Mountain Man Trails

Virtuous government vs. evil business: FB conversation

2012-01-27T08:11:00.002-07:00

I posted this: Arizona governor Jan Brewer is being eviscerated for her "rude" greeting of Obama on the tarmac. Here's the raw video. It is clear that Brewer greeted Obama very cordially, so it is clear that Brewer was not being rude, at least initially.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mRhJwjwXqc&feature=player_embedded
www.youtube.com

S.B.: As an Obama supporter, I think way too much was made of this. The usual media fascination with the trivial over the profound.

Me: Agreed, trivial. However, the issue I'm interested in is how this always seems to go in favor of the most liberal of the parties involved. Remember that debate in NY with then-senator Clinton, when her opponent was accused of accosting her during the debate? Or how about the Giffords shooting in AZ, when civility was demanded from conservatives?

S.B.: I keep telling you, rich - reality has a liberal bias.

Me: ‎"What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."

I am confident that if you take the red pill you will come around someday.

S.B.: There are not enough drugs in the world to turn me into a conservative, my friend.

Me: Not a conservative. Free your mind, Neo. It's NOT conservative vs. liberal, it's us vs. government. Us vs. the entrenched power structure. Us vs. the opponents of choice and liberty.

J.S.: Her state is being SUED by the FEDS because AZ law is enforcing FED law. If the FED would do what it is SUPPOSED to, AZ would not have to do what it HAS to do, which is PROTECTING its citizens and not having their budget wrecked because of ILLEGAL activities. GEEZ. Liberals PANDER to the ILLEGALS and their allies to get the PANDER VOTE! I think part of the PROBLEM is the DRUGS that were taken before CLASS in COLLEGE and actually absorb the liberal professors anti American ideas they spew....(was that my outside voice?)

S.B.: lol. wanna compare blood tests?

S.B.: And Rich -- I am PART of the government. Proudly. I turned down jobs with Dow, DuPont, IBM, and Reynolds' Aluminum so that I could work on things that would matter more to the world than simply helping the bottom line.

28 years later, I don't regret it one bit.

Me: C'mon, Scott, I think you know what I am talking about. You don't have regulatory enforcement duties. You don't make laws. You don't collect taxes from people. You don't have any power to take peoples' freedom from them.

Then unfortunately you present a false choice, that is, "helping" people vs. "the bottom line," as if only government does good, and private business is evil. That is callow and insipid, quite beneath you, Scott.

S.B.: Rich -- no, it's not an "either/or" choice -- but I have felt, quite sincerely, that protecting the environment and developing alternate forms of energy, and more recently working on counter terrorism research that helps prevent (for example) the import of dirty bombs into this country, has been MORE socially useful than, say, helping IBM make better disk drives, Dow make pesticides more profitably, or Reynolds to move their aluminum smelters offshore.

All of those things have some value, perhaps (though, the Dow job that was offered was questionable in that regard). But my friends in the private sector often bemoan the fact that all their technical decisions are driven by the bottom line -- not always leading to results that were really optimal from the view of society as a whole.

My point isnt' that private sector business is bad and government is good, but rather that I happen to truly believe in what I do as a government employee, and I don't think I could work up as much enthusiasm for something as boring as simply making money.

Me: You deny the false choice, then reassert it.

Word usage, a failure to communicate

2012-01-26T13:10:00.004-07:00

It seems to me that the language is being diluted and corrupted in this modern age. I received this memo regarding a sales incentive being offered by one of my carriers. Notice the use of the word incent:

This word is a neologism, which according to wikipedia is "a newly coined term, word, or phrase, that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language." Ordinarily I might be agreeable to new words being needed to express new concepts, but this particular example strikes me a either illiterate or lazy.

The word does not improve the language. It is annoying. There is a readable way to express the same thought: "The CSR campaign is designed to provide incentive..."

Also note the phrase "target market business retains longer." What exactly does it retain? Water? Structural integrity? A sense of confidence? The correct phrasing, of course, is "target market business is retained longer."

I suppose I could get into a discussion of the think-speak that goes on in politics, like referring to taxes as contributions, but I don't have the time right now.

THE JOY OF DOING NOTHING - R..T. Kendall

2012-01-24T14:43:00.002-07:00

(I have made some deletions for brevity)

So far we have been thinking a great deal about what we can do in worship - admittedly in response to the Holy Spirit - but nevertheless our actions of praying, praising, listening, loving and obeying. And of course there is nothing wrong with that. But there is a much deeper level of worship, one in which we are unable to express ourselves verbally or non-verbally - where we are utterly passive. The highest and most intense worship takes place when we can do nothing but be amazed, when we are rendered helpless and speechless with wonder and gratitude, when we just sit back and watch God work. This is what Isaiah is talking about when he says, "For thus saith the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel; In returning and rest shall ye be saved~ in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength." (19: 30:15).

In worship at this depth we are kept from even saying, "Thank you." For, at the risk of being misunderstood, I am prepared to say that our gratitude sometimes gets in the way of praise. Gratitude can be an attempt to get the balance even again: Probably you have experienced on a human level something of what I am getting at. Someone does something for you, and you know very well that he or she wants you to be thankful, and you are, so you express your gratitude. You try to be extremely thankful so that this person will really see how you feel. Or you try to return the favour in some way. This gives you a feeling of satisfaction.

Have you ever been placed in a situation in which there was nothing you could say or do? Someone did something immensely wonderful and you weren't able to do anything but feel grateful? Perhaps the person went away, and you wished you could find him or her to say how much you appreciated what was done. And maybe you felt frustrated, and some of your joy was taken away because it was not possible to express your gratitude. On the natural level, we always feel that we must do something.

But Isaiah says that our salvation lies in the fact that we do nothing: "In returning and rest shall ye be saved." I did not say that we feel nothing, but that we do nothing. This, says Isaiah, is the best way to live - the way God wants us to live. It constitutes the greatest joy there is. And even though we are rendered helpless - as though we are just standing there with our mouth wide open - God sees how we feel and knows that we are grateful.

Yet, though this is what God wanted, the people Isaiah was speaking to would not do this. It reads: ". . . in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength: and ye would not." The people wanted to "do" instead. They said, "No; for we will flee upon horses… We will ride upon the swift." And that's the way so many of us are. We can’t imagine getting satisfaction from anything but doing. We must be always working – always on the go. We feel guilty if we are not on the move.

Isaiah 30:15 is set in the context of a solemn rebuke. The people of Israel thought that they had better ideas than God on how to fight their battles - and they had actually turned to Egypt for help. The chapter begins, "Woe to the rebellious children, saith the Lord, that take counsel, but not of me… That walk to go down into Egypt, and have not asked at my mouth; to strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh, and to trust in the shadow of Egypt!" (vv. 1-2). They thought that God would understand if they turned to the resources of Egypt for help to fight his battles. They wouldn't listen when God said, "This is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the Lord" (v.9). They only wanted to hear pleasant things. Verse 10 says they were a people "which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits."

As a result, although they claimed that they were doing the Lord's work, they were really rejecting the Holy One of Israel. And the Lord said to them, "Therefore this iniquity shall be to you as a breach ready to fall, swelling out in a high wall, whose breaking cometh suddenly at an instant." (v.13). They would be destroyed as completely as pottery breaks in pieces: "And he [God] shall break it as the breaking of the potters' vessel that is broken in pieces; he shall not spare: so that there shall not be found in the bursting of it a shard to take fire from the hearth" (v.14).

Our Christian life must be lived without confidence in works. I don't mean it's to be lived without works, but it is to be lived without relying on what we do to get God's approval. We must not feel conscious of any good we are doing, but must consider that what we are doing is nothing. Jesus said, "But when thou doeth alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth' (Matt. 6:3). And Paul says in Galatians 2:20: "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life I now'live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son who loved me, and gave himself for me." As long as we are so impertinent as to conclude that we are saved because we do good things – then we grieve the Spirit and cut ourselves off from the joy which can be ours by trusting in his word alone.

If we are living in frustration and bondage, always checking our spiritual pulse to see whether or not God loves us, and whether we are saved, we show that we are only looking to ourselves. As Calvin said, "If you contemplate yourself, that is sure damnation." It is idolatry, for it shows we are not looking to God. God just wants us to believe his word. And his word says that if we look to him we are saved. "There is life in a look," said Spurgeon.

When we are in heaven singing the praises of God we will know that God did it all from start to finish. But Isaiah’s point it: see this now. Live like this now. Because that is where our strength in living lies. When some people get to heaven and finally realize that they were saved by grace alone, they will look back and think of all the guilt and frustration they went through here below, all their anxiety and rushing about, all their questioning, "Am I a Christian?," and will see just how useless it all was.

After years and years of the Christian life many people still worry about whether they are really Christians. But this is of the devil. He tries to paralyze us and keep us looking inward for our confidence. Whereas if we settled it once and for all by trusting God's word, we could get on with our life and with worshipping God. Don't wait until you get to heaven to find out that you were saved all along! See it now and it will change your whole lifestyle. You will see God work in a manner that you never dreamed of!

I fear also that so much of our worship today is motivated by self-righteousnes. We sing our hymns and pray pious prayers and tell God how much we love him. Hen we leave the church feeling really good inside – but it makes God sick We are like the person who talks about himself all the time; he may enjoyn it, but everyone else is thoroughly fed up!

We may get a good feeling out of saying, `Lord, I love you.' But he sees right through us. So much of our worship is aimed at getting a good feeling for ourselves. We think we have shown God how much we love him, or we feel we have paid our dues, as it were, or have gained some leverage with God by going to church.

Isaiah very much wanted the people to enjoy hearing the voice of God: The way to do this is rest! Hebrews 4:10 says, "For he that is entered into his rest, he alsoe hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his." And the key phrase here is, "from his own works." We need to stop feeling the need to be always on the go. We must stop getting our joy from being involved. If we are frustrated and burnt out, then there is no trust. But when we cease from our work and just do nothing - then we see that God likes us just the way we are - and that is when we worship!

Do we think that we are only important to God when we are doing something? This is the way God wants us to live. When someone does something wonderful for us, we may not always be able to thank them, and they'll never know how we feel. But with God we can be left in awe, and he does know how we feel; He just wants us to enjoy seeing him do what he by himself alone can do.

This is far more than the first ABC of holy living. Some people are paralyzed because they have never got beyond the first steps in sanctification. The first steps are important, but we need to move beyond that level. What Isaiah is doing here – and what the Holy Spirit is doing today - is giving each of us and invitation to enter the big league.

But as long as we are always on the go, trying to bring in the kingdom by our activism, God will just fold his hands and say, "You want to do it? Go on then." Have you wondered Why God isn't working? It's because you're doing the work. So God says, "I'll just wait." And when we run ahead rather than rest, we will always be sorry. When the Israelites said, "We will flee upon horses... We will ride upon the swift," God said in effect, "You certainly will run. You'll stay on the run, and your pursuers will be swift. The day will come when you will have to look to me, and I will be gracious then to you.'"

Many people can't imagine that doing it God's way - the way of faith alone - could turn things around. Some people are running their business affairs in a way that is dishonouring to God, and they say, "Well, we live in a wicked world. We just have to do some of these little shady things." They're frustrated and in trouble because God has folded his arms and said, "Go on - you try it your way." But if they would get it right with God, he'd bless them. He may not make them millionaires, but they'll have peace - which is something they don't have now.

Some people, though they are Christians, are looking to the world for happiness. They think that by living with that worldly crowd, or by going to one more cinema or one more pub, they will somehow get satisfaction. And they justify themselves by saying, "God understands that I have needs." And God lets them do it - but they don't have peace.

There are two principles here which, if we can grasp them, will result in the kind of worship God seeks of us. The first, as we have seen from Isaiah 30:15 and Hebrews 4:10, is that of operating without any fatigue. This is what happens when we get right with God. We just come to him and do it his way. As the NIV puts it, "In repentance and rest is your salvation.” Repentance means "change of mind." It means saying, "God got it right. I agree with him."

How many people are utterly frustrated? They have tried everything and the result has only been fatique. I was talking recently to a minister who had said to me, "I've had to ask for a sabbatical. I’m burnt out." When we don't wait on God and are always trying to do things ourselves, the result is endless turmoil. But if we really want assurance of salvation, God will knock everything out from under us, untile we trust him alone.

To rest in God means that we leave everything to him. We leave it to him to put us in the right place at the right time, and with the right people at the right time, even in the right financial position at the right time. And why is this the way of no fatigue? Well, it is because we get our approval from the blood of Christ, and not from our works, and because we live by the authority of the Spirit of Christ.

The result is that we live and worship in a state of amazement, awe and admiration: which is the second principle I want us to see from Isaiah 30:15. This is because we believe the promise of I John 1:9: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." The blood of Jesus washes away our sin as though it had never been committed and a fresh beginning always follows. The result is quietness, peace and ease.

And we have quietness over the most difficult situations. Quietness over our deepest fears. For God says, "Leave it to me." We lose the desire to get even with those who have hurt us, and we feel little need to prove ourselves.

Real worship is directed towards one who doesn't want anything from us for what he has done for us. There are no strings attached: God only wants us to trust him. He wants us to experience the joy of doing nothing, nothing but resting on the fact that he loves us. God wants us just to look to him and say, "Lord, I don't know how much I love you. But I know how much you love me." Rest on that and let God love you. Then you will stand in awe.

Then to our surprise we begin to hear God's voice giving us clear instructions. As verse 21 of Isaiah 30 puts it: "Thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying: This is the way, walk ye in it." Note the order: first we rest on the fact that God loves us and then we hear him speak. It is a way of no fatigue and of continual amazement.

Mr Poole Connor, the man who founded the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches, lived into his nineties and before he died he said, `The longer I live and the older I get, the more amazed I am that God sent his Son into the world to die on a cross for my sins.'

That's the way we are saved. That's the way we are to live. And that's what will bring true worship by the Holy Spirit.

Remembering my dad - Editorial

2012-01-23T16:32:00.002-07:00

I will always admire my dad. I still haven’t quite got over his death from stomach cancer in 1997. He was a class guy, always willing to help someone in need. A man of integrity, possessing a keen sense of justice, a good sense of humor, he always defended the little guy.

I remember him being quite active in his labor union, eventually attaining the status of Shop Steward. He passionately believed that the union kept the company bigwigs in line. He was a tough negotiator, and always had his facts at hand.

Both he and my mom voted Democrat, so of course I became a Democrat. I remember in elementary school we had a mock presidential election, and I was the only one to vote for Democrat turned independent George Wallace. I was surprised that Wallace was so unpopular, because after all, my parents supported him. That Wallace was a racist didn’t even register with me.

But people change. Wallace renounced his racism. My dad also changed over time. When a black man was hired at his shop, he never blinked an eye. He set about teaching him everything he knew. The “n” word disappeared from his vocabulary, as did “ch*nk” and “J*p.” I also remember that my parents became good friends with a couple who had emigrated from Thailand.

Anyone can change. We do not have to keep hating. We do not have to remain victims of our pasts. Racists can change. Tokers, smokers and drinkers can change. Greedy CEOs can change. Gays, religionists, capitalists and communists can change. According to Jesus, sinners can change. We do not have to accept ourselves as we are, nor do we have to accept the excuses provided for us or the deceptions that captivate us.

I have changed. I was a Democrat, then a Republican, but now I know that there are no answers in politics. I used to be selfish. And stubborn. Sometimes I still am, but I am changing. God wants me to change, and I must agree with God.

When we learned of dad’s cancer, things changed again. My dad, the self-sufficient, determined, if-I-want-it-done-right-I’ll-do-it-myself kind of guy, became a mere shadow of himself. We used to crawl around underneath hotrods. We used to pull old wrecks out of farmers’ fields and trailer them to swap meets. We used to play a pretty rough game of one-on-one basketball. But no more.

My dad had stomach bypass surgery and was declining fast. Our very last conversation was about eternal things. He hated religion because of growing up in a Catholic school, but we prayed together for the first time. Yes, he had changed.

I wrote a song for him:

“The man who gave me life, and every precious thing
The main who raised me up, gave me this song to sing
After all the tears and fears, after all is said and done
I am proud to be called my father’s son.”

The night after he died I had a dream. I dreamed we were playing a rough and tumble game of one-on-one basketball. It was in the backyard of my childhood home, on our dirt driveway, shooting at a hoop my dad and I had put up together years ago.

He could always outshoot me, and I could never get past his defense. In my dream this was still true. I shot and missed, and dad ran hard after the rebound, just like he usually did.

“Dad,” I said, “shouldn’t you be taking it easy? You’re not well.” He paused, and a smile crossed his face. He looked at me with incredible compassion and love. “Son,” he said, “everything will be all right.”

I knew at that moment that I had been visited by the God of all peace and comfort. My dad could now say, “It is well with my soul.” And he was changed.

Graduated driver laws and The Nation magazine

2012-01-18T10:08:00.003-07:00

This is as close to a noble cause as I have seen from The Nation. GDL, which is graduated driver licensing, is the idea that full driving privileges are not bestowed all at once to the newly licensed driver, but are gradually broadened as the driver gains experience. Many states, including Montana, already have implemented this, and it's a good idea.

I don't want to rain on this parade, but I need to point out what's wrong with the idea. So, at the risk of being accused of being in favor of teen driving deaths, here's the problems:

1) A national law is not required, because states are already implementing laws like this.
2) Another law at the federal level further erodes state's rights.
3) The feds will not stop here. They will implement additional laws and mandates, certifications, and standards. They will tie compliance to federal funding. They will create whole new agencies filled with bureaucrats looking for ways to exert their power. And we, the taxpayer, will be footing the bill yet again.

Being big government types, it isn't surprising that The Nation looks at the issue based on the faulty government-can-solve-every problem mentality. Continued failure of government programs never seems to deter them, however.

Endless fundraising pleas from The Nation, using distortions as a tool

2012-01-16T12:35:00.004-07:00

The Nation sends me frequent appeals for donations, along with regular whoppers. Here's the latest:

"Amid all the foolishness, distortions and half-truths that pass for political discourse, is a weekly beacon that you simply won't find anywhere else. But did you know that what you see on our website is only a fraction of the opinion, analysis, insight and reporting that subscribers enjoy?

"...Consider mainstream coverage of the primaries. They'd have you believe that Mitt Romney is somehow not conservative enough for his party. editor and publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel corrected that distortion:

"'He is a champion for...private equity gamblers...buccaneer bankers...corporate raiders. He supports repealing Wall Street reforms...he favored the Republican effort to cripple the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board...he wants a weaker Environmental Protection Agency and supports anti-union right-to-work legislation.'

"Every issue of provides fresh ammunition for debunking the most prevalent myths and hogwash about: unions, regulation, alternative energy, climate change, our 'classless' society, our national debt, healthcare, taxes and more.
During the upcoming election season, get the facts from the pages of America's most fearless and independent-minded defender of democracy."

If only Romney was as conservative as they say. But what is more interesting to me is that the Left is leveling their guns on him now. I thought that they'd want him to be the nominee, because Obama would have the biggest chance to beat Romney.

Insurance coverage for Global Warming?

2012-01-13T14:13:00.003-07:00

This is from Rough Notes magazine, a periodical for insurance agents. This is a record of a court case decided in Alaska.

This issue at hand is, is there insurance coverage for liability from creating greenhouse gases? The court sanely decided that there is not, but for a tenous reason. There is an exclusion for intentional acts, so the court denied the claim. However, this leaves the door open for for rendering coverage for unintentional acts that create greenhouse gases.

Given this, it isn't too hard to imagine a person or entity getting sued for creating greenhouse gases, even if it is incidental to the situation, and having an insurance policy pay for the "loss." Since people emit carbon dioxide simply by breathing, it isn't outside the realm of possibility that they could be found liable for damaging the environment.

Troubling indeed.
------------------
Were greenhouse emissions an "occurrence"?

AES Corporation was in the business of generating and distributing electricity. It was insured under commercial general liability policies issued by Steadfast Insurance Company. In 2008, a small village called Kivalina, located on the northwest coast of Alaska, sued AES for allegedly damaging the village by intentionally conducting activities that caused global warming. According to the lawsuit, AES engaged in activities using fossil fuels that emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The emissions allegedly caused sea ice that protected the village's shoreline to form or melt earlier or later than it had in the past, causing storm surges and resulting in shoreline erosion.

