice the procession of false binary equations. Our choices are not limited to the two she offers in each sentence. It is quite possible and even desirable, for example, to distrust government and participate in it. 

"Fight against new ideas." Um, yeah. SS was implemented nearly 80 years ago. She is defending an old, failing, and unworkable idea that is just now showing us its fatal flaws. Yet she prefers her blinders in the face of overwhelming evidence that SS is nothing more than a shell game. And by the way, the new ideas are coming from the Right, not the Left. 

"Exclude our fellow citizens." From what? Who is doing this, and in what way?)

At this time of economic insecurity (Still? I thought we were recovering? I though all those wonderful economic programs were going to help?) we can and should improve the most fundamental cornerstone of economic security for average Americans — our Social Security system.

Since its inception in 1935, Social Security has provided a safety net for hundreds of millions of people against otherwise abject poverty. Let’s improve Social Security instead of diminishing it. We can do this. Payroll taxes are assessed on income up to $113,700 ($117,000 next year). Those making more than that do not pay SS taxes on income above that amount. They are taxed for Medicare on every dollar of earnings; why not Social Security? In addition, those living exclusively on unearned income (investment income, etc.) are not taxed for Social Security. Let’s ask them to contribute a fair portion. A small percentage of Montanans would be affected and would barely notice it. It’s the right thing to do! (Ah yeas. Let's give more money to the government to buy more bonds and increase the indebtedness of the Trust Fund. That makes total sense.)

Julie Quenemoen Bozeman

Fraternity agrees to hard liquor ban after sex assault alleged - By GAIL SCHONTZLER

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
--------------------------------
(I read this article a few times, and I'm still trying to make sense of it. Rape is a crime, and the perpetrators need to be prosecuted. But what crime did the fraternities commit? They are being punished for the actions of others, and the punishment itself is odd. Read on:)
-------------------------------------

One of two Montana State University fraternities where women alleged (Wait. There are only allegations? MSU is punishing two fraternities based on allegations?) they were raped in September has agreed to four permanent sanctions, including more education on preventing sexual assault and a ban on hard liquor at the fraternity.

Dean of Students Matt Caires announced the agreement Monday with Jack Murrey, who became president of the Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity two weeks ago. MSU suspended the Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity, 1321 S. Fifth Ave., and the Sigma Chi fraternity, 722 S. Willson Ave., after two separate assaults were reported on the weekend of Sept. 13. Neither was allowed to participate in Homecoming, intramural sports and other activities.

Caires said he considered suspending Pi Kappa Alpha permanently. (Based on an allegation? What?) He said he was pleased with the outcome of negotiations with Pi Kappa, and hopes to reach a similar agreement with Sigma Chi by the end of the week.

“I think this is a big step in the right direction to ensure safety,” Caires said. The major problems he’s seen in fraternities over the last 15 years at MSU and other campuses have always involved hard alcohol, he said. It’s usually sweetened to hide the taste of alcohol and can get people drunk very quickly. (So the type of alcohol is being banned; apparently rape only occurs when hard alcohol is used.)

Under the agreement, Pi Kappa is reinstated as a fraternity in good standing , and will be allowed to have beer and wine. (I guess because beer and wine aren't sweet they won't be consumed as much at the fraternity's parties. Wait, what? People don't get drunk on beer and wine?) Caires said he’s a fan of alcohol free fraternities, but most fraternities are not. (Nor will they be...)

Murrey, a junior film major from Tacoma, Wash., said his fraternity debated whether to go dry, but college students do drink. (And why give up drinking if the college doesn't require it? After all, they can still drink beer and wine.) Instead, Pi Kappa wants to drink responsibly and safely, he said. If this doesn’t work, he added, members know there will be further consequences for the fraternity. (This is the bottom line. The fraternity is afraid of real sanctions like being shut down. Animal House, anyone?)

Caires said the Pi Kappa fraternity cooperated fully with MSU’s investigation. In his 15 years in college administration, he said he had never seen a fraternity hold itself accountable at this level. (He has never seen a fraternity admit culpability in a crime when they are not culpable? What a surprise.)

“In the past I’ve seen fraternities circle the wagons, refuse to cooperate, lie, protect their member,” Caires said. “We think we do have a good chapter and we want to improve,” Murrey said. “We never want to see a situation like this happen again.”

The Pi Kappa member under investigation has been suspended by the fraternity, but his status could be reevaluated, depending on the outcome, Murrey said. (So the accused has been suspended, but if he beats the rap he might get back in. I wonder, did the accuser simply have morning regret?) The fraternity has 51 active members, 15 of whom live at the house.

The fraternity’s motto is to strive to be “scholars, leaders, athletes and gentlemen,” Murrey said. He said he’s not worried the ban on hard liquor may discourage some students from joining, saying the fraternity probably doesn’t want members who’d join for that reason. (This just boggles my mind.) 

MSU campus police investigated the recent allegations and referred both cases to the Gallatin County Attorney’s Office with requests for prosecution. So far there has been no word on whether prosecutors will file charges on those two cases, or on a third case that’s 11 months old. (Doesn't it bother anyone that these are simply accusations at this point? And now we discover that the D.A. hasn't even decided to file charges. Astounding.)

In that case, an assault was alleged at the Kappa Sigma fraternity on Jan. 13. Caires said because Kappa Sigma didn’t propose any internal reforms, he sanctioned it with two months social probation, which meant no parties involving alcohol for two months.

MSU’s agreement with Pi Kappa requires:

• All members participate in sexual assault prevention training this spring with the MSU VOICE Center, which provides education, advocacy and support on sexual assault. Caires said the center emphasizes “bystander intervention,” which trains students to step up to protect someone who’s intoxicated or in danger of being taken advantage of.

• Annual sexual assault prevention training for new fraternity members.

• Banning hard liquor at the fraternity, starting immediately.

• Starting in the fall of 2014, the fraternity will have several members stay sober at parties, especially in the first four weeks of college, to make sure all intoxicated guests are “escorted home and not taken advantage of, sexually or otherwise.”

(These sanctions seem largely symbolic.) “I’m optimistic and hopeful the fraternity is on a path to continue to improve,” Caires said.

Pi Kappa also designated one member as a liaison with the Not In Our House task force, a prevention and training program sponsored by the VOICE Center.

MSU has seven fraternities with about 250 male student members, and four sororities with around 250 female students, Caires said.

ACLU objects to school choirs at church concert

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

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

KALISPELL (AP) — Three high school choirs in northwestern Montana plan to participate in Christmas concerts at the Mormon church in Kalispell despite protests from the American Civil Liberties Union and the Freedom From Religion Foundation. (Did the ACLU protest when Obama spoke at Ebenezer Baptist Church?)

Administrators from Flathead and Glacier high schools in Kalispell and Whitefish High School said the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints invited the choirs to participate in the “Peace on Earth Community Christmas Celebration” on Thursday and Friday, and they plan to go.

The events are advertised as a celebration of the “birth of our savior Jesus Christ,” featuring hundreds of nativity displays. The school choirs are among more than 10 musical performances scheduled.

The ACLU and Freedom From Religion Foundation sent letters to the schools within the past week saying participation in the religious event gives the appearance the schools were endorsing or advancing a specific religious message or denomination, in violation of the First Amendment. (Of course this is nonsense. First, they don't know what the message is, because the concert has yet to happen. Second, because free speech might occur, the ACLU is essentially saying that if the free speech of the attendees is not secular, it violates the First Amendment which guarantees free speech. Third, the First Amendment does not require schools to be neutral.) The complaints are now aimed at only the Kalispell schools after the groups learned the Whitefish choir is an extracurricular program.

Andrew Seidel, staff attorney with the Freedom From Religion Foundation, said the students are being coerced “to forgo their constitutional right to a secular government in order to participate in a school activity.” (Now that is an amazing statement. Did you know there was a constitutional right to a secular government? Neither did I. Even more amazing is that this attorney seems to believe that preventing these choirs from singing in church [that is, preventing them from engaging in free speech] enhances their religious liberty!)

Kalispell Superintendent Darlene Schottle said student participation in the concerts is voluntary. (So no one is coerced. See, the children are not agents of the state. They cannot violate the Constitution. These children have freedoms, which would be denied them in the name of protecting them.)