AES asked Steadfast to provide a defense, which it did under a reservation of rights. The insurer then filed a declaratory judgment action claiming it did not owe AES a defense or indemnification. The lower court found that the Kivalina lawsuit did not allege an "occurrence" within the meaning of the policy and that, therefore, the allegations in the complaint were not covered by the policy. AES appealed.

The Steadfast policies provided coverage for damage that resulted from an "Occurrence." "Occurrence” was defined as "an accident, including “continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions."

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Virginia noted that when a complaint alleges only intentional acts, if the resulting harm is a natural and probable consequence of those acts, there is no accident. However, if the injury resulted from an unforeseen cause, it may be an accident. Therefore the issue on appeal was whether the lawsuit could be construed as alleging that Kivalina's damages resulted from unforeseen consequences that a reasonable person would not have expected to result from AES's deliberate act of emitting carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases.

Kivalina's complaint alleged that AES intentionally released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as a regular part of its energy-producing business. It also alleged that there was scientific agreement that these emissions could cause damage such as that suffered by Kivalina. Given these facts, the court found that AES knew or should have known the consequences of its actions, and that therefore there was no occurrence within the meaning of the policy.

The decision of the lower court was affirmed.

AES Corporation vs. Steadfast Insurance Company-No. 1007764 – Supreme Court of Virginia – September 16, 2011-2011 WI, 4139736 (Va. ).

The Montana Auditor's Office: Great Customer Service?

2012-01-11T09:35:00.011-07:00

I don't know why, but this bothered me a lot. This is a government agency, one that is charged with regulating elections, and the insurance industry in Montana, among other things.

Linda McCullough is not my grocer or my cell phone provider, she's the State Auditor.

We are not customers. A "customer" is one of the parties in a voluntary transaction known as a purchase. But there is nothing voluntary when it comes to government agencies. Government agencies make regulations, and compliance is mandatory.

The fact that Ms. McCullough has a standard of performance for her employees has nothing to do with "customer service."

Statements made regarding Tom Burnett, a commentary

2012-01-06T14:17:00.006-07:00

There has been quite a discussion going on between some local left-wing types and a conservative legislator named Tom Burnett. I am going to deal with some of the statements made by Bethany Letiecq and Billy McWilliams. First, here are several from Ms. Letiecq:

“Rep. Burnett… argued that he takes no pay or benefits for his legislative work. But that's not our issue. Burnett may be so privileged that he can afford to work for free, but that privilege has rendered him out of touch with the realities of so many in our community.”

Privilege:
a. A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste.
b. Such an advantage, immunity, or right held as a prerogative of status or rank, and exercised to the exclusion or detriment of others.

Notice the not-so-subtle use of language by Ms. Letiecq. She is attempting to make a connection between someone who has gained success by his own hard work with someone who has been given a special advantage. This is a fallacy known as Poisoning the Well (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html), that is, an attempt to discredit him as a person so that anything he might subsequently say will be colored by the mischaracterization.

The use of the term “privilege” is also being employed in an attempt to create an us-versus-them scenario, to separate him out as dangerous, foreign, an oddity, or “not like us.” For the political Left, it is a frequently employed technique to create false dichotomies between people or groups in order to create friction, while simultaneously avoiding any discussion of actual issues. At its heart it is manipulative and anti-intellectual.

“He does not believe in programs like meals on wheels or food stamps and thinks they are unnecessary and wasteful. I disagree. I work with low-income families and elders and see how hard they work to make ends meet. It is crazy that Tom does not know that elders often make decisions about buying prescription drug refills or food for their tables.”

Another frequently used technique of the Left is to conflate a government program with a beneficial activity. So if someone opposes a particular government program, they must be in favor of the problem which the program is ostensibly trying to solve. For the Left, everything revolves around government. If there is a problem, government must be the solution. There is no other possible solution.

Interestingly, Ms. Letiecq makes note of the suffering of senior citizens, yet they are universally covered by various government programs, including Social Security and Medicare. But somehow they still must choose between prescriptions and food? How could this be? If there is a government program, the problem must be deemed solved, unless of course we need even more government programs to solve the problems the government programs didn’t solve.

Beyond that, notice the use of language: “It is crazy that Tom does not know…” First some name-calling, coupled with an assumption about Tom she could not possibly know herself. He is being painted as oblivious to pain and suffering, but Ms. Letiecq is compassionate, engaged, and caring. Tom is callous and unaware, presumably because of his privilege. Again, the strategy is to neutralize Tom without ever having to deal with a substantive argument about issues.

“From Tom's perspective, he suffered, worked hard, pulled himself up from his bootstraps so he does not support social programs that have been put in place to help others in poverty.”

Ms. Letiecq uses a conjunctive adverb (“so”) to connect a proposition (“he suffered and worked hard”) to establish a conclusion (“he does not support social programs”). The conclusion is a non sequitur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)), and in fact is false. Tom is a conservative, and most conservatives oppose social programs, not because they don't want to help others in poverty, but because:

1) There is no constitutional authority for them
2) They have failed to solve any of the problems for which they were created
3) They cause all sorts of personal and societal collateral damage
4) It is unjust to force some people to serve the interests of others

Once again, it is clear that Ms. Letiecq is attempting to smear Tom by trying to connect him with an imaginary privileged class of people who are aloof and unmoved by other peoples’ suffering. The lack of evidence for this does not deter her from persisting in this false narrative.

“From my perspective, what Tom fails to address are all the programs that have been in place over the past 50 years that allowed him to succeed in business and life...to work hard and get ahead. Tom is now actively working to dismantle the very programs that helped him succeed. It takes an individual working very hard AND government programs to lift us all up. Where would we be without government support of roads, infrastructure that helped establish suburbia, and all the other programs that supported Tom's hard work?”

This is known as a Bait and Switch. Leftists commonly conflate legitimate, constitutional duties like building infrastructure, with social programs that redistribute wealth. The programs of the “last 50 years” are not the same as roads and infrastructure. Food stamps are not the same as post offices. Welfare is not the same as police officers.

Because of her governo-centric ideology, she is convinced that people just can’t succeed on their own. They need help, her kind of help. But unfortunately for her, Tom and others like him didn’t succeed because of government, they succeeded in spite of government. The fact that people succeed even yet today given the arbitrary obstacles government has placed in their path is a testimony to their dogged determination and resourcefulness, people that Ms. Letiecq seems to despise.

Also, it needs to be pointed out that a road does not discriminate between the “privileged” and the regular people. A sewer system processes everyone’s waste without regard for their status. A landfill does not require an earnings statement. All of these things are simply tools to do the business of free enterprise. There is no government intervention to determine outcomes, there is no wealth redistribution, and there is no meddling in economics when it comes to infrastructure.

In Ms. Letiecq’s mind, some people simply do not deserve what they have. She is convinced that they are not going to use their wealth correctly. They are greedy and selfish. In fact, they don’t even deserve their money, they probably obtained it by cheating people. So we need people like her implementing government programs to make sure that these evil people do not get away with depriving the needy. She believes that she has the right to determine how much people need, and if they have too much she thinks government is perfectly justified in taking it from them. You see, wealth needs to be spread around, and the government programs of the last 50 years are designed to do just that.

“His faulty world view, his blinders "privilege" him not to see how government could function to do more for all of us. In Tom's world, he is self-made and government is bad. I challenge that. He needs to own how tax dollars have benefited his life. By disavowing that, he takes a privileged perspective that suggests he is an island and never benefited from the help and service of others.”

Here we have another typical Leftist narrative, that conservatives are anti-government. As already discussed, opposing the unconstitutional activities of government is not the same thing as opposing all government. But what is really noteworthy is the nonsensical statement, “He needs to own how tax dollars have benefited his life.” Can you imagine, Tom needs to realize that the government took his own money from him in order to benefit him? He should be thankful that government doesn't trust him with his own money. One might wonder if Ms. Letiecq is actually thinking about what she is writing!

She also employs another Bait and Switch. She conflates Tom’s accomplishments and self-sufficiency with the idea that he believes he has never benefited from the "help and service of others.” She cannot know this, of course, but it doesn’t stop her from using it as a bludgeon to impugn him. Beyond that, however, is that I do not know of any conservative who believes that they are an island and have never benefited from others. This again is a non-sequitur. Conservatives believe that it is the responsibility of individuals to help others by freely choosing to share of their time, knowledge, and wealth. This is not the same a government program.

Billy McWilliams writes this:

“I agree with you that a discussion on his voting record is sorely needed. I'm certain it would show he has voted against the values of his district, both financially and morally.”

1) There is no such thing as a district having values. People have values, not entities.
2) He assumes that government programs are definitively moral, and if you oppose a government program, you are immoral.
3) He makes a statement of morality, but whose morality is he referring to? And why is it now ok to impose this morality on others, even using the force of government to accomplish it? And what about the Leftist axiom, “you can’t legislate morality?”
4) What are financial values? Mr. McWilliams is throwing out fine sounding phrases that have no meaning but are designed to elicit an emotional response. Implied is that Tom is immoral and is violating some sort of unspoken standards, standards that are determined by MR. McWilliams. We are left to guess what they might be.

“I'm proud of working with Bethany [Letiecq] who is a principled teacher who lives her values and wants to fight for a better Montana. Finally, tell me exactly why Rep Burnett not taking pay is a virtue? (And that hasn't been confirmed.)"

What does “living her values” mean? By what critieria is he deciding that Ms. Letiecq’s values are superior, and how does he know that, by implication, she is doing a better job living her values than Tom is? And why is it noble to live one’s values? I thought it was virtuous to compromise, to be open to new ideas, to be ready to change? When someone lives their values, aren’t they committed to a certain unwavering standard? And here I thought that it was conservatives who were dogmatic.

Mr. McWilliams asks why not taking pay is a virtue. This is an interesting question, which tells us much about the mindset of big government true believers. Mr. McWilliams apparently cannot conceive of a scenario where someone who is entitled to suckle off the government teat would not do so. He doesn’t understand that the money Tom declines is money that came from someone else's pocket. He thinks that there is something wrong with someone who turns down free money. He doesn’t get how people who make a life for themselves, could be repulsed by the idea of receiving money that was taken from someone else.

Mr. McWilliams then takes a petty, small-minded shot at Tom: “And that hasn’t been confirmed.” Until it is confirmed, well, Tom is assumed to be a liar. Here we have a glimpse of the hatred that the Left has for those who disagree with their big government philosophy. Conservatives are evil, they steal and cheat and lie. They vote against the values of people, and won’t even take government money.

These comments are a target-rich environment. It’s time we conservatives learned how the Left manipulates the language, how they engage in misdirection, and how they misrepresent the views of their opposition. The country will be better off for it.

INTRODUCING WORSHIP By Jim Cornwall

2012-01-05T10:57:00.002-07:00

INTRODUCING WORSHIP
By Jim Cornwall

Scottsdale Worship Center
6508 E Cactus Rd
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
(602) 483-2401

Several years ago when I founded Scottsdale Worship Center, one of my first considerations was a proper name for the church. I had determined that this church would be a worshiping church, and since it was located in Scottsdale, Scottsdale Worship Center seemed to be a logical choice.

One of the distinctives of our church is our emphasis on public worship. Every service includes a time not only of singing, but of praising vocally and physically. We recognize that the Bible declares: "'Lift up your hands in the sanctuary, and bless the LORD" (Psalm 1334:2); "O clap your hands, all ye people; shout unto God with the voice of triumph" (Psalm 47:1), and "Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs" (Palm 150:4).

Every Sunday, as part of my call to worship, I tell the visitors that we may worship God differently from the way they worship. I ask them to be tolerant with us and tell them that we, in turn, will not insist that they join us in our method of worship. I only ask that in whatever way they are comfortable, they praise the Lord with us.

I have found that many persons enjoy the liberty of our worship, but they do not understand why we worship God with such enthusiasm. My simple answer is, "God has commanded it." It is my goal, in writing this booklet, to give the reader a broader understanding of why we worship as we do.

It may be comforting to you to know that my first reaction to a praise based worship service was one of distress. I had many mixed feelings because the style of worship was so different from mine. As I watched, however, I soon realized that I was among people who truly knew how to worship God. I sensed they had moved to a level far beyond my own experience. In all honesty, I finally cried out to the Lord, "I don't know how to worship!"

"But I do," the Holy Spirit seemed to say to me, "and I will teach you if you will let Me."

I must confess I didn't learn how to worship in just one service. But the Holy Spirit was very patient with me, and I was willing to learn. I found my level of worship rising as the months went by. The more I saw of God's loving and holy character, the more I wanted to worship Him with greater freedom.

Sometimes we are unaware of the effect that our nature, culture, and training can have on our spiritual lives. The essence of this world, and our old sin nature, strongly resist -and resent- real freedom in worship. We feel strange and uneasy about any outward display of devotion to God.

True, we may be comfortable with certain forms of worship if we are familiar with them. We hold back, however, when faced with a freedom in worship that goes beyond our past religious training or experience.

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of worship. As our teacher and motivator, He deeply wants to move us on to higher levels of worship. It is God's Spirit that enables us to cry, "Abba Father" - the happy cry of a little child to his father. It is hard, however, for the proud minds of men and women to take on the humble, obedient attitude of a little child. Let me discuss with you the who, when, and why of worship and four basic factors of worship.

THE WHO OF WORSHIP

Through the prophet, God declared: "All flesh shall come to worship before Me, saith the Lord" (Isaiah 66:23). This is not merely a declaration of universal worship; it affirms that God will be the sole object of that worship.

"To worship or not to worship" has never been the question, for all God's created beings are inherently worshippers. Heaven is full of worship. It is the stuff of which heaven is made. The book of Revelation progressively shows worship being performed by every inhabitant of heaven, including mankind.

No matter how vehemently he or she may deny it, each person on earth is instinctively a worshipper. It is in his genetic strain! No, the issue has never been shall we worship or not? It is more consistently a question of who, when, and why shall we worship?

The object of our worship is the greatest point of controversy in worship. According to Isaiah 14, Lucifer's fall was perpetrated because of high-level pride that caused him to desire to become the object of heaven's worship. He has never lost this aspiration. From his temptation of Eve in Eden to the temptation of Christ in the wilderness, Satan consistently recruited worshippers from among earth's inhabitants, and he still does.

Satan so greatly desired the worship of Christ that he offered Him full control of this earth and all of its inhabitants in exchange for it. Some have seen an opportunity for Christ to have bypassed the cross through this act; restoring man to God's dominion without the ignominy of becoming sin and suffering Calvary. This proposed "shortcut" was probably the root of that temptation.

Jesus beautifully withstood the temptation by paraphrasing Deuteronomy 6:13: "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve" (Matthew 4:10). These few words of Jesus cut right to the core of our main problem with worship -- the person to be worshipped and the priority of worship.

As to the person of worship, all fundamental Bible-believing Christians agree with Jesus that God the Father is the only acceptable object of worship. They know about God's expressed hatred of idol worship and have read in the Old Testament of God's repeated punishment of those who worshipped anything besides the true and living God. They accept, intellectually at least, God's demand for a monopoly upon their worship.

Most of these have also memorized Christ's pointed statement on worship from John 4:23: "The hour cometh and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth." And yet for all of their mental acquiescence to God's exclusive rights to their worship, even a casual observer will discover fundamental Christians offering worship to lesser gods in their lives.

If we will accept the dictionary's definition of worship as: "to adore, to revere, to exalt, to magnify, to dote, to admire, or to esteem," then it becomes quite obvious that many Christians worship, to a lesser extent perhaps, many things that are beneath the image of God.

Some exalt their denomination in a manner that at least borders on worship. Others dote dangerously on their pastor, while still others magnify a doctrinal truth almost to the place of God himself.

We've all seen people, even God-fearing saints, who so loved their possessions as to become worshippers of them, and others have disgusted us as they became worshippers of themselves.

Not that anyone intends for his affections to get out of control and direct his or her worship to something less than God, but still it happens all too frequently. For what we love will soon become what we worship, since worship is merely an expression of love in its highest form. Perhaps this is why the Bible so clearly commands us: "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him" (I John 2:15).

So the key to maintaining the Divine monopoly in worship is to: "Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength…" (Mark 12:30). When everything within us loves God fully, He alone will be the object of our worship. Otherwise, we will be as vacillating in our worship as we are in our loving. To worship the Lord exclusively leaves no room for other objects of homage. He will be Lord of all or not Lord at all.

When the Anglican marriage ceremony asks the man to vow to his bride: "and with my body I worship thee…" it exemplifies how easily we can move from love and adoration to reverence and veneration - worship! It seems that idolatry is inherent in each of us, for worshipping something short of God is always easier than worshipping God Himself. We find it easier to relate and respond to the intangible; to the seen than to the unseen. Yet God is the only truly acceptable object of our worship - "Him only."

THE WHEN OF WORSHIP

Still, in reminding Satan that God the Father was the exclusive object of worship, Christ also established the divine priority of worship over service in saying: "Thou shalt worship... and thou shalt serve." Worship first; service second. Until we have fulfilled the worship requirement, we cannot serve properly. All service must flow out of worship lest it become a substitute for worship. We learned long ago that God will curse a substitute, but may well bless a supplement.

Nothing can acceptably substitute worship. Consider the plight of the widower who hires a housekeeper, a cook, and a nurse for his children. He is being served very acceptably, but does this substitute for the love of his deceased wife? Of course not! Neither does our service substitute for loving God in worship.

Still, service is part of our Christian walk. It is not an either/or situation; it is both/and. We will worship and serve the Lord God--in that order!

Christians need to be careful lest they get so busy working for God that they have no time for God. Activity can become the enemy of adoration, as surely as service can become a substitute for submission and supplication.

How many marriage partners become so engrossed in doing for his or her mate that he or she no longer takes the time to love and adore her husband or his wife? The wife is so busy with the house and the children while husband is so taken up with his business and activities outside the home that they become strangers to each other. The love that drew them to one another is consistently neglected and has been replaced with service to each other. But no amount of service, however devoted it may be, can replace the interpersonal relationship so needed to maintain a viable marriage. The home needs the constant undergirding of expressed love, and out of this love-flow will proceed all needed service.

The same principle is true regarding our relationship to the Lord Jesus Christ. He is repeatedly called "our husband," and we are called "His wife." We were drawn to Him by His love, and He responded to us because of our love for Him. If we let this love relationship diminish because we are so busy serving Him, we will jeopardize everything that this relationship has produced. Jesus told His disciples: "Henceforth I call you not servants... but I have called you friends" (John 15:15). We have not been chosen merely to serve, but He has ordained us to be with Him (see Mark 3:14). He enjoys our service unto Him and invites us to serve with Him, but He cannot accept service that is offered as a substitute for worship. He did not die to present to Himself a fully trained servant, but a spotless bride. Out of that marriage will come beautiful service!

THE WHY OF WORSHIP

By observing Christ's statement to Satan, we automatically settle the who and the when of worship, which leaves only the all important why of worship. Just why do we worship? Is it to fulfill a command of God's Word? Is it done to meet needs in our spiritual nature? Or do we do it because it gives such pleasure to God? Hopefully, we worship for all of these reasons and many more. But perhaps the two major reasons for worship are:

1. Worship brings us into a right relationship with God and with ourselves.
2. Worship brings us into a right expression of ourselves to God.

Worship teaches us much about ourselves, about our God, and about' our responses.

Matthew tells about a Syrophenician resident of Canaan who seems to have heard that Jesus was preparing to visit her area of Tyre and Sidon. She practically met the boat at the shore, and the moment she saw Jesus she cried: "Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil" (Matthew 15:22). She may have heard that blind Bartimeus was healed by yelling a similar cry (see Mark 10:47) or that two pairs of blind men, on widely separate occasions, had been restored to sight by crying this plea (Matthew 10:27 and 20:30). Somehow this formula seemed to crop up repeatedly in the stories that had come out of Jerusalem. It had always seemed to work. Until now, that is. For no matter how earnestly, loudly, or passionately she cried this formula, Jesus "answered her not a word" (Matthew 15:23).

The actions of the disciples proved that she had been heard, for they pled with Jesus to send her away to get rid of the disturbances. But instead of complying with their request, Jesus replied: "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24).

In this one stage whisper, spoken loudly enough for the woman to hear, Jesus unmasked the deceit and hypocrisy of her petitioning. She had been claiming a non-existent relationship with Christ. In imploring Him as the "Son of David" she was apparently claiming to be an Israelite. This was untrue, for the gospel writers clearly identify her as a Gentile. But because she did not feel that Gentiles had any claim upon Christ, she masqueraded as a daughter of Israel who had covenant claims on the "Son of David." All this pretense got for her was total silence.

When God gives us the silent treatment, it is usually because we, too, are claiming a non-existent relationship. We, like her, pick up formulas that have worked beautifully for others and cry them religiously, whether they work or not.

How many who have never been born again pray, "Our Father which art in Heaven?" Carnal Christians use the prayer language of the true bride, while the rebellious plead with God in their hour of trouble with the same expressions as the submitted saints. This will always be met by divine silence. God does not respond to hypocrisy, since He is truth by nature. We have been instructed to "draw near with a true heart" (Hebrews 10:22). Any form of deceit will deny us an audience with God. Someone has been quoted to say: "Either live it or don't lip it."

Nevertheless, we go on giving lip service to the words that meant life to our fathers and to the founders of our denominations, often unaware that we have only the liturgy, not the life, of these men. We have expressed the words as fact for so long that we are unaware that they have become a fable. We have extendedly claimed a non-existent faith until we cannot recognize our fraud. What can bring us out of our guile back into His grace? Worship!

Immediately after Jesus unmasked this imposter, "Then came she and worshipped Him, saying, Lord, help me" (Matthew 15:25). Likely, she prostrated herself before Him, perhaps even grabbing Him by the ankles and kissing His feet. She completely submitted herself to Him and poured out both her worship and her plea for help. And it worked. It always works! Worship is a dooropener that gives the supplicant ingress to God. All men have been invited to worship God, converted and unconverted alike.

The psalmist sang: "My mouth shall speak the praise of the LORD: and let all flesh bless his holy name for ever and ever" (Psalm 145:21), and John saw a great company in Heaven singing the song of Moses and the song of the Lamb ending it with these words: "For all nations shall come and worship before Thee" (Revelation 15:4). Even if we can claim no covenant that will afford us entrance to Christ, we can open the door to His presence with worship. When our faith has failed and we falter in our approach to Him, we can always fall back on worship, for worship is a consistent door-opener.

It is only fair to point out, however, that this door-opener to Christ automatically becomes an open door that allows Him to get to us. Immediately after she began to worship Jesus, Jesus began to probe into the depths of her heart. "It is not meet to take the children's bread," He said, "and cast it to the dogs" (Matthew 15:26). In other words, He said: "You've claimed to be a daughter of Abraham, but in their eyes you're nothing but a dog."

These have always seemed like harsh words, but they were spoken by the world's greatest example of a perfect gentleman. Christ was not condemning her, He was merely unveiling her to herself. He was bringing her, "not to think more highly of herself than she ought to think" (Romans 12:3). J.B. Phillips translates this verse: "Don't cherish exaggerated ideas of yourself or your importance, but try to have a sane estimate of your capabilities by the light of the faith that God has given to you all" (The New Testament In Modern English, J.B. Phillips).

Our Lord was merely helping to adjust this woman's self-concept, and He did it while she was worshipping. As she exalted Him in worship, He exposed her worthlessness. While she spoke of His Majesty ("Lord"), He spoke of her hypocrisy. His goal was not to depreciate her, but to help her appreciate her true relationship to Himself, for until she did, He could not respond to her without condoning her falsehood. But if she would accept His appraisal and respond accordingly, He could and would minister to her need. Truth can relate to truth.

Isn't it when we are worshipping that God reveals us to ourselves? It was so with Isaiah. He, who was likely the most godly man of his generation, when caught up into God's presence cried out: "Woe is me, for I am undone! Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; For mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of Hosts" (Isaiah 6:5).

At this season of his life, Isaiah was a counselor and tutor in the courts of earthly kings, but when worship brought him into the presence of the Heavenly King, he not only "saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up" (Isaiah 6:1), but he saw himself defiled and dirty. It is only when we are in the presence of Heaven's majestic King that we gain a true picture of ourselves. Compared with another, we may look great, but contrasted to Him, we lose all artificial glory.

So the Lord's response to the woman's worship was to call her a dog. How did she handle that? The only sensible way we can ever handle His evaluation of us - she said: “Truth, Lord" (Matthew 15:27). For until we acquiesce to His appraisal, communication with Him is ended. He has revealed our position and our condition; the next move is ours.

But admitting the truth that she was as separated from a covenant relationship with Christ as a dog is beneath his owner did not devastate this woman. She wisely changed her style of approach to match His estimate of her and gained everything she desired. She merely told Jesus, "Yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table" (Matthew 15:27). She simply said: "If I am a dog, don't deny me a dog's privileges!" We can learn no greater principle than to approach Christ consistent to our true nature. If we are "a dog," our nature has not yet been changed by a Divine transformation, we can sit up, wag our tail, and lick the hand of the Master.

If we're an infant in Christ, we can make pleasant "gooing" sounds and smile a lot. If we're a toddler, we can crawl to Him, pat Him, and say "da-da."
But for a mature saint to do this would be ridiculous. He should approach Christ as a Christian adult. In worship we must approach Christ consistent with our current relationship with Him.

We need not await a voice from Heaven saying, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 17:5), before praising and worshipping God. We can come just as we are. He can cleanse us as surely as He cleaned Isaiah, and change us as completely as He changed Nebuchadnezzar or Saul of Tarsus. We merely need to respond to Him as we are and from where we are, and it is worship that opens the door for this revelation to come.

It is, indeed, worship that brings us into a right relationship with God and with ourselves. But it also brings us into a right expression of ourselves to God.
Perhaps as dramatic an example of worship to be found in the Bible is the story of Mary washing the feet of Jesus. All four Gospels record the event, and Jesus said that wherever the gospel would be preached, her deed would be spoken of as a memorial to her (Mark 14:9).

Remember that Mary still overflowed with gratitude to Jesus for raising her brother, Lazarus, from the dead. Her whole way of life was rescued in that resurrection, for the lot of the widows and the unmarried woman was tenuous. Too frequently, they were exploited and stripped of all possessions.

When she looked into the home of Simon, the Leper, and saw that Lazarus was being highly honored at the banquet, but that Jesus was being treated like any other guest, it broke her heart. He was not being properly appreciated. Simon's expression of thanks to Jesus was grossly insufficient.

Slipping quickly to her home nearby, she sought out an alabaster box full of liquid nard and returned to Simon's house where she broke it, allowing the spikenard to flow over Jesus' head, down His beard, and onto His garments. Then she bathed His feet with her tears, and wiped them dry with her hair.

In contrast to the others who had merely taken Christ's presence for granted, she made a right expression of herself to her Lord. She worshipped. She loved, not from a distance, but in intimate fellowship. She was not content to say thanks with a dinner; she had to worship with a deed that pleased her emotions of love, adoration, thanksgiving, and reverence. She had to touch, to kiss, to weep, and to bow in order to thoroughly pour out herself on Jesus. The spikenard was merely a symbol of what was really being poured out on Jesus -- Mary herself! This is the heart and core of true worship -- the unashamed pouring out of our inner self upon the Lord Jesus Christ in affectionate devotion.

FACTORS IN WORSHIP

Mark's account of Mary's selfless act of worship (Chapter 14) demonstrates four distinct factors in worship. The first of these is that worship is costly. The disciples quickly calculated that this liquid nard could have been sold for at least three hundred pence, which equaled a full year's salary for a working man. Translated into today's earning power, it would be closer to twenty thousand dollars. That's quite a price to pay just to worship Jesus acceptably.

But the monetary value was probably the smallest part of the price. This costly oil had been saved for one of two reasons: either as a dowry for marriage or to assure a proper burial. Both were vitally important to this Jewish maiden. When Mary poured out the ointment, she was surrendering all her plans, ambitions, and aspirations for the future. Worshipping in the present was far more important than longing for the future. In Verse 8, Jesus said of her act, "She is come aforehand (Greek ' now') to anoint my body to the burying." True worship often costs us some of our self-centered plans and ambitions. It requires us to put God's glory above our goals.

A second factor of worship that is illustrated here is that worship invokes criticism. The fragrance of this perfume had scarcely reached the nostrils of the disciples until they were vocally critical that the ointment had not been sold and the money given to the poor. While social service is laudable, and Jesus even required it, there is also a time and place to minister unto the Lord.

I've received more criticism because of worshipping than any other activity into which I've ever led a congregation. Somehow people still seem to feel that it is a waste to pour out anything directly upon the Lord. I've seen husbands, who had never complained because their wives worked at the church supper or served as volunteer secretary to the staff, become incensed and prohibit their wives from attending worship sessions. We should be prepared for and expect criticism if we become worshippers.

The third factor of worship that Mary illustrates is the need for brokenness. The liquid nard was permanently sealed in a stone container. To release it required breaking the bottle. Similarly, worship, which is resident in the spirit of every saint, is sealed in by the outer container of the soul and body. Worship can never be released until something happens to rupture this stony container. Presenting the bottle would not have been worship; it would have been an offering. Fracturing the alabaster box allowed the oil to flow as an anointing to the body of the Lord.

David, who knew much about being broken before the Lord, wrote: "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou will not despise" (Psalm 51:17). The Hebrew words he used are extremely strong. For the "broken spirit" he used the word shabor which means to shiver, to break to pieces, or to reduce to splinters. For "the broken heart," he used the Hebrew word dakah which means to crumble, to beat to pieces, to bruise, to crush, or to humble.

Spiritual worship requires a splintering of our prides, a crumbling of our natural reserves, a bruising of our self-sufficiencies, as well as a crushing of our self-will. The beating to pieces of our carnal nature will release our emotions to flow out in tears of repentance, submission, and love. I am not calling for us to become sadistic or cruelly introspective, but we need to break and crush everything we have developed in our lives that prevents true humility and love from flowing out. Very often hardness of heart is a defense built up against being wounded by others. We need no such defenses when with Jesus. He will never wound--He is the healer of wounds!

The hard-hearted person cannot worship; he or she must be content with mere rituals of worship. It is the tender-hearted, the gentle-spirited people who can pour out their inner spirit upon God. One must be able to respond positively to projected love, for the true essence of worship is love responding to love. In praise we may express our love to God, but in worship we respond to His expressed love for us.

When David was hiding in the cave of Adullam, fully reduced to splinters by Saul's murderous pursuit, he wrote: "The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart…" (Psalm 34:18). Brokenness, which is necessary to worship in order to release our inner man, also assures us the nearness of the Lord, without which worship is impossible, for worship can only be performed when we are in His presence--when we are conscious of His love flowing out to us. Worship, you see, is a response.

A fourth factor in worship that is alluded to in this story is that worship is reciprocal; we get something in return. When Mary held the alabaster box over the head of Jesus and broke it with a hammer or a stone, the oil gushed out over His head. She quickly rubbed it into the hair and beard, and transferred the drippings to His feet. Then she let her long tresses fall and used her hair to wipe up the residue. When she left the banquet room, people could sniff and say, "She's the one; I can tell, for she smells exactly like Jesus does."

When we pour worship out on the Lord Jesus Christ, we also get it all over ourselves. As we go out from His presence, we carry the fragrance of Christ everywhere we go. Paul recognized this when he wrote: "God ...maketh manifest the savour of His knowledge by us in every place" (2 Corinthians 2:14). Worshippers tend to smell like the love of God.

Just as the Old Testament priest carried the fragrance of God's incense in his hair and clothes after he had tended the golden altar, so we give the world a demonstration of the sweetness of our Lord after we have worshipped. The worship permeates our very nature and is as pleasant as a rare perfume. Worship is very reciprocal, for we benefit as much from it as He does.

THE HOLY SPIRIT SETS THE MOOD FOR WORSHIP

It is the Holy Spirit who sets the tone or mood of worship. By "mood" we mean a state of mind or feeling. God is a Person. He always has a purpose which is upon His heart and mind for His people whenever they come together. The Holy Spirit always knows the will and mind of God. Therefore, He will seek to set the tone and theme of a service in line with God's purpose.

Sometimes the tone or mood of a meeting may change. There may be a heavy spirit of grief for those who are away from God. After repentance, the mood of the meeting might change to one of great joy. It is important, therefore, for us to be sensitive to the leading of God's Spirit.

The Spirit of God will always bring a sense of expectation to our services of worship. He is always ready to move in the fresh, new ways of ministry. Even familiar forms of worship, therefore, should never become old or boring.

We cannot successfully copy Mary's act of worship. Expressions of worship are unique and varied. We may look on the blessings of last week and say: "This is how it worked then; so let's try it again today." However, in trying to make it "work again," we lose the freshness and life of God's Spirit.

For this reason, we must be careful to follow after the new ways of the Spirit--even if He wishes to lead us beyond the set form of our liturgy. Rather than conform to the pattern of another or to repeat what has been done before, we need to be sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit. He understands worship far better than we do. The Spirit of God is a person, and has many different moods. We need to be sensitive to the mood He brings to a meeting, and move in that direction. If He is in a mood of rejoicing, we also should rejoice. If He is in a giving mood, we should respond wisely by giving to God. Whatever He is doing, we should do it with Him. This is the only way we can really worship the Father as we have been created and called to do!

The Holy Spirit keeps our worship from becoming dull and routine. The Spirit of God always blows where He wills -- in fresh, new ways. It is a glorious thing!

In a way, we have to "open the windows" at the beginning of a service, and ask the Holy Spirit to "blow upon us." In our hearts, we want to be led by God. Sometimes, however, we may be afraid of anything new and different. In that case, sadly, we may try to keep the windows tightly closed.

We are responsible to be open to the Spirit and be aware of where He is taking us. The Holy Spirit wants to glorify Jesus; and we do too. That means He will faithfully lead us into worship -- worship which will be new and different every time!

Since it is inherent in our natures to be worshippers, may God clearly lead us to know the true "who," the correct "when," and the manifold "why" of worship as we embrace the factions of worship and the mood of the Holy Spirit for the service. Both God and we will greatly benefit from this!

The Nation survey: Free speech for me, not thee

2012-01-03T13:20:00.003-07:00

This is a survey emailed to me by The Nation magazine. Note question #2. So, how committed to free speech do you think these leftists are?

Character assasination and the Left - Editorial

2012-01-03T10:54:00.001-07:00

It seems to me that certain extreme parts of the political Left are not particularly interested in facts or truth. By this I mean that for the Left, it appears that the only goal is furthering the agenda by any means possible. Pretty much anything goes to achieve that goal.

Case in point, the debate between Tom Burnett and his detractors. It is clear that Tom is a political target. Politics is a dirty business, so it is no surprise that his opponents are looking for opportunities. The problem is, Tom is a man of integrity and principle. Also, one thing the Left abhors is an unapologetic conservative.

Even worse, he is religious. And he homeschooled his kids for a few years. That clearly makes him an extremist kook. But worst of all, he is a self-made man. Through working 70 hour weeks, scrimping and saving and doing without, he was able to put together a successful business.

He sold that business after 5 particularly good years, and is now retired. Tom has lived the quintessential American dream but is now in the crosshairs of those who believe that successful people could have only acquired that success by cheating, stealing, and exploiting people.

How do I know all of this? Well, I actually called him and asked, which no one else has done. No one. His detractors, content to work off of talking points and hearsay, are off to the races without a single phone call.

Interestingly, the first issue they raised didn’t hold water, so in typical leftist fashion they made no retraction, no apology, they simply repeated the original charge as if nothing had happened, along with an inelegant morph to yet another charge. This kind of strategy, repeating a charge against an adversary as if yesterday didn’t happen, is frequently used by the Left.

The latest leftist talking point is that no one is self made, no one has really pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, and no one can really claim credit for their success. They claim that since government has supplied the programs, infrastructure, and legal environment to succeed, government made possible the American success stories.

This sort of thinking is premised on the idea that government is the source of everything, that the universe revolves around the next great government program. By contrast, we conservatives apparently believe in no government. This is another charge that is repeated ad nauseum. They say that conservatives ought to really love Somalia, a “small government paradise.”

This is rhetorical nonsense. Somalia is not built on the ideals of liberty, free enterprise, and limited government. Conservatives believe in constitutionally limited government, not no government. So there is no contradiction when conservatives recognize government’s authority to engage in constitutionally permitted activities.

But more to the point, government really deserves no credit for the success of people like Tom. Government’s job is to provide its constitutional duties, to prosecute lawbreakers, and to protect us from aggressors, foreign and domestic. Beyond that, government should get out of the way of the private, legal activities of its citizens. But instead, government place arbitrary obstacles in the way, government makes it hard to succeed and even harder to stay successful.

This is the kind of government we have now; this kind of government has reduced peoples’ prosperity. Government has left a wake of destruction both here and abroad that is unequaled in history. Crime, poverty, and discrimination have not been solved by leftist utopian initiatives. If government is to take credit for peoples’ success, it must also take blame for the fallout from its interventionist policies.

Clearly, government deserves no credit for Tom’s success, but it does deserve blame for rampant spending, favoritism, and allowing itself to be corrupted by big moneyed interests.

This is the fruit of big government. This is why conservatives want to restore the environment of liberty, free choice, and self determination that is unencumbered by interventionist government. It’s a recipe for success.

Taxing the rich, FB conversation

2011-12-29T07:51:00.005-07:00

R.W. posted this: 99 Percent? Top 25 Occupy Wall Street Backers Worth Over $4 Billion | NewsBusters.org

J.W.: The point is not that they are rich. They are willing to take to tax hikes for the upper class. They support the fact that because they have more, they should give more. I've seen tons of signs of protesters even that say " I am the one percent and I stand with the 99" I don't think it's a big deal that they have the support of some wealthier individuals.

B.R.: Your son is right.

R.W.: Except that he's not. The protesters are not against people with money, they are after CERTAIN people with money. And these Liberals billionaires do NOT want their taxes raised. That is the big lie here. They want the INCOME tax raised ...but they don't pay INCOME tax they pay CAPITAL GAINS tax which is different. No billionaire I have seen has said we should raise Capital Gains rates. When Warren Buffet said his secretary paid more income tax than he did he was correct. Because his income doesn't come from a pay check, hers does! And the whole notion that because you have more, you should pay more is bullshit. Should you pay for a loaf of bread based on your income? We should all pay the SAME percentage. That alone would mean that someone making $200,000 pays 10 times as much as someone making $20,000. These protesters sit there in their Nike's and Levi's listening to their I-pods and talking on their Cell phones and those are brought to you by capitalism and corporations! If they want to place blame somewhere, put it on the government. These people who you don't think pay enough, are paying exactly what the government tells them they must. They are obeying the law as set forth by Washington. And if these Hypocrites think they should pay more, please show me ONE billionaire that has given more than the IRS said they owed. In my book, Millionaires and Billionaires are HEROES. They show that you can succeed in this country even if you start out with Nothing. They should be applauded not demonized just because they worked hard and made something of themselves and all these little punks can think to do is sit on their asses and complain that they don't have it easy. I have NO sympathy for the little whiners.

Me: They have more, and they do give more. They pay a higher porportion of their income now than they did during Carter. Marginal tax rates are different than actual tax paid, and the rich pay more than they ever have.

B.R.: But R.W., how do you really feel about it?

R.W.: I know. I was actually excited and pleased that Jeremy jumped in. I respect those with view points which are incorrect a lot more than those with no viewpoints at all. I just read somewhere that if the tax rates were raised the way those Occupiers and Democrats in office wanted, it would only raise like 16 billion dollars more. In government terms that would last us about 15 minutes. I'll have to try and find that so my numbers are more accurate. My friend R.S. that chimed in usually has those figures either in his head or at his finger tips. Maybe if we are real nice he'll post them for us. My friend B.R. here, didn't wait for someone to hand him a job after college. He started his own theatre company. I respect that. My son J.W. has chosen a field that will ALWAYS be in demand, Math Teacher. How many of these protesters got a degree in communications or Renaissance art history, and now figure corporations should fall over backwards to give them a job. Randy has his own business. Should he be forced to hire 3 or 4 more people even though he doesn't need them? Of course he would have to give them Full benefits and a retirement package. These kids need to learn how the world operates before they start criticizing. And the poor things don't even realize that the Rich people supporting them are doing it for their OWN self interests, whether they be financial or political or both.