Niki Zupanic, public policy director for the ACLU, argued students are put in a difficult position when asked to make such a decision. (What position might that be? Mr. Zupanic is not quoted as to the nature of the difficulty. Or perhaps he never said. 

The freedom to participate or not, according to the dictates of one's conscience, is precisely what is being discussed here. But no one should expect that exercising one's rights will always be easy or without ramifications. Those are the conditions by which liberty is exercised.)

Schottle’s formal response said, in part: “One could interpret that by denying district students the opportunity to participate because of the Christian theme of the overall event might be in violation of the second half of the establishment clause, ‘prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ Students may ‘opt out’ of assignments and/or activities that might conflict with their belief system to assure that the district is not placing them in a situation they might find uncomfortable.” (And it's those "opt-outs" that are always offered up to people who object to controversial subject matter being taught to their children. The ALCU never seems to worry about the "difficult position" those children are put in.)

Assistant Kalispell Superintendent Daniel Zorn said the school choirs have participated in the concert for the past five years and that it is not a worship service, but a community open house. He said the choirs will perform both secular and sacred songs chosen by the choir directors.

Seidel said if Flathead and Glacier go ahead with participation, the foundation will talk to local complainants to see if anyone wants to take legal action against the school district. Zupanic said the ACLU would not pursue litigation on the matter.

The Minnesota-based Freedom From Religion Foundation unsuccessfully sought the removal of a statue of Jesus from U.S. Forest Service land on a ski hill at the Whitefish Mountain Resort. A federal judge ruled against the group in June.

The Pope vs. Rush Limbaugh - Leonard Pitts

My comments in bold.

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

I like capitalism. (Let's see if he knows what it is.) 

Specifically, I like the idea that if I write a better book, have a better idea, build a better mousetrap, I will be rewarded accordingly. (Nope, not so far. A person with a better idea, etc., does not automatically get rewarded. There are many good ideas that have never seen the light of day or earned a penny.) 

A system where everyone gets the same reward regardless of quality or quantity of work is inconsistent with excellence and innovation, as the mediocrity and inefficiency that beset the Soviet Union readily proves. (Well, he gets that part right to some extent. However, it isn't any of these factors that make capitalism so wonderful.)

The woman who is successful under capitalism gets to eat steak and lobster whenever she wants. (Successful capitalists eat expensive food whenever they want? So did the politburo at the Kremlin. This is what he thinks are is the benefits of capitalism?) 

That’s never bothered me. What does bother me is the notion that the unsuccessful man who lacks that woman’s talent, resources, opportunities or luck should not get to eat at all. (He's setting up a false dichotomy. Either you eat steak whenever you want, or you shouldn't eat at all. This is not capitalism in any sense of the word.)

There is something obscene in the notion that a person can work full time for a multinational corporation and earn not enough to keep a roof over his head or food on his table. (He provides us with an extreme hypothetical. Are there such people? What do we really know about their finances or lifestyle? Mr. Pitts is simply tossing out a rhetorical empty suit.) 

The so-called safety net by which we supposedly protect the poor ought to be a solid floor, a level of basic sustenance through which we, as moral people, allow no one to fall -- particularly if their penury is through no fault of their own. (Which we already have in this country. As is typical for the Left, their pet causes have never been addressed. Today is a new day, nothing has been done, and their solutions have never been tried. 

But notice that he speaks of the "we." Once again I must note that "we" never means you and I. There is a moral imperative to help the poor, so Mr. Pitts, get out your checkbook and I'll get out mine. But "we" does not equal government. It should be quite clear that government has failed in the compassion arena. We don't need more of the same.)

Maybe you regard that opinion as radical and extremist. (No, not at all, until you make the logical leap from "we" to "government" as if they are synonymous.) 

Maybe it is. But if so, I am in excellent company. (So now the next logical leap is an Appeal To Authority. Apparently if Mr. Pitts can dredge up some Big Names that support his thesis, that legitimatizes and confirms his opinions.)

Martin Luther King, for instance, mused that "there must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism." (Dr. King, for all his greatness, was wrong about this.)