B.R.: Thanks for the respect. I started a theater company in 2006. But I couldn't start one now, because of consumer spending that crashed in the recession. I don't need a handout from corporations or rich people, I need them to act in the interest of the nation's economy.

Me: People act in their own interests. That is all that should be expected of anyone. If people decide to be charitable, that is also their business. No one, especially government, has the right to force people to serve the interests of others. No one has claim to anyone else's property.

Me: As far as the rich paying more, we already know that whenever another dollar is taxed into government coffers, government spends $1.83. The problem is not, and never has been, a tax problem. It has always been a spending problem.

B.R.: You're making an assumption that the only two ways to act are selfishly and charitably. Let's forget everything for a moment except salary ratios. The disparity between the average CEO's compensation and the average non-executive staff member's compensation has been growing exponentially for years. In 1965, the ratio was 20:1. By 1997, it was 115:1. That rate of expansion has continued. Let's agree on one thing: less Americans would struggle financially if this disparity eased up even a little bit. Right? We can agree on that?

Me: How exactly will cutting CEO pay help you in any way? I am asking seriously.

Me: Oh, and I am not suggesting only two ways to act. And I did not day "selfishly," I said acting in their self interest.

Futher, it's not anyone's business if someone is acting selfishly, let alone in their self interest, or even charitably. Greed is a moral failing, and you can't legislate morality.

B.R.: It won't help me, it will help others. I'm doing fine, I just have this nagging feeling that 8.6 percent of Americans could use some help. If a large company paid its executives a minor fraction less, it could afford to spend that savings on new positions that would not only help that 8.6, but likely help the business' bottom line by improving efficiency and productivity. It's a smart financial move AND it considers the state of their national and local economy. See, it's not my place to ask someone in the 1% for a handout, or a moral shift. But it is certainly my place to ask them to act like leaders and compromise for the sake of the 8.6%, who God knows have done enough compromising themselves.

Me: I don't mean to be condescending, but do you know why a company hires people? Do you think it's simply a matter of having some dollars laying around doing nothing? Maybe you don't realize is it because there is work that needs to be done?

What I'm saying is that what a CEO is paid is not relevant to how many people are hired.

If 8.6% of people need help, may I respectfully inquire what you personally are doing to help them? Maybe you could take a cut in pay and hire someone? Or perhaps you could write a check to the soup kitchen and stop worrying about what others do with there own money?

B.R.: A wise man said "be wary of philosophies that require minimum effort from - but provide maximum benefit to - the believer". It's willful ignorance to think that the size of a CEO's paycheck doesn't have an impact on the hiring of new employees. Every company I've worked for has wanted more staff members to delegate the ever-increasing workload, but could not afford the payroll expense of new employees. Corporate chains, multi-million dollar non-profits, independent production companies - they all want more people on the team, to make everyone's job more efficient and to hit their departmental goals. If corporations paid less to executives and more to new hires, the economy would benefit and more Americans would be employed.

B.R.: What am I doing? First, I'm supporting my girlfriend, who is one of the 8.6%. Second, I'm delegating parts of my job to an assistant, which I'm paying for with my own salary. Third, I'm having conversations like this.

Me: Respectful inquires get huffy responses.

Me: Willful ignorance? Restating your opinion is not an advancement of your argument. Try again.

Me: If "they all want more people on the team," perhaps you could explain why corporations are being accused of holding back on expenditures resulting in high unemployment? It can't be both ways.

B.R.: Rational conclusions get meta-conversational diversions. I can't explain corporations' actions, or lack thereof, that's why I'm saying they should stop holding back on expenditures that would create more jobs.

Me: ‎*Sigh* I'm asking you to explain the contradiction. On one hand you claim that cutting CEO pay would free up dollars for hiring, but on the other hand corporations are supposedly hanging on to to a bunch of excess money and not hiring.

JFK and tax policy - FB conversation

2011-12-21T10:08:00.009-07:00

S.B. posted this picture with the comment: yeah. I'm a liberal.

LIKE & SHARE - if you agree with JFK's statement... How is it, that 50 years later, Kennedy's inaugural speech is still unmatched in it's vision and motivational power?

Me: ‎"A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues."
– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction billSee More

S.B.: Yep. And you know what the top marginal tax rate was in 1963 when JFK said that?

that's right: 91%. So the wealthiest Americans paid a 91% tax on the last dollars of their income. And yet, those were prosperous times, with a lot of people coming into the middle class for the first time. We built our interstate highway system, sent a man to the moon....

What is it today? 33%. Lower than it was than during the Clinton era, where again, the economy prospered.

Just filling in the rest of the story for you, Rich.

Me: In the early sixties, the top 1% paid 27% of all personal income taxes. Now, it is 37%.

Just filing in the rest of the story for you, Scott.

S.B.: From Wikipedia: "According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. During the same time period, the 60% of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw the...ir income rise by 40%. Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive. From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%.[13] In 2009, the average income of the top 1% was $960,000 with a minimum income of $343,927"

Pardon me if I have a hard time believing that our current tax policies punish the wealthy. If that's punishment, then punish me, please!

Me: Rich Sherlock Good for them, and they are paying more taxes as a result. Doesn't change the fact the Kennedy advocated tax cuts as a means for economic growth.

I did not claim that our current tax policies punish the wealthy.

J.M.: Tax cuts can be good for the economy under the correct economic circumstances. Additionally, tax rates should be adjusted down or up accordingly. And within a properly regulated environment it works. But when loose regulations and low tax rates allow wealth to accumulate to a smaller and smaller percentage of the population the ability to be flexible becomes more difficult. And keep in mind that the middle class shared far more of that wealth in Kennedy's time. This is something the Norquista's can't wrap their heads around because it contradicts their flawed ideology that somehow the free market will correct itself. As we have seen over the past 3 decades, that hasn't worked. Call it trickle down or voodoo economics or whatever they want to call it today... it's the same thing.

Me: J.M., your whole presentation is premised on the assumption that the government possesses the ability to discern, manipulate, and then properly implement tax changes that will yield desired societal outcomes, or at least, outcomes that agree with your social engineering preferences.

However, there is no evidence whatsoever that such manipulations have done anything except harm the economy. The "experts" have failed every time.

Fact is, this country is teetering on the brink because of the very techniques you advocate.

And by the way, your condescending remarks are uncivil and unwarranted. I request that you make your case, if you have one, without the insinuations that people like me are stupid.

J.M.: Rich, this is something I like to call "Social Memory Lapse". You actually cited a great example (JFK) earlier, and then repeated the oft heard argument that government is incapable of implementing desired and fair outcomes. I'm not trying to pick a fight but it should be pretty clear using that example that government can and does a good job of taxing and regulating where needed. I would say it's gotten much more difficult in this current political environment due to the tossing about of terms like "social engineering".

J.M.: For example: Christmas is social engineering. A created for masses holiday and not actually rooted in Christianity. We've adopted it as one and jolly good and fine with me. But that is social engineering. Government is about protecting and promoting a society. If you and I only had the experience of not having a government we all might appreciate the good it does. Even when we perceive parts of it as wrong.

J.M.: And lastly, I was never at any point condescending. Simply being matter of fact. I've re-read my posts and can't find anything that would warrant that remark. Cheers and Happy Holidays!

Me:

‎1) JFK was not advocating the continual manipulation of economics, he wanted an across the board tax cut as a means of spurring economic activity and increasing revenues to the government. Trickle down.

2) Social engineering is an accurate term. The fact that you bristle at its use is unfortunate, but if you have a better term that describes government meddling in the economy, I'll consider using it.

3) Agreed about Christmas. There should be no governmental favor extended to it.

4) "Not having a government" vs. "good government" is a false binary equation. I did not advocate no government. In fact, please point out a national figure who has, or retract your statement.

5) You wrote, "This is something the Norquista's can't wrap their heads around..." Norquista suggests a mind-numbed follower of Norquist, which is first the introduction of an irrelevant tangent, and second it is coupled with a dismissive tag, "...can't get their heads around..." In other words, they're (or I'm) too stupid to understand your nuanced, clever positions.

That is condescending and insulting. But you knew that.

J.M.: Again on JFK and connecting it to my first post. Under the correct economic circumstances. Trickle down cannot be argued in that context as it can in today's.

J.M.: As for 2, it's simply not the same thing. We disagree.

As for 3, LOL... indeed. But we all can enjoy the time with family for the better at least.

As for 4, I'm merely pointing out one extreme to another and I'll leave the center of that argument for anyone's interpretative assumptions. My libertarian streak would rather less governing law in some areas and more in others were stark inequality and injustice exist.

As for 5, had I known your fondness for Grover, I might have been more gentle. I find the man wanting and have seen him continually stumble in the face of facts and return to unsupported arguments in his own defense which suggests he is less interested in how things actually work, and more interested in an ideology. It's not to say everything he promotes is a bad idea (corn subsidies is a good example), its just that the foundation of his beliefs are flawed. And the folks that are nodding their heads with him I fear are not really catching on to that and find it easier to accept the black and white view he is selling instead of thoughtfully evaluating what he is saying and shaping the message towards good public policy. And I think that shapes the rights view of Obama supporters as one way or the other when many of us disagree with him on fundamental issues. But I don't find Obama as cast in stone as Grover by any means. Far more flexible in my opinion. Perhaps too much in some areas, and not enough in others. That seems to be in stark contrast to those who follow Norquist.

So no, I didn't know that. How could I? I don't know you.

Me: No, you don't know me, but you assumed I held Norquist in high regard. In actual fact, I don't.

Which means you draw conclusions about people based on stereotypes, which explains why you are unable to understand what I am writing.

We all have these lenses that we filter data through. I'll leave it to you to sort out your own, as I will mine. In the meantime, we might wish to re-read each others' posts to ascertain what was actually being said.

J.P.: I know everyone likes the rage, but reality is revealed in a simple observation. That observation is not about Democrat or Republican, but rather conservative vs. progressive. The question is when did America (the United States to be precise) rise to great power status and why? Was it the result of conservative stand pat or progressive political ideology? Unless one engages in extraordinary revisionism and self deception, progressive policy led to great power status. Conservatism sought to maintain (by nature conservatism leads nowhere, since it seeks to maintain what is) what is: social inequity of all kinds -- take your pick. Institutionalized plutocracy, sexism, racism, imperialism, and religious orthodoxy. The Republicans that have made the difference (and a large one) were progressives. They overthrew orthodoxys such as slavery, monopolistic unregulated capitalism and the cold war as a never ending institutionalized conflict. When a Republican has a new idea, I'll consider voting for one, not before.

Me: Progressives progress? Tautology.

The church - being vs. doing

2011-12-19T16:42:00.006-07:00

I had the pleasure of attending a class intended to introduce us to the basics of the new direction my church will be taking with you as the new pastor at the helm. Pastor, you did a lot of work on the study materials, covering a lot of ground in a very thoughtful and insightful way.

We were told that you would be welcoming suggestions for improving the study material, a courageous offer. Not many pastors would allow such vulnerability. A new pastor, in particular, risks a potential tug-of-war with “ambitious” parishioners. Yes, unfortunately there are people in congregations who look for opportunities for personal gain and position. So, offering this level of trust, while possibly fraught with peril, is nevertheless refreshingly without guile.

So, I am going to take you up on your offer. I do not want to impose my agenda or elevate myself. I also do not want to suggest in any way that you are lacking wisdom or expertise. This is submitted solely to present a perpective you might not have considered.

Also, I am not going to quibble over the organizational structure of the study materials, the verses selected, or the use of certain words or phrases. My presentation shall be based on a more organic critique, one which aims to get at the root of the matter.

The study material provided to us was, I assume, wholly prepared and written by you. Certainly it was written through your lens of understanding, for we all filter through our own understandings. Indeed, churches are built on various premises, doctrinal positions, and experiences. I think the study material reveals your particular perspective, passion, and anointing, which translates into what you believe is the calling of this church; that is, primarily evangelism and outreach.

Unfortunately, these are not specifically foundational. Such things do grow out of foundational understandings, but they are not themselves foundational. In fact, I would assert that if the foundational understandings of our church is unclear, miscast, or non-existent, any resultant ministry could be faulty. One cannot build a church without a foundation.

so, I want to know what those foundations are for my church. And, I have some input on what those foundations might need to be.

One particular concept discussed in the study material, the idea of partnership, is worth mentioning. The study material discusses partnership in the context of the obligations, activities, duties, and understandings that the individual needs to embrace. There is little or no discussion of the other half of the partnership, that is, what are the things we can expect from the church? One cannot partner with another party without knowing what that party is offering.

Further, this is only two strands of the cord. What about the third cord, God? Our partnership has a supernatural element, where the Holy Spirit informs the two other parties, bringing unity, vision, and purpose. Our human relationships in the church are only possible by having relationship with God.

Several weeks ago I asked you what you thought this church was called to be. You responded with various ministry ideas and activities, so I approached it again (as humbly as I could), saying something like, “Those are all good things, and churches should do those things, but I asked about being, not doing.” So, now that I have participated in this class I find myself returning to the same question I asked weeks before: What is this church called to be? It's a critical, foundational question.

I have my own opinons about what constitutes the foundations of a healthy church. These criteria here are in no particular order:

1) The pursuit and identification of God’s purpose, calling, and vision for the church. This must be continually reinforced with the congregation, a process sometimes known as “vision casting.”
2) A primary and ceaseless hunger for the presence of God. This is a purposeful, systematic, every day process.
3) An ambition to be a worshiping church. Worship invites the presence of God, and the presence of God carries the Word, and the Word tells us who we are, who God is, and what His heart is for us.
4) A place of safety and belonging for attendees, thereby facilitating holy relationships
5) A secure, mature, wise church leadership, composed of prophets, teachers, apostles, evangelists, and pastors. Rarely, if at all, is all of this invested in one man as titular head of the congregation. If any are not in place, the church will be unbalanced and ultimately dysfunctional.
6) Identity: We must be know who we are, and the church must know who it is.

Notice that none of this is an activity or a ministry. They are parts of what could be described as a state of being, a belonging, a platform upon which a church will be built. We start with being, and that is where we come to understand doing. We must know who we are before we can know what we will do.

We must begin at the beginning. We learn who God is as we simultaneously learn who we are in Christ. This comes via worship, teaching, pastoring, and the Word. We begin to learn the surpassing greatness of knowing and being known. Then our gifts discerned, identified, and nurtured so that they can be integrated into the purpose, calling, and vision of the church.

As I have written before, worship is central to everything else. By worship I do not mean the four or five songs we sing, the offering, and/or the obedient service we render unto the Lord. These are activities associated with worship, vehicles upon which worship can be carried... that is, various expressions of worship. But they are not worship itself. Worship is being in the presence of God.

Being.

It is from the foundation of worship we discover identity; being in the presence of God, hearing His voice, abiding in Him. From that we can build a church that honors God and ministers to people, and furthers His kingdom on earth.

Humbly submitted,

Rich

Media bias and the free market: FB conversation

2011-12-16T11:07:00.003-07:00

I posted this picture, and we discussed it:

S.B.: it's just the free market, doing it's thing, Rich. You should be embracing it.

Me: Pointing out its bias is not the same as opposing them. However, part of the definition of free market is willing buyer and willing seller, i.e., full disclosure. The media continue to pretend that they are objective and fair, which is deception. That is not part of the free market.

S.B.: lol. so it's the free market until it fails to produce the result you want, right?

Me: No, it fails the test of the criteria free market: willing transactions between parties, an exchange of value, a legal purpose, and full disclosure. This is a major reason the mainstream media is a losing viewership/readership. It provides a faulty product.

S.B.: well what you describe, applies to MOST commercial transactions. When I go to Best Buy to buy a TV, THEY won't tell me what the repair stats are, what their margin is, what the environmental performance of their suppliers is, etc -- I can get that from third parties if I'm lucky, but the same is true in the media -- there are plenty of third party watchdogs.

Maybe we need more regulation to force better disclosure, etc? ;-)

Me: That's part of the self-correcting nature of the free market. Groups and individuals gather statistics and test products, then inform consumers, who then can enter into more informed decisions.

It is not a failure of the free market when one or another party is deceptive, it is a violation of the free market.

It is ironic that private parties like Consumer Reports, which effectively polices violations of the free market as a private entity, advocates policies (more government involvement) that would run them out of business.

Montana insurance compliance - I told you this was coming

2011-12-15T14:33:00.000-07:00

Montana is now implementing electronic vehicle insurance monitoring:

Montana insurers are required to implement a web-services based system for the verification of automobile liability insurance. We have been working with the MT MVD to comply and begin LIVE reporting by the state deadline of January 27, 2012.

There are two processes to Montana MVD reporting:

1) Insurers are required to submit a complete Book of Business (BOB) to the MT MVD at least on a monthly basis.

2) How (random) MT Verification Works.

· Insurers will receive a request from the MT MVD to confirm active/inforce liability coverage on specified vehicle(s).

· If the isurer confirms liability coverage for the vehicle(s), they must send a ‘confirmation of coverage’ back to the MT DMV.

· The MVD may send additional requests if we are unable to initially confirm coverage

· Unconfirmed coverage requests may result in registration or other issues for the insured

Wal-Mart Occupied - editorial

2011-12-13T10:38:00.002-07:00

Wal-Mart was Occupied on Black Friday.

I happen to agree with some of Occupy’s positions, especially their opposition to the unholy alliance between big business and government. Government has done much damage to our country as a result of sweetheart deals, favorable contracts, and preferential treatment.

However, I think it is curious that the Occupiers support favoritism for local businesses, but oppose the very same thing for big corporations. Apparently the Occupiers are ok with government picking favorites as long as it is their favorites.

Make no mistake, government is picking favorites. Government is deciding which companies deserve support and which ones do not. Government is assuming the power to influence your shopping choices, and it is perfectly willing to punish those businesses it deems unworthy. Or did you forget about the $500,000 in extortion money Wal-Mart paid to the city a few years ago?

Regardless of how much you might agree with those government-favored choices, there is no escaping that such activities are a violation of liberty, capitalism, and limited government. Government has no business interfering with peoples’ private, legal choices. The idea of government doing this ought to offend everyone.

I do like that Occupy is attempting to persuade peoples’ opinions by engaging in protest. Free speech is a powerful way to effect change. Of course, by doing this they are making a tacit admission that their real complaint is not with big business, it is with the shopping decisions of private citizens. You see, businesses can’t force people to shop at their stores. Businesses really have no power at all without people willing to part with their dollars. The power of ideas can influence that.

Occupy is not above criticism, however. I think it improper to enter the premises of a private business pretending to be shoppers and protest the activities of that business. Even worse, Occupy’s rap sheet now exceeds 400 incidents nationwide, including rape, vandalism, assault, and theft. No wonder Wal-Mart removed them. Kinda makes me yearn for the good old days of TEA party protests. Their sole crime was being accused of racism (falsely, it turns out).

I took the time to read some of the literature the Occupiers were handing out. They make some doubtful claims. For instance, one handout proclaims that local businesses are better for the local economy than chain stores. Being naturally skeptical, I decided to check it out.

I did something I doubt a single Occupier did, I actually called the Bozeman Wal-Mart. I learned that the Bozeman store buys 12% ($12 million) of its inventory from local suppliers. They obtain local services, like snow removal, landscaping, and building repair, to the tune of over $500,000 per year. They spend thousands on local advertising. Payroll is $10 million. They gave over $220,000 to various charities. Their electric bill is $60,000 per month. Real estate taxes run $27,000 per month.

All this is locally spent money. This calls to question the oft-stated notion that Big Box stores are bad for communities. But there’s more. There are unseen effects that positively impact the community as well. Out of town shoppers not only spend dollars at these stores, they shop at other local businesses. Consumers, by saving money on their purchases, free up their dollars to spend elsewhere.