The Apostle Paul (Here comes the Scripture references, likely misrepresented or twisted. But regardless, I thought that there is supposed to be a "wall of separation" between church and state. Is Mr. Pitts suggesting we impose religion on the government?)

writes in 2 Corinthians 8:13-15, that it's wrong for some to live lives of ease while others struggle. "The goal is equality, as it is written: 'The one who gathered much did not have too much and the one who gathered little did not have too little.'" (Let's see what he missed in the context. A couple of verses earlier we read, "For if the willingness is there, the gift is acceptable according to what one has, not according to what he does not have. Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality." The Apostle Paul is writing about giving to the ministry, and how it is difficult for some while it is easier for others! There is no mention of government making things equal, however.) 

In Acts 4:32, Luke writes approvingly of the early church that: "No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had." (Yes, the early church was this way. They voluntarily gave to those in need. So, is Mr. Pitts suggesting that the Acts church be a model for the government?)

Which brings us to the pope -- and Rush Limbaugh. As you may have heard, the former has issued his first Apostolic Exhortation, The Joy of the Gospel, in which, among other things, he attacks the free market and what he calls an "economics of exclusion." This had the latter up in arms last week on his radio show.

Pope Francis writes that poverty must be "radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality ..."

"This is astounding ... and it's sad," says Limbaugh. "It's actually unbelievable." (Aaaand... The Pope is wrong and Rush is right. Rush's full transcript is below. Too bad Mr. Pitts didn't actually read it. At least it seems pretty clear that he didn't.)

"How can it be that it is not a news item," writes the pope, "when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?" (Um, calling Mr. Pitts. The Pope is criticizing your industry.)

"This is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the pope," fumes Limbaugh. (True again.)

Trickle-down economics, writes the pontiff, "expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power ..." (So the Pope clearly doesn't understand economics. Maybe he ought to stick to religion.)

Maybe, says Limbaugh, his words were deliberately mistranslated by "the left." No, seriously, he said that. (This is not what Mr. Limbaugh said. Read it below.)

But then, some of us are fine with faith so long as it speaks in platitudinous generalities or offers a weapon to clobber gay people with, but scream bloody murder when it imposes specific demands on their personal conscience -- or wallet. (Hardly. What people object to is the clear idiocy of the Pope in this circumstance, coupled with the Left's continuing idiocy masquerading as compassion.)

It is perfect that all this unfolds in the season of thanksgiving, faith and joy, as people punch, stun gun and shoot one another over HDTVs and iPads and protesters demand what ought to be the bare minimum of any full-time job: wages sufficient to live on. (Yeah, isn't it interesting how these unemployment extensions and food stamp bills are all timed to coincide with Christmas? I wonder why that might be? In addition, someone purchasing an iPad or a T.V. has absolutely nothing to do with what poor people ought to have.)

This is thanksgiving, faith and joy? No. It is fresh, albeit redundant evidence of our greed -- and of how wholeheartedly we have bought into the lie that fulfillment is found in the things we own. ("Our greed," which is a moral failing. Mr. Pitts is happy to invoke government power to correct.)

Some of us disagree. Some us feel that until the hungry one is fed and the naked one clothed, the best of us is unfulfilled, no matter how many HDTVs and iPads he owns. (So get out your checkbook, Mr. Pitts. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT instead of whining about government programs.) 

This is the radical, extremist ideal embraced by the human rights icon, the Gospel writers, (The Apostle Paul is not a Gospel writer.)

the Bishop of Rome -- and me. (This radical idea, that is, government should take money from the people who earned it and give it to people who did not. That, sir, is immoral. There is no doubt that Saint Luke, the Apostle Paul, and Jesus himself would identify such a thing as theft.)

Leonard Pitts Jr. is a Miami Herald columnist.

Full transcript of Rush's remarks:

Tea party hardly the backbone of society - letter by Dan Lourie

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
------------------------------------
(Mr. Lourie has a long and ignoble history, as previously chronicled on these blog pages. So it should be no surprise that his reappearance here is to further document his ignominy. In today's letter he responds to one written by Debbie Moran.
-----------------------------
First, Ms. Moran's letter:

In light of recent irresponsible comments about the Tea Party, I thought I’d take a moment to explain who we are.

We are salt-of-the-earth, hard-working Americans who have pride in and love our country. We are a generous people, who quietly give to those that need a hand up. We treat one another with respect and dignity and believe we are all created equal.