You might think I’m cheerleading for big business, but I’m actually cheerleading for free enterprise, the free and legal choices consumers make when unencumbered by the oppression of government. Of course as a local business owner I would prefer everyone buy their insurance from me. But I refuse to invoke the heavy hand of government to force people into choosing me. I am a true capitalist for better or worse. I offer the best product I can and leave it to consumers to decide what to do with their own money.

That is the only edge any business is entitled to.

NPR, conservatives, and budget cuts - FB conversation

2011-12-12T11:50:00.006-07:00

S.B. shared this: GOP Completely Fixes Economy By Canceling Funding For NPR
www.theonion.com
WASHINGTON—Unemployment plummeted and stocks soared Tuesday after Republican leaders fulfilled their promise to cut funding for National Public Radio, a budgetary move that has completely rejuvenated the flagging U.S...

S.Y.: Wow, what a relief. So on to world peace then?

S.B.: Yeah, according to Michelle Bachmann, all we need to do is close the US embassy in Iran.

You know, the one that we haven't had since 1979?

S.B.: (so it ought to be easy-peasy) ;-)

Me: Cancel NPR and a hundred (or thousand) other wasteful, useless government programs.

S.B.: yep. let 'em eat cake.

Me: What does the head of NPR make a year, $600,000?

S.B.: I've got no idea rich.

J.J.: That's a shovel-ready option!

J.P.: PBS and NPR provide an important spice in American culture. It's worth the modest investment. Look what has become of cable and what that's done to broadcast TV. The commerical mudwrestling over advertising space and the mindless and heartless statisical outcome of that has driven it to the inevitable optimized market result: the invisible hand would like to know whether you'd like a Coors Light or Bud Light with your Big Mac? How about a tasty Hostess Twinky and a 44 oz Coke for dessert? And how about the "educational" programming on cable TV? Ha!!! What a joke. Shows about aliens, the supernatural and other superstitious nonsense. It's turned into the equivalent of reading a supermarket tabloid. Is there good commerical programming? Absolutely, though you have to look pretty hard to find it in the wasteland of reality TV. Is there independent commercial programming? Nope -- independence costs something and there's no room in the commercial market model for such luxuries. So why does the right wing hate public broadcasting? Is it really about saving the tax payer a few bucks? Of course not. Watch Frontline, the Newshour and listen to All Things Considered and you'll know what's bugging them immediately. That sorta thing is precisely why they want to cut PBS and NPR. It used to be argued that if you were conservative, you had no heart, if liberal, you had no brain. From the looks of the new conservatives, they have neither and don't want to compete with such.

E.S.: My question is where can the GOP cut funding? And when does the spending stop? Yeah lets raise taxes on the rich! Why so we can spend even more? Or try and reduce the deficit? Ill bet the rich wouldn't mind a tax increase if they knew it wasn't going to be wasted.

Me: Hmm. I turn on "This Old House" and there's advertising for Lumber Liquidators, GMC, and State Farm insurance.

The supposed "wasteland" of commercial television does not justify NPR. Non sequitur.

J.P., someone disagrees, and for some reason you seem compelled to insult and denigrate. You can do better.

J.P.: It's useful to remind oneself that GOP policies haven't led to prosperity since early in the last century. One can persuasively argue that ending the stupidity of overwhelming state's rights and slavery through a civil war and ending crony monopolistic unregulated capitalism established good foundations for national wealth and power over the next century (the so-called American Century). Those were great GOP ideas prior to 1915. I doubt such ideologies would be supported by today's mob of neoconservative troglidites. The greatest period of prosperity was lead by New Deal Democrats (FDR's tribe) taking advantage of GOP progressive policies (TR and his tribe). Regardless of party affiliation, progressives are responsible for national wealth and power, not conservatives. Conservatives appear to have contributed very little of value. If you think you like the good old days, you know Leave it to Beaver and Mayberry RFD, you should brush up on who was controlling the Legislature from 1933 to 1994. With regard to what the GOP can cut... it's mythology. In review, Ronald Reagan expanded government while cutting taxes (exploding deficit spending). George HW Bush moderated that huge expansion and raised taxes though he couldn't turn back Reagan's deluge of spending by any means (he got the axe from the GOP base for trying). Bill Clinton ran a surplus effectively shrinking government though he didn't really want to. George W Bush expanded government and started an expensive and unnecessary war while slashing taxes. He never felt any reason to pay for anything. Obama is trying to prevent a total collapse of the US and global economy stemming largely from 30 years of struggles on tax and spending policy and failed financial sector deregulation in 1999. Basically, it can be said that no one has really cut back the government though one side claims it as a rhetorical plank as though they are a champion of such. I suggest that history indicates they're mostly full of crap.

J.P.: Rich: some things are worth a little hyperbole. I was a faithful Republican for 25 years as my close friends can attest. But this new group are not my Republican party -- that I inherited from long family tradition. It was a disappointment, but finally I had enough and had to decide between them and what I felt was in the national interest. George W Bush made that easier, but this new group... Wow, just wow! They need a time out.

Me: No one here is defending GOP policies. Conservative philosophy has not governed financial policy for many decades.

Bill Clinton did not give us a surplus. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

Only Congress has the authority to appropriate and spend money. None of these presidents did what you claimed.

FDR presided over and extended the longest period of financial devastation the country has ever seen.

Everything you have written is false.

Your hyperbole was not generic. I expect an apology.

E.S.: GOP does not equal conservatism.
I do not support deficit spending no matter where it comes from.
It seems the only real cuts in our massive spending are coming from the right at the moment.
What would be ok for conservatives to cut to try and save us from collapse that liberals wouldn't harp on?
Fact: we cannot keep this spending up and expect to be okay.

E.S.: And we need more cuts than defense spending to balance the budget and i don't rule out those cuts.

Me: E.s., allow me to anticipate the next comment from the Left: So where were you when Bush was runnning up the debt and waging two illegal wars? Here's another: Bush is responsible for the huge debt, Obama is just trying to dig us out of the mess he inherited. Ooo, ooo! Here's a good one: Tax cuts for the weathly are what is causing the debt.

S.B.: E.S., - quick: without resorting to google tell me how much federal funding that NPR gets each year? What % of the budget? How much impact will that have if we eliminate it?

A joke is really lost on the true believers, isn't it?

U.M.: Rich - tax cuts for the wealthy ARE what's causing the debt. How do you not understand this? It's really not complicated. Also, at this point if you support the republican party and you are NOT one of the top 400 richest Americans (and I'm guessing you're not) you're screwing yourself over. You are voting for people who are going to make things WORSE for you. NOT BETTER, WORSE. Ethan - the idea tha we can't afford public broadcasting is BULLSHIT. Plane and simple. Last year's taxpayer outlay for public broadcasting was $420 million. Meanwhile, corporate tax breaks cost the US $100 billion dollars annually. The combination of rampant greed and unabashed ignorance coming from the right today is sickening.

Me: And pick out a couple hundred other programs that can be eliminated as well. That's just the low-hanging fruit.

E.S.: Its probably very minimal but it doesn't change the fact that we can't afford it does it? Do u know that off the top of your head without looking it up?

U.M.: Scott- I just answered your question :) And yes, unfortunately you have to have a basic level of intelligence in order to understand sarcasm.

E.S.: Defunding that by itself wouldn't eliminate any of the deficit but combining it with many other federal programs and waste in all departments most certainly would help.

Me: U.M., your bare assertion does not establish fact. As mentioned before, only congress has the authority to appropriate and spend money. That's what they do, and their spending easily outstrips revenue.

Increasing revenue a dollar increases spending $1.83. Sorry, U.M, it's not a revenue problem.

I also noted above that I was not defending GOP policies. Perhaps you should read what is written before commenting.

Oh, and don't forget to add another profanity. That certainly establishes the power of your argument.

U.M.: Rich - The "low hanging fruit" that you speak of is all programs for low-income people. I know this, because I'm currently going to school for social work, so I'm right in the thick of it. Frankly I find it extremely offensive that you consider food & heating assistance (for example) for people wasteful. Also, anyone who knows me knows that I swear all the time. I'm done being polite to people who are running this country into the ground, sir.

Me: Maybe a little economic quiz is in order.

1) How much revenue will be produced over the next 5 years if we tax the top 10% of earners at 100%?

2) How much tax in total is paid by corporations of all sizes?

3) How much economic activity is provided for each dollar of Unemployment paid?

S.B.: E.S., actually, I DID know, because I've been a donor to NPR for about 15 years. the federal share of NPR's funding is apprx. $$3M/year. or about 0.00001% of the current federal budget.

So when someone says that efforts to defund NPR are primarily motivated by the desire to cut the deficit, you can be pretty sure they are full of shit. Because putting that much political capital into a move that affects about one millionth share of the federal budget is NOT going to get us there.....and trust me, it would be a big political battle to defund it.

So you can assume it's about symbolism, about striking a blow against intellectualism (the real demon of the political right at the moment, though that has not always been the case), and about "getting even" for a perceived political bias of those nasty NPR people.

Yes, we need to cut the deficit. THat's the point of the satire in the Onion -- even mentioning NPR or other miniscule programs like it in the deficiit debate, rather than focusing on those things that are large enough to matter -- THAT is a failure to take the issue seriously. But it is chronic.

You want to tackle the deficit? Tackle Defense. Tackle entitlements. START with the big stuff, where the effort involved (and the inevitable economic pain that the country will suffer as part of the "cure"), will be rewarded with actual progress.

If you want to SOUND tough on the deficit, but accomplish nothing, then sure, focus your time on miniscule programs and portions, sound righteous and accomplish nothing.

Me: U.M., you assume a lot, based on preconceived notions and prejudice. You don't know me, yet you judge me without evidence. That is bigotry.

Good for you, you swear. You must be proud. But maybe you can put a thought or two together and make an argument.

U.M.: Ahem: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10#

S.B.: you guys be nice. I hate deleting threads but will do so if people start acting like jackasses towards each other.

Appropriating Christmas - Christianity is good when it serves your agenda

2011-12-12T10:15:00.002-07:00

The Nation sent me another email, capitalistically hawking their coffe mugs, t-shirts, and pencils. I clicked on the link, and this banner was across the top of their website.

The Left sure loves Jesus and Christanity when they can use them as a bludgeon. When Christians supposedly use Christianity against them, well, then they hate Christianity. What this boils down to is that religion is nothing more than a tool to advance their agenda. Cynical.

Signs that the election is heating up

2011-12-08T16:16:00.002-07:00

You can be sure we're within 1 year of the election, because

1) Gas prices start falling
2) Unemployment lowers
3) Republicans are elevated one by one and systematically destroyed
4) Housing starts magically rise
5) The media trumpets Obama's "accomplishments"
6) The media attempts to pit one Republican candidate against another instead of Obama
7) Mentioning Obama's failures is racism
8) Republican initiatives are routinely described as hateful, greedy, or evil

The great whitewash of the Obama record now begins in earnest.

The Federal Reserve - FB conversation

2011-12-08T09:45:00.003-07:00

L.B. posted this: Please listen to this message from Senator Dennis Kucinich. It only takes a couple of miniutes but lays out the way for the people of the United States to regain soveriegnty
The Fed Grants $7.77 Trillion in Secret Bank Loan - Now Do You Understand Occupy Wall Street? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUpXDZFtEHw&feature=share

Me: He correctly identifies the symptoms, then blames the private sector? The Fed, basically a part of government, is the conduit of funds for the government. The government decides to deficit spend, the fed prints the money, the government receives it and issues bonds to the Fed to cover the money it receives. Essentially, the government is loaning money to itself and the Fed holds the bonds it receives for printing the money the government. Something wrong with this equation, and Kucinich is part of the problem.

L.B.: You don't get it Rich! The Fed is not a part of the government, it is a privately held corporation owned by elitist world power brokers. The Fed essentially creates dollars out of thin air then we the tax payers have to pay them back with interest. Its a giant sucking sound coming out of your pockets to enrich world bankers. It is robbery of the first order and our government, yes Barack Obama, is enabling it to happen!

L.B.: PS The reason I used Senator Kucinich is because many of my friends are lefties and won't read or believe anything that comes out of the right wing media bias. Its great when one of their own gets at least a piece of the picture.

Me: I'm tracking with you, my brother. Kucinich is useful in that regard.

By the way, the Fed was created by an act of congress in 1913, and the board of the Federal Reserve is appointed by the President, but according to law is subject to congressional oversight.

L.B.: If the fed is subject to congress then explain why during the TARP bail out they gave the mega banks in the US and Europe 9 trillion dollars when congress only authorized 900 billion?

Me: It's a shocker I know, but congress doesn't always follow the law... especially when they can spend other peoples' money without limit.

Taxpayers fund public employees - FB Conversation

2011-12-05T08:57:00.006-07:00

S.B. posted a link to an article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/02/25/the-wisconsin-lie-exposed-taxpayers-actually-contribute-nothing-to-public-employee-pensions/

M.G.: Are we surprised?? Recall Walker -- the puppet!!

S.J.: gov. walker is such a tool

Me: ‎"The pension plan is the direct result of deferred compensation- money that employees would have been paid as cash salary but choose..." If the taxpayer isn't the source for compensation, deferred or otherwise, then who is?

S.J.: the employee earned it

Me: Begging the question. What is the source of the money?

S.J.: bit of a circle there, i'm not saying state employees should not exist because their salaries come out of the tax base--am saying walker's a tool for saying workers need to "contribute more" to their pensions when 100% = 100%. he's a dishonest tool misrepresenting the situation and a real reason why unions are still needed.

Me: We need to be clear. All compensation paid to public employees, whether in cash, deferred income, or benefits like health insurance, comes from then pockets of taxpayers. Also, deferred income is not paid by the employee because the employee never received the money. Therefore, the taxpayer is funding it 100%.

S.J.: it's not being unclear, sticking to and not being diverted from the original point of the article which is walker's toolishness

Me: Would it be fair to say that the point of the article is contained in its title? "Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Employee Pensions."

Taxpayers fund the entire pension. Period.

S.J.: poorly worded, many headlines are (brevity, stupidity, etc.) but doesn't mitigate walker's earlier dishonest campaigning against state workers. whether working for the state or a corporation, a living wage for contributing to service or profit is due compensation. evaluating an individual position or performance is fair; inaccurately inferring that an entire class is unfairly receiving benefit is loathsome

Me: Sigh."If the Wisconsin governor and state legislature were to be honest, they would correctly frame this issue," advice the author himself ought to follow. The whole substance of the article (actually, an opinion piece) is a false premise, one that you are promulgating, is that The governor is wrong because the employee is paying for it. The fact, is the taxpayer is. Why is this so hard to see?

The governor was guilty of nothing more than imprecision. The writer is either misinformed or misleading.

John Preston writes a letter to the editor

2011-11-30T08:55:00.010-07:00

Thank you for writing your letter to the editor. You have done a rare thing. You addressed my editorial point-by-point and actually discussed those points. My hat is off to you. Well done!

Since you asked some questions, please permit me the opportunity to respond. Sorry for its length. I shall quote you and interlace my responses.

Rich makes the bold statement that statistically speaking talking on a cell phone is not dangerous. Rich, I fear it is not a question of if, but instead when we will have a serious injury or death attributed to a driver using a handheld device. Should we wait until then to respond?

Most certainly we will have a serious injury or death attributed to cell phones. That is not being disputed. As I noted in my editorial, Bozeman already has a careless driving law. Therefore distracted driving is already illegal. We have laws against all sorts of other things, like theft and murder. We seem to love it when government passes laws as if doing so has solved a problem. But have those laws eliminated those activities?

I need to make clear, I am not arguing against having laws. What I am saying is, what is the factual basis for the Commission passing this law? Will it really reduce risk? There is always a risk in every activity we do. We continually make decisions, whether conscious or unconscious, as to whether the benefit outweighs those risks. We trust that the brakes will work in our car every time we use them. We take it on faith that the burger we are eating does not contain a razor blade. We assume it to be true that the person driving in the lane next to us is competent to drive.

You are concerned about one death, certainly noble. But Mr. Preston, if you place such a high value on that hypothetical single life, it would seem that you must then be in favor of eliminating all preventable loss of life. Therefore, driving ought to be banned entirely, because it is risky and a lot of people are injured or die from driving. McDonald's should be shut down for killing people with unhealthy food. And skydiving is way too dangerous to allow.

The fact is, we accept a certain amount of potential calamity in exchange for certain benefits. We allow death and injury in order to enjoy convenience, quality of life, and/or liberty. Risk cannot be eliminated. Some risks cannot be reduced without unacceptable tradeoffs. The freedom to travel outweighs the number of highway deaths that result from this freedom. The freedom to choose for ourselves how we live our lives means we can eat McDonalds as much or as little as we want. We walk down the street knowing that someone may rob us.

We mitigate those risks as much as we can, not only by our personal habits and diligence, but also by sensible and effective laws. Traffic lights, for example, are demonstrably effective at mitigating loss and injury, as well as maintaining a degree of order for efficient traffic flow. However, banning cell phones regulates a statistically low risk activity for undemonstrated benefits.

Rich feels that the City Commission, in an act of tyranny, solved a problem that doesn’t exist. Rich, I wish you could have been with me half way across Mendenhall (in the crosswalk) as a woman talking on her phone sped past and never even flicked her eyes in my direction. Ask around, Rich, there are countless examples people can give you.

Please quote me accurately. I wrote the problem doesn’t statistically exist. That is, by objective measure, it is not dangerous.

You example is what I referred to in my editorial as an anecdote. It is a non-statistical, unverified, unquantified account which does not establish the point being made. Further, what this driver did is already illegal. Another law will not change the situation.

I spend a lot of time walking myself. Almost every day I see someone doing something foolish behind the wheel. I would venture to say that much of that foolishness is already illegal. Interestingly, I have never observed someone on a cell phone causing an incident. But I note for the record that this is also anecdotal, which is why making laws based on nothing but anecdotes and emotion is perilous.

Rich is troubled by Commissioner Chris Mehl’s comment about the city having time to “educate people.” I was at the meeting when Chris made that comment and I assumed that he was referring to education pertaining to the newness of the law so drivers would be aware of it and thus avoid the consequences of breaking it. Luckily Rich, using his ability to spot a liberal conspiracy behind every bush, saw that Chris is deviously planning to send us all to some sort of re-education camp for brainwashing. I bet they’ll even use some “enhanced interrogation techniques” in their effort to warp our brains.

What you assume and what I assume matter little. Your conclusion went to one side, mine to the other. At least I had the good taste to admit that I may be overreacting. Nevertheless, after we make our assumptions we still need to ascertain what was actually meant. Neither of us knows, so I would suggest that you not in a position to ridicule me about my assumptions. And because the Commission seems to have a lot of power, why should we not be concerned about potential misuses of that power?

To those driving cell-phone users that fear that this is the end of life as they know it — life will go on. Your phone is not being taken away from you, but instead you are being told that the safety of others is a higher priority to our community than that call of yours that you feel can’t wait until you are not driving.

Well, actually, I would say that what we are being told is that the Commissioners can force us to do whatever they want, without any stated statistical justification as to how much risk there is. It isn’t specifically about cell phones, it is about the appropriate use of government power.

Yes, life will go on. This is irrelevant. Life goes on with anyone in any situation, no matter how oppressive the legal environment.

I applaud the commission for joining many other communities and states by taking this step toward making our community safer.

Evidence, please. How much safer? How many injuries will it prevent? These facts have yet to be disclosed, so we don't know if the community is safer now, let alone by how much.

Jerrold Johnson's letter to the editor

2011-11-29T11:13:00.005-07:00

A letter to the editor in today's Chronicle was directed to me:

"In a lighter vein Rich in his Wednesday, Nov. 23, column makes a couple of valid points on his shots at the Bozeman City Commission re. prohibition of cell-phone use while driving. However, he’s not consistent about nanny government as he supports the party who wants less government interference in our lives except for telling us how to run our personal lives, e.g., women’s rights, gay rights, when life starts, birth control, pro choice, marriage definition to mention a few. When Rich acknowledges the contradictions in what he believes and writes, he has a remote possibility of being legitimate and credible — although frankly, I doubt it."

Jerrold E. Johnson

It's letters like these that continually reinforce my convictions, because my opposition consistently manifests a lack of knowledge and weak logic when they try to refute me. If only they would make an attempt to get the facts right, maybe they would render a devastating rejoinder. But until that happens, I can only conclude that I am nearly always right, and that the Left is nearly always wrong.

Mr. Johnson's claim is that I am not consistently for liberty, supposedly because I am on the wrong side of the ennumerated issues.

First, I have not expressed an opinion many of the things on his List of Liberal Talking Points.

Things for which I have not expressed an opinion: Women's rights, when life starts, birth control, pro choice.

Things for which I have expressed an opinion: Gay rights, marriage definition.

Second, for those things I have written about, his point is refuted by what I have written. Third, I do not support any political party. Clearly Mr. Johnson is conflating my positions with that of the Republican Party, despite my express and frequent explanations to the contrary.

Women's rights: I have not expressed a position on women's rights, because there is nothing to take a position on. The Declaration describes rights as self-evident and unalienable. Neither it nor the Constitution expresses any rights applicable to gender. Therefore, women have always had every right as men. Laws preventing women the right to vote, or owning property, or whatever other restriction women have experienced, were in contradiction to the Constitution.

So, the women's rights issue is illusory. As is gay rights . There is no sexual preference built into the concept of unalienable rights. Gays may feel that certain parts of the law are hostile to their agenda, but this is not a rights issue.

When life starts is a matter of biology. I'm not eactly sure why Mr. Johnson names it as a separate issue from pro-choice. I have a feeling that he simply wanted to create a more extended litany of supposed "liberty" issues in order to magnify his assertion that I was being inconsistent.

I'm pretty sure that for the pro-choice crowd there is no concern as to when life biologically begins. It's a matter of when life legally begins, and that standard was set by Roe v. Wade. Since the law can change as Supreme Court Justices change, this is shifting sand for pro-choicers. Hence their vociferous defense of the "right to choose," which is really nothing more than a court granted privilege to treat their fetus as they wish. They have to keep the issue (as they define its parameters) in the forefront.

Birth Control: This item is further proof that Mr. Johnson has no idea what he is talking about. He doesn't even bother to note what part of birth control has to do with freedom from government interference. Is he referencing birth control as a health insurance coverage? Is he making note of Catholic opposition to its use? Is he trying to make a point about making sure school kids have access to birth control since they're going to be sexually active anyway? We simply don't know, so there is no reason to pursue the issue further.

Marriage definition: Well it just so happens I wrote an entire editorial regarding this very issue. And in it I defended, surprise, the removal of government interference. Marriage has been co-opted by government, and has been defined by government with a plethora of laws.

That is the problem, for which there is a relatively easy remedy. Repeal all marriage laws. Get the government out of it and increase liberty. There are many relationships (employment, business, legal) which are created by contract. If someone wants to create a legal relationship, no matter the genders involved, then do it via contract. Simple.

If you want an arrangement called marriage, find a church that will marry you and get married. If you want legal rights and benefits, get a lawyer and sign a contract.

The government has no business in the marriage business. Removing them increases liberty. Except we know that gay marriage isn't about marriage, it is about obtaining legal and moral approval from society. It's to silence critics with epithets and shout downs.

No one really cares what consenting individuals do in the privacy of their own homes. I don't. I also don't care how relationships are solemnized, whether hetero or homo. And the government shouldn't, either.

So, in conclusion, the contradictions are nothing short of glaring in Mr. Johnson's feeble diatribe. It is him, rather than in me, whose credibility has been impeded by his shallow analysis and bumper sticker logic.

Black dogs and cats: the new bigotry

2011-11-28T09:10:00.002-07:00

From the Bozeman Chronicle:

Black Market Pets

Stafford shelter offers discount on adoption of black dogs, cats

Every business seems to be offering special deals to get in on the opening weekend of the holiday shopping season.

Even the animal shelter.

Stafford Animal Shelter in Livingston offered to take 75 percent off the adoption fee of any predominantly black animal this weekend in an attempt to help those less popularly hued cats and dogs find a home.

“We do have some bigotry when it comes to black animals. They go a lot slower,” said shelter director Vicki Blakeman. “I don’t know why.”

The fact that black cats and dogs tend to stay in shelters longer than other-colored animals is a well-known fact throughout the animal shelter industry, she said.

Can you imagine? People who don't choose black dogs and cats are BIGOTS! Racists! Prejudiced!

This is the nonsense that passes as rational thought in some circles. Apparently, people exercising choice for whatever reasons, based on whatever preferences, are nothing more than haters. KKK members. Nazis.

The Left's obsession with color as a measure of diversity and tolerance, while simultaneously disparaging intellectual diversity, has now been extended to our choice of pet color. So now I wonder, what other things might be indicators of bigotry. Would eating chocolate ice cream be an indicator of tolerance? Owning a black car? Wearing a black shirt?

I guess I'm not a bigot, because I own a black dog. Wait a minute. I own it? That's slavery!

Our Identity - Neil Anderson

2011-11-18T10:54:00.005-07:00

I have seen some criticism of Neil Anderson, mostly centering around the idea of whether or not we continue to be sinners, even after being saved. We know that the Kingdom of God is our new reality, yet we still live in the world. It is God who tells us who we are, and Scripture is full of identity verses.

The problem is that the Western intellectual discipline tends to be binary, that is, either/or. Much about God and His Kingdom cannot be dealt with on a binary basis, so it is no surprise that there is tension regarding the nature of sin. I suggest that there is no requirement that we reconcile the two natures.

In any event, we have to deal with the truth of these many biblical statements about who we are. Our identity is now in Christ, which makes each of these statements a description of how God sees us. It is for us to agree with God, it is our choice and our obligation:

1) Romans 8:5: "Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires."

2) Colossians 3:1-2: "Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things."

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

Who Am I ?

(Taken from Neil T. Anderson's book, Victory Over the Darkness Pg. 45-47 and 57-69, Regal Books, 1990)

I am the salt of the earth (Matt.5:13)

I am the light of the world (Matt.5:14)

I am a child of God (John 1:12)

I am a part of the true vine, a channel of Christ's life (John 15:1,5)

I am Christ's friend (John 15:15)

I am chosen and appointed by Christ to bear His fruit (John 15:16)

I am a slave to righteousness (Romans 6:18)

I am enslaved to God (Romans 6:22)

I am a son of God; God is spiritually my Father (Romans 8:14,15; Gal. 3:26; 4:6)

I am a joint heir with Christ, sharing His inheritance with Him (Romans 8:17)

I am a temple a dwelling place of God. His Spirit and His life dwells in me (1 Cor. 3:16, 6:19)

I am united to the Lord and am one Spirit with Him (1 Cor.6:17)

I am a member of Christ's Body 1 Cor. 12:27; Eph.5:30)

I am a new creature (2 Cor. 5: 17)

I am reconciled to God and am a minister of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5: 18,19)

I am a son of God and one in Christ ( Gal. 3: 26,28)

I am an heir of God since I am a son of God (Gal. 4: 6,7)

I am a saint ( Eph. 1:1; 1Cor. 1:2; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2)

I am God's workmanship-His handiwork-born anew in Christ to do His work (Eph. 2:10)

I am a fellow citizen with the rest of God's family ( Eph.2:19)

I am a prisoner of Christ (Eph. 3:1; 4:1)

I am righteous and holy (Eph.4:24)

I am a citizen of heaven, seated in heaven right now (Phil. 3:20; Eph. 2:6)

I am hidden with Christ in God (Col. 3:4)

I am an expression of the life of Christ because He is my life (Col.3:4)

I am chosen of God, holy and dearly loved (Col.3:12; 1 Thess.1:4)

I am a son of light and not of darkness (1 Thess. 5:5)

I am a holy partaker of a heavenly calling (Heb.3:1)

I am a partaker of Christ; I share in His life (Heb. 3:14)

I am one of God's living stones, being built up in Christ as s spiritual house (1 Peter 2:5)

I am a member of a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of God's own possession (1Peter 2:9,10)

I am an alien and stranger to this world in which I temporarily live (1 Peter 2:11)

I am a enemy of the devil (1 Peter 5:8)

I am a child of God and I will resemble Christ when He returns (1 John 3: 1,2)

I am born of God, and the evil one - the devil - cannot touch me (1 John 5:18)

I am not the Great I AM, (Exodus 3:14; John 8:24,28,58) But by the grace of God I am what I am (1 Cor.15:10)

I have been justified- completely forgiven and made righteous (Romans 5:1)

I died with Christ and died to the power of sin’s rule over my life (Romans 6:1-6)

I am free forever from condemnation (Romans 8:1)

I have been placed into Christ by God’s doing (1 Corinthians 1:30)

I have received the Spirit of God into my life that I might know the things freely given to me by God (! Corinthians 2:12)

I have been given the mind of Christ (! Corinthians 2:16)

I have bought with a price; I am not my own; I belong to God (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)

I have been established, anointed and sealed by God in Christ, and I have been given the Holy

Spirit as a pledge guaranteeing our inheritance to come (II Corinthians 1:21, Ephesians 1:13-14)

Since I have died, I no longer live for myself, but for Christ (II Corinthians 5:14-15)

I have been made righteous (II Corinthians 5:21)

I have been crucified with Christ and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. The life I am now living is Christ’s life (Galatians 2:20)

I have been blessed with every spiritual blessing (Ephesians 1:3)

I was chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and am without blame before him (Ephesians 1:4)

I was predestined - determined by God - to be adopted as God’s son (Ephesians 1:5)

I have been redeemed, forgiven, and I am a recipient of His lavish grace. I have been made alive together with Christ (Ephesians 2:5)

I have been raised up and seated with Christ in heaven (Ephesians 2:6)

I have direct access through the Spirit (Ephesians 2:18)

I may approach God with boldness, freedom and confidence (Ephesians 3:12)

I have been rescued from the domain of Satan’s rule and transferred to the kingdom of Christ (Colossians 1:13)

I have been redeemed and forgiven of all my sins. The debt against me has been canceled (Colossians 1:14)

Christ Himself is in me (Colossians 1:27)

I am firmly rooted in Christ and am now being built in Him (Colossians 2:7)

I have been spiritually circumcised. My old, unregenerate nature has been removed. (Colossians 2:11)

I have been made complete in Christ (Colossians 2:10)

I have been buried, raised and made alive with Christ (Colossians 2:12-13)

I died with Christ and I have been raised up with Christ. My life is now hidden with Christ in God. Christ is now my life (Colossians 3:1-4)

I have been given a spirit of power, love and self-discipline (II Timothy 1:7)

I have been saved and set apart according to God’s doing (II Timothy 1:9, Titus 3:5)

Because I am sanctified and am one with the sanctifier, He is not ashamed to call me brother (Hebrews 2:11)

I have the right to come boldly before the throne of God to find mercy and grace in time of need (Hebrews 4:16)

I have been given exceedingly great and precious promises by God by which I am a partaker of God’s divine nature (II Peter 1:4)

Government workers' taxes paid by private sector - FB Conversation

2011-11-18T08:15:00.003-07:00

I posted this tidbit: "$15T Federal Debt Equals $160,545 for Each Full-Time Private-Sector American."

S.B.: last time I looked, I, along with my fellow public sector employees, paid income taxes, federal excise taxes, state taxes, etc -- just like those private sector folks! So what does the pro-rationing to "per private sector American" accomplish?

Me: Because the private sector wage earners supply the funding for everything else, including the money that the government takes back from you after they pay you.

S.B.: but the debt is just as much mine, or your local cop, firefighter, or teacher (or insert your other favorite public sector leach on society here) as it is any of those people's. And we contribute equally to paying it down.

Me: I would take issue with the assertion that it is anyone's direct responsibility. But granting you that, it still remains that every single dollar a public sector employee receives in wages and benefits came from the private sector. If we follow the money trail, the taxes you pay were sourced from someone else, placed in government coffers, and then issued to you only to be taken back by the government.

S.B.: and I don't get your point, Rich, if there is one. Clearly we have government for a purpose. Most would argue that government is merely ONE way that we collectively organize to do things that we cannot do individually -- whether that be a space program, fire protection, national defense, etc.

If your implication is that somehow, none of this provides any societal value, then I would say that there's really nothing to argue about -- I wouldn't be working for the gov't if I believed that -- just as I found it hard working for private sector companies that had no higher purpose than providing a return on investment to their shareholders. A position, incidentally, which I don't expect you to embrace.

I am proud of being on the government payroll; what I do has value and I make no apologies for it. I am a productive member of society and if you are implying that I am anything less because I chose a career of doing science in the public interest, then I don't know what to tell you.

Me: You seem to assume I'm making some sort of value judgment, either about you, or about federal workers in general. However, I have pointedly and specifically dealt with a particular economic reality of who pays for what.

I note that you have yet to address that single point, instead making an emotional appeal. It makes me wonder, do you have a rebuttal?

May I also point out that I have not brought up anything about the value of government. Nor have I discussed anything regarding the societal value of government work. Indeed, I have no intention of making a defense of things I did not write about.

So, if you want to actually discuss the crippling nature of the national debt, that would be refreshingly on topic.

Cell phone follies - editorial

2011-11-17T09:42:00.007-07:00

The Chronicle reports that the Bozeman Commissioners passed an ordinance prohibiting the use of cell phones while driving. Commissioner Carson Taylor was quoted, saying. "Using a cell phone when you're driving is dangerous." We do not know if he provided evidence for his statement, but my guess is that he did not.

Probably because there isn’t any. Statistically speaking, it is not dangerous. The article says that “…5,474 people died and another 448,000 were hurt in crashes involving all forms of distracted driving in 2009.” After a brief search I found that 18% were attributed to hand-held devices. That would be 985 deaths and 80,640 injuries nationwide.

From this we can calculate per capita deaths and injuries in Bozeman caused by drivers distracted by cell phones. The number of deaths per year is basically zero, and injuries, less than 10. In other words, the Commissioners solved a problem that statistically doesn’t exist.

Lacking actual danger to the populace, the Commission legislated against what might happen as a result of engaging in an activity that could be dangerous and might cause injury. Therefore, the law is predicated on the consequence of two, maybe three antecedents. This is akin to outlawing television because there is a boiling pot of food on the stove that could start a fire and kill everyone in the house.

But what is really unfortunate is that the Bozeman Municipal Code already covers the issue: “A person operating or driving a vehicle of any character on the ways of the city open to the public shall drive it in a careful and prudent manner...” (Section 36.03.260)

What, then, is the reason for the law? First, we can safely conclude that this is the pop culture issue de jour. Lacking statistical justification, the law is based on little more than emotion and anecdotes. Kinda like setting tax policy by what Warren Buffet says about his secretary. Second, the city will receive thousands of dollars of additional revenue.

So why the focus on cell phones? Why not some laws to prohibit having sex while driving, playing with your chimpanzee while driving, or listening to an Obama speech while driving? It is unknown why the Commission did not address these clearly dangerous activities.

The Commissioners, attentive to nothing more than feel-good politics, are nevertheless perfectly comfortable giving a pass to drivers breezing through stoplights and bicyclists going the wrong way down one way streets. Having spectacularly solved the Story Mansion situation, the transfer station problem, the parking crisis, the traffic camera question, and the impact fee issue, the Commission can carve yet another notch on the bedpost of nanny government. Well, maybe we’re not getting screwed, but it sure feels like it.

But it gets worse. Consider this troubling quote from the article: “Commissioner Chris Mehl stipulated that the law not go into effect any earlier than Jan. 17, so city officials have time to educate people.” Is anyone else bothered by the idea that we the people must be “educated” in order to ensure conformity? Who, exactly, is charged with taking us aside and educating us? And what does this education consist of?

Yeah, yeah, I know. I’m making too big a deal out of this; it’s just a little thing. But liberty requires eternal vigilance. We must notice when politicians, enamored of their ability to force people to do things, start passing behavior modification laws and then insist that people be indoctrinated to unblinkingly obey them.

Tyrants frequently think big and start small, and tyranny can manifest in degrees. A singular powerful dictator or overtly egregious actions are not necessary prerequisites. A bunch of small town commissioners legislating a small issue still qualifies, and still must be opposed.

These guys have too much power, and apparently, too much time on their hands.

The Nation Magazine is at it again

2011-11-16T09:51:00.002-07:00

I received this email today, and I note that the Nation is ok with being a direct Democratic mouthpiece by agreeing to publish their talking points.

I also note that the Democrats have no problem with Obama talking about his faith in God, but they don't like Republicans passing laws about our national motto, which just recently is once again the subject of an atheist lawsuit.

They also attack the Republicans regarding what they call "jobs" bills, even though none of the stimuli have had any effect on the unemployment rate. I'd stop supporting these programs too, if there was no evidence of success.

Last point. If the nation's roads and bridges are crumbling, whose fault is that? With gas taxes, tolls, and fees raking in billions of dollars, where is the money going?

So anyway, here's the email:

Dear Nation Reader,

One look at the conduct of the GOP-led House gives a frightening idea of what our government could look like with a Republican Majority in the Senate as well. Read below for ways you can stand against GOP obstructionism.

Sincerely,
Peter Rothberg
Associate Publisher, The Nation

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

Dear Friend,

Three times in three weeks, Senate Republicans filibustered a bill to create jobs -- the last time through rebuilding America's crumbling roads and bridges.

Unbelievable.

These lawmakers won't lift a finger to put people back to work and get our economy moving again. Meanwhile, Republicans in the House found time to debate and pass a reaffirmation of "In God We Trust" as our national motto, which has been in place since 1956, was reaffirmed in 2002, and again in 2006.

As President Obama said, "I trust in God, but God wants to see us help ourselves by putting people back to work."

If you agree that Republicans should stop playing politics with our economy and help people get back to work, please sign our petition. We're looking for 100,000 people to take a stand for jobs and America's middle class.

We're going to keep calling Republicans out for their stubborn refusal to do anything to get our economy moving again. Thanks for your help.

Sincerely,

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee

"God does not use angels to accomplish His purposes." An analysis

2011-11-14T14:32:00.002-07:00

A FB friend posted this quote, attributed to David Wilkerson: "God uses people. God uses people to perform His work. He does not send angels. Angels weep over it, but God does not use angels to accomplish His purposes. He uses burdened broken-hearted weeping men and women."

I don't accept things as easily as I used to. This quote, while seemingly insightful, struck me as odd. The person who posted it was, I believe, using it to encourage believers to serve God. That is noble and good. There is no doubt that God's people are prone to inaction and antipathy.

But there is something wrong as we continue reading past the first sentence. wilkerson appears to be suggesting that God will only use His people, and then only His people who are weeping and brokenhearted. I certainly accept that God has a unique and powerful calling to His Church to be His body, to do the things He has called us to, and to make a difference in this world. He has anointed His people, He dwells within them, He speaks to them and through them. Quite right.

However, we also know that God uses the ungodly, He uses animals, He uses weather and nature, and He even uses dark forces to accomplish His will. He brings calamity and pours out blessing. All things are in His hand, and every knee will bow. God is not a victim of happenstance. He is certainly not powerless outside the realm of His people.

And yes, God uses His angels. They're all over the Bible, doing battle, functioning as messengers, ministering to God's people. They're quite specifically being used by God to accomplish His purpose. There are dozens of mentions of angels doing all sorts of things. The Bible even refers to heavenly hosts. The term "hosts" translates as "armies." This begs the question, why would God have armies of angels, if they don't execute His purposes?

We now see that this is a bit more complicated. So what is Wilkerson really talking about? I searched around to find the context of the quote. Happily, I found the entire sermon posted here: http://biblebeltblogger.com/index.php/religion/david-wilkersons-most-powerful-message-ever

The topic of Wilkerson's sermon is the backslidden Church, the Church that has compromised, that tolerates sin in its midst and accepts false teaching. Specifically, Wilkerson names the prosperity doctrine. Wilkerson's sermon has nothing at all to do with Christian service! It has everything to do with those who will take up the call to stand for Truth and Righteousness, those who will not tolerate false teaching, those who will weep over the sins of the Church and intercede for it.

And now we understand what Wilkerson is speaking about. He is not saying that only God's people are used by Him. Wilkerson is calling the Church to do its specific job. Only the people of God can deal with the problems in the Church. They are called to do this. The angels aren't.