Many are business owners who are truly concerned about how they will be able to stay in business and provide good-paying jobs and health insurance for their employees. With Obamacare, the EPA and the many other regulations coming from the government that are being forced upon us, the costs are simply too much.

We feel it is our duty to stand up and protect the freedoms and pass on the same opportunities to the generations that follow. We don’t want to leave our children and grandchildren with an unsustainable debt. It is immoral and puts their future in grave danger.

We are for all Americans to be given the opportunity to succeed in life; we are for a free-market healthcare system that is affordable and provide for those that were falling through the cracks. We are for being good stewards of our land while taking advantage of the vast energy resources. We are for protecting our Constitution.

We realize that the people who want to control every aspect of our lives and want us to sell our soul and livelihood for small handouts from the government will attack us and make us out to be the enemy and something we are not. The truth will eventually shine through. We are the backbone of a free and prosperous society.

Debbie Moran, Belgrade

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

(Before you read his reply, let me note that Mr. Lourie is simply giving us a verbatim regurgitation of a "cheat sheet" offered to liberals, to be used to steer Thanksgiving conversations. This is so incredible that I'm reposting the cheet sheat:




Now for Mr. Lourie's reply: 

Astonishment describes my reaction to the Belgrade letter writer’s praise for the tea party. This “backbone of a free and prosperous society” has been a late night punch line for two years, heaped with ridicule for its machiavellian agenda, scorned for shutting down the government idling 800,000 workers, and decried for its pernicious political theater. The “respect and dignity” ascribed to these extremists, depicting them as “good stewards of our land” belies an agenda rejecting the wishes of a large majority of voters.

Tea party-led Republicans, including Montana’s Steve Daines, have voted more than 40 times to repeal health care reform, and have cost our economy $24 billion by shutting down the government. Americans favor keeping “Obamacare” by a 20 point margin (58 percent to 38 percent.) It has already saved seniors $8.9 billion in prescription drug costs, $1,209/ person.

They blocked raising the minimum wage to $10/hour, which would increase income for 30 million Americans, 40 percent of whom today earn less than the 1968 minimum wage. (“Generous people?” “Treating one another with respect and dignity?”) Tea party-led Republicans voted against closing loopholes rewarding corporations shipping American jobs overseas. They overruled 63 percent of Americans, across party lines, who support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Tea partier Paul Ryan’s budget slashes Pell Grants, will likely give millionaires a $245,000 average tax break. Middle-class families would, on average, pay an additional $3,000 in taxes. Eighty-nine percent of Americans support background checks for all gun buyers; “salt of the earth” Tea partiers rejected them. Tea partiers voted against the Violence Against Women Act and targeted birth control access in their shutdown extortion. They refused to vote on ENDA, which would protect LGBT Americans from workplace discrimination.

Clearly, tea partiers have proven themselves the antithesis of “the backbone of a prosperous society.”

(I have asserted many times before that Leftists simply repeat talking points. They mindlessly spew what they've been told with nary a critical thought process applied. So here we see, in stark detail, that I am proved correct. 

Not only does Mr. Lourie repeat talking points, he copied them, in order, to the last detail, and submitted it as a letter to the editor. Mr. Laurie is so intellectually lazy, such a mind-numbed robot, so much a Pavlov's dog, that he can't even come up with an original letter to submit!

Having done this, we realize that nothing in his letter can possibly be aimed at refuting Ms. Moran. In fact, he had no intention of doing so.

This may explain why leftists have such difficulty refuting their interlocutors, preferring to spout slogans and hateful invective. I suspect they simply don't have the capacity to respond without having received their marching orders.)

Battling Blight City officials tackle dilapidated buildings - by Erin Schattauer

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

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

When I first read this I thought of armed patrols moving through neighborhoods to ensure compliance. Of course that is the extreme manifestation of what happens when government starts deploying code enforcement officers. Nevertheless, we are talking about degrees here. If the City can implement its enforcement capability on dilapidated structures, is there any enumerated limit to its enforcement capability regarding other municipal code violators? 

Yeah, I know, it's crazy talk. It's never happened in history. There are no cities in the U.S. that force people to separate their recyclables, tell people they can't hold Bible studies in their houses, force children to stop selling lemonade, or close down charitable food kitchens. No, that stuff never happens.