I respond to some comments

2011-11-09T16:17:00.007-07:00

These comments appeared on the Bozeman Chronicle website in answer to my recent column. I do want to dissect them a bit because of their astonishing fecklessness.

First, magicdragon: "I want him to post his tax forms so we all can see how much he writes off. When I was self employed, I was able to write off thousands that a man working for someone else could not. Does Rich pay a higher percent than his receptionist?"

This is the classic progressive mindset. This writer seems to think he is entitled to see my private fiancial records, apparently to determine if I pay enough taxes. So I'll make him a deal. If magicdragon would publish all the details of his sex life so that we can determine the appropriateness of his behavior and then penalize him for any, shall we say, indadequacies, I then would be happy to publish my tax records.

If magicdragon was able to pay lower taxes as a result of being self-employed, he was guilty of tax evasion. A business owner pays both the employer and employee portions of Social Security on himself, rent, phone, postage, utilities, employee salaries and benefits, buys equipment, and of course, pays a plethora of taxes. If there is any money left, then the owner gets a paycheck.

Next, Sonechka: "According to manta.com: '[Rich's company] is a private company which is listed under insurance. Current estimates show this company has an annual revenue of $500,000 to $1 million and employs a staff of 1 to 4.' You can afford your taxes, Rich."

So this means, I assume, that the only relevant factor regarding taxes is affordability? This would mean that taxes can never be too high, unfair, illegal, or punitive if the target has the ability to pay them. It also suggests that government ought to have to power to determine who has too much money and take it from them.

Implicit in this is the idea that your wealth belongs to the government, who "kindly" allows you to keep some for yourself. However, the principle of private property is a founding concept of our country, an idea which separates us from the monarchy, where the people are subjects or serfs, and the King owns all property. The Constitution notes that we have the right to be secure in our persons and property.

Baucus responds to suggestions with a form letter

2011-11-09T12:11:00.002-07:00

I wrote Baucus with my suggestions, and here is his non-response:

Dear Rich:

Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts about the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. I appreciate hearing from you.

The committee was established by the Budget Control Act of 2011, which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama on August 2, 2011. The committee is tasked with identifying $1.2 trillion in cuts by late November; this is in addition to the nearly $1 trillion in cuts that went into effect automatically when the Budget Control Act was signed into law. The committee is split evenly with six Democratic and six Republican members. I'm humbled to be appointed to the committee, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address the critical fiscal issues our country faces in a balanced and practical way. The legislation produced by the committee will not be amendable and will be guaranteed an up or down vote in the House and Senate by the end of the year.

If the committee fails to approve legislation providing for $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction, or if Congress fails to pass the bill produced by the committee, automatic across-the-board spending cuts would go into effect for fiscal years 2013-2021. Half of the cuts would come from defense programs and half would come from non-defense programs. Social Security, Medicaid, veterans' benefits, and pay for our military personnel are exempt from cuts. Medicare savings would be capped at 2% and limited to cuts to providers and insurance plans; there would be no cuts to beneficiaries.

For a summary of the Budget Control Act and more information about the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, please visit: http://dpc.senate.gov/docs/fs-112-1-23.pdf. You can also visit the committee's website at: http://www.deficitreduction.gov.

I recognize the concerns and suggestions I have heard from Montanans about the budget and the direction of our country. Your opinion is important to me. I hear what you're saying, and you can rest assured I will keep your thoughts firmly in mind as I continue my work in the Senate and on the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction.

Once again, thanks for getting in touch. Please contact me in the future with any additional comments or concerns. Also, you can visit my website at http://baucus.senate.gov to view information on current issues and to find out what I'm doing both here in Washington and at home to help Montana.

Bank drops its fee - FB conversation

2011-11-08T11:13:00.003-07:00

M.K. posted this:

This is old news,but worth repeating......i guess the message is getting across,finally! And it's only the beginning. But, B of A will most likely take the picture and just move the frame....beware of other hidden fees popping up!

"After uproar, Bank of America drops $5 fee"

Me: Did'ja notice that they changed due to pressure from the public? In fact, it was congressional legislation that B of A was adjusting to. In other words, a problem caused by government solved by the people.

M.K.: Yes, congressional legislation that was necessary...there are other ways to make money in banking than put blanket fees on every transaction. The "problem" was from the banks, not the government. Banks haven't always charged those fees, that was something relatively recent. (I.E. problem= excessive greed). You're right, that the "people" should have intervened first, and just stopped using their debit cards,which is hard to do, since everyone uses them. And,yes, it was the "public",but not the general public, not the Tea Party, but the Occupy Movement that got this ball rolling.Let's give credit where credit is due! banks can try to make all the money they want, it's a free,capitalist society,but if they want more and more for the same basic mediocre services,guess what? We're not buying it! We'll go elsewhere,thank you very much!

Me: I think you missed my point. Government changed the law, the bank adjusted, consumers didn't like it and the bank relented. Capitalism solved the problem.

By the way, greed is a moral problem. You can't legislate morality.

M.K.: Yes, the govt. should have not gotten involved...however, it was such a blanket, across the board fee that affected practically everybody.so they felt a need to intervene. the bank could have adjusted in other ways...cut the fat out of the ...top...do some more bad investing. And yes, greed is a moral problem. Illegal greed is a criminal problem. Just ask Bernie Maddoff. There's a fine line between the two that only well paid lawyers and judges can determine

Me: You're quite right. The government shouldn't have gotten involved.

Anyone who didn't like bank fees could have walked before congress got involved. Therefore, congress solved a problem that didn't exist, and in fact made things worse. After things got worse, people voted with their feet and fixed it. Congress should have stayed out of it.

There is no such thing as illegal greed. There is theft, graft, embezzlement, price gouging, etc. Greed is a state of mind. Greed is sin. It is not illegal. Jesus saves us from sins, government prosecutes crime. There is no fine line.

My response to Christine Montano

2011-11-07T13:43:00.011-07:00

The thing I noticed first about Christine's letter to the editor is the total absence of name-calling. This alone makes it a noteworthy letter, since she makes her points with the substance of her arguments, not on pejorative language. Well done on that level, Christine.

However, the substance of her arguments must be based on the substance of my column. Does she refute things I actually addressed? And does she accurately represent them? Well, no. It seems that these simple criteria would not be unreasonable to expect of an English teacher at Bozeman High School.

Christine writes: "Unlike Rich, I have recently discovered that total self-reliance is impossible in today’s modern world." Unfortunately for her, I made no statement regarding "total self-reliance." The fact of the matter is that I do not believe that total self reliance is desirable, even if it were possible. True, there are some who make an effort to live "off the grid," but even they will rely on others at times. Nevertheless, there is little advantage in discussing a position that is not mine.

Christine continues: "Bill Anderson’s excellent essay titled “The Myth of Self-Reliance” made me question the viability of libertarianism today since, like it or not, we are interconnected as a society." So, Christine did not get the idea of "total self-reliance" from my column, she got it from Bill Anderson: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/the-myth-of-self-reliance/

I note for the record that Mr. Anderson never used the word "libertarian." His article references a magazine article, which he describes as advocating self sufficiency. He quotes a paragraph from it to establish his thesis that total self-reliance is not possible: "Before 1776 we were less than free as a country, but Americans were independent in a personal sense. Most people then built their own homes, grew their own food, made their furniture and clothes, and even bred their own horses for transportation. True, life was much harder than now. But the support systems were within reach of almost everyone, and were subject to individual control. People ‘paid’ for much of what they used with their own effort. Almost all the raw materials were renewable. Our material culture was sustainable, and America could be cut off from the rest of the world without the creation of much suffering or hardship... What can be done about our growing dependence in these modern times?"

Maybe I'm not seeing it, but there doesn't appear to be any advocacy of "total self-reliance" contained in the paragraph he quoted. Quite the contrary, this statement, "...but the support systems were within reach of almost everyone..." suggests just the opposite, that people did depend on each other. Hmm, maybe it's just me.

Beyond that, libertarians do not advocate total self-reliance. Perhaps a small few of them do, but it certainly is not a defining tenet of libertarianism. Libertarians do want to bring government down to its constitutional limits, they do want government out of their pockets and personal lives, and they do believe that they are better equipped to make decisions about their own lives. But libertarians are not anarchists or isolationists (except isolation from undue government interference).

Let's continue on to Christine's next point: "What are the long-term effects of “opting out” of local taxes as Rich suggests?" Actually, I did not suggest that we should have the ability to opt out. The point I made is that progressives are in favor of certain targeted taxes, like impact fees, but opposed to the idea of allowing other targeted taxes, based on nothing but political preferences. They like impact fees because these taxes target a villan, and also because they don't have to pay them. Conversely, they like general taxes like property taxes because property taxes support public schools, and they like public schools.

She asks, "What if we chopped down Bozeman’s trees to make more room for 'wonderful creations,' the office buildings Rich celebrates?" Well, people chop down trees all the time for a variety of reasons. But I did not advocate cutting down trees to build condos. All I did was question the tree maintenance tax, which I suppose is sufficent to make me anti-tree.

She continues: "What happens to property values and quality of life in a hardscape town of 'beautiful, useful' office condominiums?" So now I want ALL the trees cut down and office condos built everywhere! Do you see how this is escalating from my simple questioning of a tax? But let's run with the idea. Assume the Gallatin Valley was covered with forests. Eeevil capitalist developers came in and cut down a bunch of trees and built ugly office condos. Did the quality of life change? Yes, upwards. The reason those offices were built is because businesses need a place to operate from, and those businesses sell products and employ people and allow a better quality of life.

Trees, on the other hand, employ no one. They just sit there looking pretty. I would certainly agree that we need pretty things to look at to soften the hardscape, but I would suggest that the two are not mutually exclusive. In any event, since I am not anti-tree or pro-condo, it makes little sense to discuss the point any more.

Christine then pursues another non-sequitur: "What happens to our educated, literate workforce and local businesses when public education quality declines due to lack of funding?" Well, my column made no statement about the level of funding for public schools. We do know, however, that the worst schools in the country (largely located in progressive strongholds like Detroit and D.C.) are among the highest funded. So, there is no real "...correlation among literacy skills, education and criminal activity versus civic responsibility..." with school funding.

Once again, since I questioned a tax, in this case property taxes, it apparently makes me anti-education. This is a typical M.O. of the political left. Opposing or criticizing a tax or a government program is synonymous with opposing the goal of the tax or program. Therefore, suggesting tax reform is the same as being anti-education, hating blacks, tossing the poor out into the streets, starving our seniors, and misogyny.

It seems pretty obvious that she is drawing conclusions based on suppositions that are derived from the progressive template. It's not that I think she's dishonest, I think she's reflexively responding based on where she is immersed. She assumes they're true because she surrounds herself with like-minded people, and as a result generally restricts her exposure to contrary ideas. I believe she has rarely had a sit down with someone who has a different political point of view, or if she has, she doesn't like it when it happens.

I must say, however, I am glad that she wrote. Responding to something other than mindless invective was a pleasure for me. She did demonstrate that it is possible to engage in civil dialogue. I hope a few progressives take the hint.

Christine Montano writes a response to my editorial

2011-11-07T12:22:00.004-07:00

I'll write a response later.

On Nov. 2, Rich wrote an editorial denouncing his tax bills for tree and street maintenance and property taxes for public schools. Like Rich, I also pay taxes, oppose our wars and bailouts, have no children and have sometimes been attracted to libertarian ideals (although I’m hesitant to jump on any political bandwagon). Unlike Rich, I have recently discovered that total self-reliance is impossible in today’s modern world.

Bill Anderson’s excellent essay titled “The Myth of Self-Reliance” made me question the viability of libertarianism today since, like it or not, we are interconnected as a society. The self-sufficient feudalist societies of the medieval era, Anderson writes, contained hidden costs of illiteracy, isolation, disease, coercion and threat of war. On the other hand, our modern communities are composed of skilled, specialized workers who must depend on each other for our society’s health and vitality. “The Myth of Self-Reliance,” available online, makes for fascinating reading that challenged my political assumptions.

What are the long-term effects of “opting out” of local taxes as Rich suggests? What if we chopped down Bozeman’s trees to make more room for “wonderful creations,” the office buildings Rich celebrates? What happens to property values and quality of life in a hardscape town of “beautiful, useful” office condominiums? What happens to our educated, literate workforce and local businesses when public education quality declines due to lack of funding? What is the correlation among literacy skills, education and criminal activity versus civic responsibility?

On the same day that Rich's editorial appeared, a front-page article indicated that 95 percent of Bozeman High School students scored at or above grade level in reading. As a community, we must be doing something right. Rich, none of us is truly self-reliant anymore.

Proud to be a liberal - FB conversation

2011-11-05T09:32:00.005-06:00

S.B. posted this:

I've ALWAYS been proud to be a liberal.
REFRAMING THE WORD 'LIBERAL'
SHARE if you too ARE PROUD TO BE A LIBERAL!

Monte Wolverton is one of the world's most widely syndicated editorial cartoonists. His work appears in fine newspapers, periodicals, websites and blogs everywhere. I guess this cartoon allows us to safely state that he is a LIBERAL... check more of his toons: http://www.wolvertoon.com/toons/

Me: Meh. A full half of those things are still societal problems that haven't been solved.

S.B.: well, let's see: Consumer protection? Do you think the industry that brought us exploding Pintos and the Corvair would have increased auto safety at this rate without regulation?

Me: It's wonderful that safety has increased. But we don't know what would have happened without government intervention, nor do we know the cost to society in other ways, nor do we know how many deaths and injuries resulted from these regulations.

S.B.: or lead exposures -- remember all the industry bitching about eliminating lead from gas?

S.B.: I can go on, but it won't change your view on the matter, and those of us who are proud of these accomplishments aren't about to consider them failures.

Me: Yeah, and remember trying to drive a wheezer from circa 1977? And I wonder how much cost is added to a vehicle to comply with these regulations, how much natural resources were used in their manufacture, and what other things might have happened in industry without having to devote those resources to government mandates.

You celebrate the easy-to-discern benefits without regarding the unseen detriment. The equation is much bigger than you are allowing for.

Me: will always have air that is too dirty, which justifies the eternal involvement of government in all phases of our lives.

S.B.: I not only remember, but I grew up in a gas station in those years, so worked on them.

But the industry figured it out, and today my brother's corvette goes 0-60 quicker than anything on the road in 1968 or 1978, yet gets 26mpg when he wants to.

And EVERY signficant increase in vehicle fleet economy has been preceded by regulatory action to force those changes.

K,M.: The bad and the good... we lost the chrome. But we don't have to drive 55 anymore.

Me: Assuming there are some overall benefits from a few of these liberal achievements, then do liberals also take the blame for skyrocketing crime, illegitimacy, illiteracy, and inner city desolation that has ocurred over the last 40 years? Or do liberals get credit for all the "good" stuff resulting from their policies, but the bad stuff is someone else's blame?

R.E.: Lest we forget the Community reinvestment act that lead to Freddy mac and fanny mae and the melt down of the housing market.

R.B.: "Assuming" there are benefits? Brother, you're in denial. And to blame a liberal political philosophy for the ills you iterate Rich, is without demonstrable merit. And R.B., claiming that the Community Reinvestment Act led to the housing bubble is either a deliberate falsehood, or just stupidity. There's nothing wrong with being a conservative, but being a stupid, arrogant conservative sucks.

ME: R.B., for liberals to take credit for good things without assuming blame for bad things is without demonstrable merit.

And by the way, you are stupid and arrogant. Or simply a boor.

V.M.: It's stupid to use Conservative OR Liberal as a negative term. I like this way much

I.S.: More than happy to take the blame for the "bad" we've done. Like letting conservatives run roughshod over the country and the economy for the last thirty years and cleaning up their messes instead of letting them wallow in the consequences of their stupidity and arrogance. The only "skyrocketing" that is factual and actual is the massive redistribution of wealth and destruction of the middle class started by St. Ronnie -- who would never be elected today as he would be classified as "too liberal".

R.E.: Cummunity Reinvestedment Act was the Start and then Clinton wanting to make it easier for people to buy houses accelerated the housing bust thru sub par mortgages. even tho the senate was warned that unless something was done Fanny Mae would collapse. They were warned in 2002 that we were heading for a mortgage crisis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

Me: ‎"Like letting conservatives run roughshod over the country and the economy for the last thirty years..." What? With the exception of 2000-2006, liberals were in charge of at least one branch of government, and sometimes all three during the last 30 years.

The only messes that must be cleaned up are liberals and their republican big government co-conspirators who have spent this country into oblivion.

I.S.: Turn off Fox.

Me: Ms. Suver, don't forget to call me a bigot and a homophobe. Whatever name calling assuages your failure to offer substantive rejoinders.

My response to Mr. Farrell

2011-11-03T13:30:00.004-06:00

Mr. Farrell,

I read your letter to the editor with interest. Please permit me a response. I must admit, I am a little perplexed. Did you read my entire column? I ask this because of some of your statements seem to suggest that you did not.

I will quote you and then provide my responses:

“I am tired of all of the people who insist on getting a free ride on the backs of everyone else.” Where, exactly, did I insist on such a thing?

”The city, as far as I know, does not receive any money from vehicle taxes. How is it supposed to maintain those streets?” I did not suggest that the city receives money from vehicle taxes. I said, “…maintaining the streets ought to be already contained in the vehicle taxes I pay.” Ought to be.

“You vote for the city officials; I don’t.” Actually, I don’t either. Although I own property and run a business within the city, because I do not live in the city I cannot vote.

“Current residents are already paying for the maintenance of the existing infrastructure. Why should they also pay for the new infrastructure required for the additional population?” Nowhere did I say that existing residents should pay for development. I said, “[developers] build wonderful creations like office condos, which are subsequently taxed in perpetuity.” In other words, once a structure is built the city receives property taxes on it forever. Development is a source of new revenue. Any impact is only temporary. This means impact is eventually erased by the continuing property taxes from that new development.

In addition, shouldn’t we all bear the burden of new development, since we all have to bear the burden of public schools and tree maintenance? Why create an artificial category called “impact?” When people with school-age children move into Bozeman we don’t charge them for building a new school, do we? This is one of the central points of my column, in fact.

”… the idea that the total population should pay to put money in the pockets of the developers might be objectionable to some of your fellow citizens…” Please point out where I suggested this. Frankly, I don’t understand your comment at all.

The money a developer pays for impact fees was first in his pocket. He earned it. He is the one who is paying to put money in the pockets of the city via what I consider to be an unjust tax. If this tax was discontinued, the developer then keeps his own money. The “total population” is not paying the developer anything.

”Do you take the position that no government is necessary?” I quote myself: “The purpose of taxes is to fund the constitutionally mandated functions of government…” Did you not read this? Does it sound to you like I’m advocating no government?

This is a false binary equation that seems to be tossed out whenever someone advocates limited government. It isn’t about government vs. no government. The issue is about the size, scope, and processes of government.

“If not, I would be interested in just where you would draw the line. What should we have in the way of government and how should we pay for it?” Good question. This is the Grand Debate, isn’t it? I have written dozens of columns. Before that I wrote scores of letters to the editor. So, I have already explained my positions thoroughly. Since you appear to be unaware of my many statements, you may review them on the Chronicle website if you wish: http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/search/?q=rich+sherlock&t=article&l=10&d=&d1=&d2=&s=start_time&sd=desc&f=html

Once you have done so, feel free to respond to me with any further questions you might have. In the meantime, it may profit you in the future to respond to what I wrote, and not what you think I might have wrote.

Thank you very much for your time.

Ed Farrell responds to my column

2011-11-03T10:21:00.001-06:00

I'll put together a response later.

In response to Rich Sherlock’s latest (Nov. 2) gripe; I am tired of all of the people who insist on getting a free ride on the backs of everyone else.

Rich, you drive to your office condo on city streets. It takes money to maintain those streets. The city, as far as I know, does not receive any money from vehicle taxes. How is it supposed to maintain those streets? Or are those streets magical and never in need of maintenance?

The issue of tree taxes where there are no trees I’ll leave up to you. You vote for the city officials; I don’t.

Classifying impact fees as “feel good noise” really sets me off! Every additional person living in this community creates an additional demand on basic infrastructure: potable water, sewer, police and fire protection. This infrastructure does not appear by magic. Current residents are already paying for the maintenance of the existing infrastructure. Why should they also pay for the new infrastructure required for the additional population?