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

The white paint started peeling away years ago. Graffiti started showing up. And police have seen signs of transients and squatters on more than one occasion.

For the big white house at 305 W. Peach St., these are just a few of the signs that the home hasn’t been cared for in years.

City documents state that on 11 separate occasions between August 2008 and June 2012, city zoning officers, Bozeman police and the city’s historic preservation officer contacted the property management company, the owner and bank officials about the house.

Eventually, the city building department paid $1,600 to board up the house.

The city is taking steps to deal with neglected buildings, whether it’s an abandoned home or a historic structure that has been left to rot.

Crafting a demolition by neglect ordinance is on the City Commission’s to-do list for 2013-2014. (So if you ignore the City long enough regarding your well-worn tool shed, they will at some point come in and tear it down. They will COME ON TO YOUR PROPERTY and destroy a non-complying building!)

In October, city staff presented findings to the commission and recommended it allows new programs and existing codes to address dilapidated, nuisance and unsafe structures in the city.

A building fits under the city’s definition for demolition by neglect if it is “unsecured, not weather tight and attracts nuisance behavior.”

“We don’t go out and actively ensure that buildings aren’t being neglected,” historic preservation officer Courtney Kramer said. (Whew, that's a relief. Um, wait. Do they not do this because they can't by law, or because they just don't have the staff? Would they go out and do this if they could?)

Calls about neglected buildings and properties usually come from neighbors or other residents.

“Most of our complaints are all called in by the public. It’s a very reactive position, which means (city staff members) are not going out there looking for it, they’re responding to complaints,” Bozeman Police Capt. Mark Johnson said. (The second time this point has been made. Are they trying to reassure us of something?)

One piece of the puzzle in addressing demolition by neglect was hiring a quality of life officer. (Actually, Code Compliance Officer. Or at least I think so. There is no mention of a "quality of life officer" in the Municipal code. This language is found in the building permits and building codes section of the Municipal Code:

Sec. 38.34.160. Violation; penalty; assisting or abetting; additional remedies.
The effective enforcement of adopted standards is necessary to accomplish their intended purpose. The city has a variety of options for the enforcement of this chapter. The planning director shall select the option which in their opinion is most suitable to the circumstance and violation. More than one enforcement option may be used to attain compliance with the standards of this chapter when deemed appropriate.
A.
Violation of the provisions of this chapter or failure to comply with any of its requirements including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with the grant of variances or conditional uses or any of the required conditions imposed by the review authority shall constitute a misdemeanor. Any person who violates this chapter or fails to comply with any of its requirements shall upon conviction thereof be fined or imprisoned or both, either as set forth in state law regarding subdivision and zoning, or in accordance with 1.01.210, and in addition shall pay all costs and expenses involved in the case except as stated in subsection D of this section.
1.
Each day such violation continues shall be considered a separate offense and punishable as such.
2.
For violations relating to plats each sale, lease or transfer of each separate parcel of land in violation of any provision of these regulations or the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense.
B.
The code compliance officer is authorized to issue a notice to appear under the provisions of MCA 46-6-310 to any violator of this chapter.
C.
The owner or tenant of any building, structure, premises or part thereof, and any architect, builder, contractor, agent or other person who commits, participates in, assists or maintains such violation may each be found guilty of a separate offense and suffer the penalties herein provided.
D.
If transfers not in accordance with these regulations or the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act are made, the city attorney shall commence action to enjoin further sales or transfers and compel compliance with all provisions of these regulations. The cost of the action must be imposed against the party not prevailing.
E.
When a violation has not been corrected by the property owner after written notice from the city, the enforcement officer or planning director may seek approval for filing at the county clerk and recorder's office a notice of violation or noncompliance. Such notice shall serve to advise potential purchasers of existing violations of this chapter or of on-going enforcement actions regarding a property. Such notice shall clearly state that the parcel or development on the parcel is in violation of this chapter and that correction of the violation must be made prior to the city approving additional development or redevelopment of the site. The notice shall also describe the nature of the violation and applicable citations to the relevant sections of this chapter.
1.
When such a notice is to be filed the enforcement officer shall either:
a.
Through the office of the city attorney bring an action for civil and/or injunctive relief that requests a court order to record a notice of violation or noncompliance; or
b.
Schedule a public meeting to be held before the city commission with the intention of receiving an order from the city commission confirming the validity of the violation and the need for correction, and authorizing the recording of the notice of violation or noncompliance. Notice of such a hearing shall be provided as required by article 40 of this chapter.
2.
When a violation has been corrected for which a notice of violation or noncompliance was filed, the city shall record a release of noncompliance indicating that the prior violation has been corrected. The property owner is responsible for notifying the planning department in writing of the correction of the violation or noncompliance. Upon receipt of such notification by the property owner, the enforcement officer shall conduct an inspection to verify correction prior to the recording of the release.
F.
The city may maintain an action or proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction to compel compliance with or to restrain by injunction the violation of, any provision of this chapter.
G.
Violation of this chapter is a municipal infraction and may be punishable by a civil penalty as provided in section 24.02.040, in addition to other remedies of this section except that the court shall impose the following minimum civil penalties.
1.
Each day such violation continues shall be considered a separate offense and punishable as such. The minimum civil penalty for violation of this chapter by the same person for the same violation within a 12-month period shall be:
a.
First citation: $100.00.
b.
Second citation: $150.00.
c.
Third and subsequent citations: $200.00.
d.
The determining factor with respect to the civil penalty is the receipt of service of the citation and not the judgment.
H.
Nothing herein contained shall prevent the city from taking such other lawful action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation.
I.
Upon resolution of an identified instance of noncompliance with the standards of this chapter the city may record a document with the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder to give notice of the resolution of the noncompliance.
(Ord. No. 1645, § 18.64.160, 8-15-2005; Ord. No. 1693, § 23(18.64.160), 2-20-2007; Ord. No. 1761, exh. M(18.64.160), 7-6-2009; Ord. No. 1804, § 13, 7-11-2011; Ord. No. 1828, § 101, 9-10-2012)

The position was filled in July, but the first person that held the job has since left.

Another person was recently hired. Mark Carpenter has been on the job for a few weeks.

The quality of life officer, or code enforcement officer, (This Orwellian name is so much gentler sounding. However, if you search for "quality of life officer" you will not find one. Same with "Code enforcement officer.") as the police department refers to it, is a non-sworn civilian officer who responds to calls, addresses quality of life issues and can issue citations.

The city is streamlining the process to report complaints. The police department is working to get a number specifically for people to call in complaints. Right now, callers sometimes get passed around to different departments when they call in a complaint, Johnson said. “So we can have kind of a one-stop shop where people can call with their complaints and Mark (Carpenter) will know how to handle them or what department handles it,” he said.

Johnson cites the West Peach Street house as one of the properties that the city has worked to address.

“We just worked with the bank that owned the property…and got them to make it safe,” he said of getting the house boarded up.

He also cited a dilapidated garage on the south side of town that was falling down with its roof caved in.

“I was aware of the structure falling down. It was a quality of life issue. (This must be the buzz phrase de jour. Government loves those innocuous sounding euphemisms.)  It looked bad to neighbors walking by. It was a safety hazard, too,” he said.

The owner was contacted and within a week’s time the garage was torn down, he said.

The city also worked with owners when they received reports of children trespassing at the old Story Mill.

“That’s kind of how our role is, to problem solve and work with owners,” Johnson said.

Moving forward, city staff made four recommendations to the City Commission:

Educate residents about the risk factors for neglect, the nuisance codes and how the quality of life officer will act as a point of contact (A little indoctrination never hurt anyone.)

Share information with the quality of life officer, neighborhood groups and nonprofits regarding available resources (Share. How generous. They just want to "share" information, so as to "educate" us.)

Give these initiatives time to develop before evaluating effectiveness, and reevaluate in 18 months

Continue to use the quality of life officer as the point of contact for neglected properties and give the officer time to get up and running

At this point, the initiative focuses mainly on evaluating the city’s existing tools and making them more effective. (Ahhh. There we have it. "At this point" means that this is what they will do for now, but more is coming. What that "more" might be is anyone's guess, but you can be sure that "sharing" will morph into "requiring.")

Kramer said a lot can be done to proactively tackle the problem by providing people with information about available resources.

Erin Schattauer can be reached at 582-2628 or eschattauer@dailychronicle.com.