You are entitled to your opinion that developers add beauty to the local scene. Recognize that that opinion is not universal, and that the idea that the total population should pay to put money in the pockets of the developers might be objectionable to some of your fellow citizens, as well as their duly elected representatives.

Do you take the position that no government is necessary? If not, I would be interested in just where you would draw the line. What should we have in the way of government and how should we pay for it? That ought to be fodder for at least a couple of columns and might even be interesting to most of the rest of us.

Ed Farrell

He looked beyond my faults

2011-11-03T10:17:00.003-06:00

Herman Cain sang this song a couple of days ago. The media reported that he sang "Amazing Grace."

Hot on the heels of that was Obama press secretary Jay Carney informing us that "God helps those who help themselves" was in the Bible.

HE LOOKED BEYOND MY FAULTS
Words & Music by Dottie Rambo

Amazing grace will always be my song of praise
For it was grace that brought me liberty.
I can not know just why He came to love me so;
He looked beyond my faults and saw my needs.

I shall forever lift mine eyes to Calvary
To view the cross where Jesus died for me.
How marvelous that grace that caught my falling soul;
He looked beyond my faults and saw my needs.

I shall forever lift mine eyes to Calvary
To view the cross where Jesus died for me.
How marvelous that grace that caught my falling soul;
He looked beyond my faults and saw my needs.

He looked beyond my faults and saw my needs.

Editorial - forcing people to do things

2011-11-01T09:48:00.001-06:00

I just received my tax bill for tree and street maintenance. It wasn’t much, $31.60, but there are no city trees on my block. And since my office condo doesn’t drive on the streets, it seems to me that maintaining the streets ought to be already contained in the vehicle taxes I pay.

Hot on the heels of that little burr under my saddle comes the $1716 property tax bill for my office condo. Essentially, I’m being taxed on little more than the airspace inside, since the building is owned by the condo association. And the association pays property taxes on the structure, for which I am billed in my condo dues. In essence, I pay taxes twice.

So I started thinking about the unfairness of the tax system in all its forms. Like impact fees. The city recently decided to not lower them. They say that developers ought to bear the burden of the impact of their projects. But this is nothing but feel-good noise.

These governo-centric “progressives” only concern themselves with what’s good for government, so the only impact considered seems to be the impact on government. “Impact” is a noble, fine-sounding excuse for a political agenda. Impact fees are intended to punish those eeeevil developers.

I’m sure they feel morally superior going after these bad guys. However, developers create beautiful, useful things. They improve peoples’ lives. They build wonderful creations like office condos, which are subsequently taxed in perpetuity. Frankly, I doubt there is really any “impact” at all.

And what about eeeeevil smokers? I like to smoke an occasional cigar, but I can buy them online for much less than what they sell for locally. The reason? A 50% tax on tobacco. Tobacco = bad, tax = good/punish smokers. The noble, fine-sounding excuse is to discourage smoking, but the actual result penalizes local businesses by driving my dollar to other markets. To the extent that purchases are diverted elsewhere, these taxes neither generate revenue, nor do they discourage the targeted activity.

As onerous as targeted taxes are, generalized taxes can be objectionable in their own way. For example, I have no children in public schools, yet I still pay the same exorbitant property taxes as my neighbor, who has two children in school. The noble, fine-sounding excuse is that we all need to support our schools. So you will never hear a progressive advocating targeted taxes for school funding. Nor will you ever see a progressive support an opt-out for things like the welfare state, NPR, or Planned Parenthood.

Our taxes are essentially implemented political advocacy. The intricacies are politically motivated. And there is no way to avoid their imposed morality. Unfortunately, we are forced participate in every hare-brained scheme that comes down the pike. As a result, I tend to bristle at any new tax or tinkering with the present system. I oppose the wars, the bailouts, the buyouts, and the buyoffs. I oppose the general use of force as represented by the tax code. I oppose the coercion of my financial support for a whole host of things.

Both progressives and conservatives want to force people to do things. This is why I lean libertarian. Libertarians don’t want the government forcing people to do things. Progressives want to use government to force your money, and conservatives want to use government to force your morality. Ironically, progressives are awfully quick to claim morality for their various initiatives, even suggesting that Jesus would do this or that. So it would be fair to say that progressives want to force morality as well.

It is contrary to liberty to use government to force otherwise law-abiding people to do things. The tax system does this very thing. It is clear that no tax system can be regarded as fair that forces people to perform according to arbitrary dictates. The purpose of taxes is to fund the constitutionally mandated functions of government, not to strong arm citizens into cowed compliance.

Time for a change.

The goals of Occupy

2011-10-31T13:49:00.001-06:00

I don't remember where I got this list.

Funny, I didn't realize that anarchists could be so, um, organized.

1. Complete bans on federal political contributions, replaced by public campaign financing.
2. Reversal of the "Citizens United v. FEC" Supreme Court decision.
3. Combating Washington's "revolving door."
4. Bans on gifts to federal officials.
5. Tax reform--eliminating special carve-outs and increasing progressiveness.
6. Single-payer health care.
7. Increased environmental regulation.
8. Reduction of the national debt through a progressive income tax and elimination of corporate handouts.
9. Federal job-training programs.
10. Student loan debt forgiveness.
11. Immigration policy, including amnesty for illegals.
12. Recalling the U.S. military globally.
13. Education mandates and teacher pay.
14. Massive expansion of public works projects.
15. Spurring China to end currency manipulation.
16. Reenactment of the Glass-Steagall Act.
17. Refinance all underwater mortgages at 1% interest rate.
18. One-year freeze on all foreclosures.
19. Free air time for all political candidates who gather sufficient signatures.
20. Immediate withdrawal of all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Another Baucus email, making the same error.

2011-10-31T13:37:00.001-06:00

Apparently Senator Baucus still doesn't know the difference between debt and deficit:

Fellow Montanans,

We are at a pivotal moment in history. Here at home and all across Europe, economies are struggling under mounting debt. The world is watching to see what America will do.

It's up to us to show the world that America can rise to this challenge and lead by example.

That's what we're trying to do on the Debt Committee. We are meeting day in and day out, burning the midnight oil to find solutions to get our debt under control.

As I'm working, I am fueled by the words of Montanans, who've told me over and over again: Max, get it done.

There is no doubt that getting it done will include serious spending cuts. And a balanced solution should also include revenue measures to make sure everyone is chipping in their fair share.

As we examine spending on the Committee, we think about it in two categories.

The first is mandatory spending. As the name suggests, mandatory spending accounts for programs that are required by law, like Medicare.

The second category, which I want to talk more about today, is called discretionary spending. Discretionary spending is the money we choose to spend on additional priorities from year to year.

Discretionary spending includes important programs for Montana like highway construction.

But, more than half of discretionary spending is for defense. And a big chunk of that half goes towards the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Last week marked the 10th anniversary of the war in Afghanistan. As we take stock of the challenges we face here at home a decade later, we can't ignore the role war spending has played in our budget crisis.

I salute our men and women in uniform and their families - especially the brave Montanans who have volunteered for service at greater rates than anywhere else in the country. Because of their sacrifices, Osama bin Laden is dead and Al Qaeda is on the run.

Our American military is the best in the world. But it can't do everything. And we've stretched it too thin. It's time for Afghan forces to take responsibility for their own country. It's time to bring our troops home and focus on building a stronger future here in America.

Several of you have shared this same concern with me in your letters and during our tele-town hall.

Today, even our military leaders tell us that the biggest threat to our national security is here at home.

Straight from the mouth of the Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen:

"Our national debt is our biggest national security threat."

When our military leaders speak, we should listen.

We spend more on military spending now than at any time since World War II, including the peak of the Cold War, and the wars in Korea and Vietnam.

Congress has approved more than $1.2 trillion for Iraq and Afghanistan - all deficit spending. And that's not just military operations. It also includes reconstruction and foreign aid.

We have borrowed money from China to build up Iraq and Afghanistan, while our own infrastructure and economy are suffering here at home.

To put it into perspective:

$1.2 trillion could double the number of public elementary schools in the United States.
It could build the US interstate highway system we have today- five times over.
And $1.2 trillion is enough to meet the obligations of the Debt Reduction Committee.
Our troops have done an amazing job over the last decade. Thanks to their efforts, our world is now safer than it was 10 years ago. And we will never forget the price our troops have paid while fighting for our country - especially the thousands who have given the ultimate sacrifice.

We must remain vigilant in fighting terrorism. We've also got to heed the words of Admiral Mullen, and be just as vigilant to get our debt under control.

When it comes to nation building, it's time to focus on America.

It's time to bring our troops home, and make this century the American century.

Occupier advocates overthrow -FB conversation

2011-10-28T08:53:00.002-06:00

I posted a video of an Occupier advocating overthrow of the government.

"do you think it's going to require collapsing the US government?"

"Personally, I think so."

S.B.: as opposed to the tea party folks, who are doing all they can from within congress to collapse the US Government?

Me: Well done! Avoid any comment at all regarding an actual incident by diverting the conversation to a hypothetical.

Brilliant tactic!

S.B.: what's hypothetical, Rich? At least four of the current Republican candidates (Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, and Cain) have proposed eliminating the EPA entirely -- not reforming regulation, simply eliminating an agency created under a repub...lican administration (Nixon). Ron Paul would eliminate five agencies entirely, and on several occasions during the debt debate, I heard Tea Party Nation spokespeople say that having the government default would be a good thing because it would force a radical downsizing of the government.

Seems to me, they are not only pretty overt in their intentions, but are doing their damndest to carry out the plan.

Me: Well done again! eqauting overthrow of government with reform of government! And again you manage to evade the direct statement of the Occupier. Bravo!

S.B.: Rich -- I'm not going to comment on one OWS protester's comments, simply because you've cherry picked an outlier that espouses radical measures. Why would I? For your one anonymous youtube person, I know FIRST-HAND -- in my own family, in my own house -- dozens more who are part of the movement, or sympathize with it, who want no such thing. Sheez.

Me: These guys are all over the Occupy landscape. The people you know in Occupy is a subset of all people in Occupy, so I'm not surprised that the people you know are like you: upstanding people who care about the way this country is heading. But to suggest that most of Occupy are just like the people you hang out with is, well, unscientific.

Lourie's use of words

2011-10-27T16:15:00.003-06:00

I took some time to look up the dictionary definitions of some of the words Dan Lourie used, since the use of language colors or even manipulates peoples' understanding.

Let's take a look at some of Mr. Lourie's word usage:

Reactionary: of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, especially extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change.

Insidious: 1.intended to entrap or beguile: an insidious plan.
2.stealthily treacherous or deceitful: an insidious enemy.
3.operating or proceeding in an inconspicuous or seemingly harmless way but actually with grave effect: an insidious disease.

Amoral: 1.not involving questions of right or wrong; without moralquality; neither moralnor immoral.
2.having no moralstandards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person.

Dishonest: 1.not honest; disposed to lie, cheat, or steal; not worthy of trust or belief: a dishonest person.
2.proceeding from or exhibiting lack of honesty; fraudulent: a dishonest advertisement.

Ignorant: 1.lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2.lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3.uninformed; unaware.
4.due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

Ludicrous: causing laughter because of absurdity; provoking or deserving derision; ridiculous; laughable: a ludicrous lack of efficiency.

Fantasy: 1.imagination, especially when extravagant and unrestrained.
2.the forming of mental images, especially wondrous or strange fancies; imaginative conceptualizing.
3.a mental image, especially when unreal or fantastic; vision: a nightmare fantasy.
4.Psychology. an imagined or conjured up sequence fulfilling a psychological need; daydream.
5.a hallucination.

Bequeathed: 1.to dispose of (personal property, especially money) by last will: She bequeathed her half of the company to her niece.
2.to hand down; pass on.
3.Obsolete. to commit; entrust.

It's pretty clear that Mr. Lourie is using certain words to insult and manipulate. He uses these words to "dress up" pedestrian ideas in order to achieve an emotional response. There is no analysis, no logical procession of thought, no endeavor to expand understanding. It is, for lack of a better word, a tirade.

My response to Mr. Lourie

2011-10-27T14:55:00.004-06:00

Mr. Lourie,

I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my column. I read your letter with interest. You know, as I re-read your letter, it became clear that you seem to be responding to someone else’s column, not mine. You make statements about things I never wrote about. Examples:

1) “…which cares for the needs of its citizens, particularly those unable to care for themselves — the poor, ill, unemployed, elderly.”
2) “His proposed solutions to the financial tragedies which have befallen the country as a result of Wall Street greed and criminality under Bush deregulation have proven socially and economically wrong.”
3) “Reducing deficits on the backs of the poor while enriching billionaires doesn’t work and is morally repugnant.”
4) “Blaming Obama for our economic woes while claiming that Reagan, Bush and Bush were blameless is a ludicrous fabrication.”
5) “Reducing taxes on the rich has never stimulated economies, created jobs, reduced deficits nor ended recessions. Claiming that it will is a lie.”
6) “Bush’s unfunded wars, tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation of Wall Street turned that surplus into our current financial debacle. [Rich] and tea party liars can keep repeating the opposite, but facts don’t change. “

Well, that’s interesting. After eliminating the things I did not write about, there is very little left of your letter. Although I would be happy to discuss those things with you, I don't feel compelled to defend positions I never took.

But, I will address those things that are related to my column:

1) Regarding the lack of a surplus during the 1990s, you may look for yourself: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm . This is the government’s own website. Clearly the national debt increased all through the 1990s. Therefore, I did not lie.

2) Ok, so there is no #2. So I guess if you have additional commentary regarding what I actually wrote, I would be interested to read it.

Thanks,

Rich

Dan Lourie's criticism of my editorial

2011-10-27T13:00:00.004-06:00

This is a letter to the editor from Dan Lourie:

The reactionary right-wing ideology of Rich, as shown in his recent op-ed, is insidious, amoral, dishonest and ignorant of history. It shows not a glimmer of the American experiment in a democracy which cares for the needs of its citizens, particularly those unable to care for themselves — the poor, ill, unemployed, elderly. His proposed solutions to the financial tragedies which have befallen the country as a result of Wall Street greed and criminality under Bush deregulation have proven socially and economically wrong. Reducing deficits on the backs of the poor while enriching billionaires doesn’t work and is morally repugnant. They are lies and should be challenged.

Blaming Obama for our economic woes while claiming that Reagan, Bush and Bush were blameless is a ludicrous fabrication. Reducing taxes on the rich has never stimulated economies, created jobs, reduced deficits nor ended recessions. Claiming that it will is a lie. President Reagan had to raise taxes eleven times to keep his “trickle down” fantasy from bankrupting the nation. The first seven years of the GW Bush presidency increased the deficit by almost twice as much as the 32 years from JFK through GHW Bush combined.

Fact: Clinton’s administration bequeathed to President Bush a $236 billion surplus, a 10-year surplus forecast of $5.6 trillion. Bush’s unfunded wars, tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation of Wall Street turned that surplus into our current financial debacle. Rich and tea party liars can keep repeating the opposite, but facts don’t change.

Claiming that “conservatives have opposed deficit spending” after witnessing eight years of Bush profligacy is absolute hypocrisy. Fact: the first two fiscal years of the Obama presidency have seen unprecedented deficit decreases.

I encourage readers to turn off the right-wing Fox News lie machine and seek the truth.

I sent him an email, saying "Accusing someone of lying is a serious matter. Perhaps you could indentify two or three lies I made." No response as of yet. I'll work up a response to the letter shortly.

Uganda's LRA atrocities - FB Conversation

2011-10-26T11:41:00.005-06:00

A friend posted a video regarding the ongoing problems in Uganda.

"...President Obama that 100 U.S. advisory troops have been deployed to Central Africa to help combat the LRA and remove Joseph Kony from the battlefield..."

E.J.: The LRA needs to be stopped.

Me: they need to be stopped, but why the US government?

E.J.: Why not the US government? I am not sure why you would not want to see this man stopped at any cost...

Me: Well, would you support the idea of a foreign power landing a strike team in D.C. to take out Obama?

C.H.: Obama and Joseph Kony are very different. If Obama was kidnapping children, and turning the girls into sex slaves and the boys into soldiers who are forced to kill their families, then yes, I would want to see that happen. The things that Kony has done are down right evil.

C.H.: Plus, the country of Uganda has been asking for help with this for years. We are not talking about political figures. They are there to help stop a rebel army.

Me: So you would support a foreign strike team if Obama was evil enough?

C.H.: If he had been terrorizing us for decades, commiting war crimes against the citizens of our country, and was fighting against our own military, then yes. Truly, it's an absurd argument, because like I said, there is no comparison between Obama and Kony. Obama is an elected official, who is doing the job he was brought into office for. Kony is a war criminal that the country of Uganda has been trying to stop for over twenty years. And, we aren't just going in there on our own as some foreign strike team. The Ugandan government asked for our assistance. And, just this last year, a petition went around the US asking our government to give Uganda the aid they needed in this matter. So, this has been supported by citizens of both countries.

C.H.: And, it's not a matter of revenge. Trust me, if there was a better solution, I would be happy for it. But the LRA has to be stopped. An entire generation in parts of Africa has grown up living in fear of their brutality.

Me: Judging by your response, you are hardly in a position to judge absurdity. You just told me that you support the idea of a foreign force assassinating an American president on our soil.

I don't trust you, I don't know you. But I am absolutely sure that there is a better solution than to put Americans into a fight that isn't ours, fighting an intractable problem.

C.H.: Wow, that is not what I meant at all. I am sorry you took it that way. I was simply trying to show a scenario that would make it possible to compare the two. That is why I said it was absurd. Because you can't really compare the two. I was just referring to the fact that Obama is our president, and Kony is not an elected official. Obama could not actually do the things I said and still be president. I definitely do not want to see any harm come to our president.

You have every right to feel that way about the soldiers being there. If you have a better solution, I would honestly love to hear it. This atrocity has been going on for decades, and it has to stop somehow.

If it makes you feel any better, the one-hundred soldiers who were put on the ground are supposed to be there in an advisory capacity, not to actually fight. I hope that really is the case. I don't want to see any of our soldiers put in harms way if they don't have to be.

Me: This is the problem. It all depends on what kind of scenario we speculate upon. Obama himself is not the subject, he is simply a convenient Important American Figure. Insert your own character in the scenario and ask if it would be appropriate or desirable for a foreign force, even one invited by our authorities, to come and kill that person? For example, would it be desirable to invite the Russians to come in and kill Jeffrey Dahmer, or the masterminds of the WTC attack?

The point is, when the scenario playing out in Uganda is compared to a similar situation in the US, suddenly it doesn't seem so agreeable, does it?

We sent advisors to Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Korea. We have a demonstrated history of intervening in the affairs of other nations with uniformly disasterous results. We always have a noble cause as an excuse. There is always some atrocity or evil tyrant to stop. What makes you think that the US will limit its involvement to these 100 "advisors?" What makes you think that we will be able fix a situation that has been going on for decades?

My solution is that the US government should mind its own business and stay out of the affairs of other nations.

C.H.: I absolutely agree that we can't be policing the world. Personally, I think it is right to step in and help in a limited capacity if our allies ask for it, but that is just my opinion. There really is nothing in our country that can compare to what the LRA has done and is doing, and I would like to think that if there was, that our allies would help us when asked.

Name calling for me but not thee - FB conversation

2011-10-25T13:02:00.003-06:00

Dennis Prager wrote an interesting article that made a few assertions about atheists: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=359933&fb_comment_id=fbc_10150504192403776_22450260_10150504899303776&ref=notif¬if_t=open_graph_comment

Someone made this comment:

"More straw men. Liberals are not necessarily atheists,nor are they in any way "anti-family" ,nor do they think that there is no such thing as right and wrong and that anything should be permissible ,etc.

But evangelical Christians tend to be appallingly ignorant,narrow-minded, self-righteous and insufferably sanctimonious. They think that they and they alone will go to "heaven" and that all those who do not share their rigid and irrational beliefs are doomed to "hell". Their bigotry toward gay people is despicable.
Their relentless Bible-thumping and arrogance is disgusting."

I replied, quoting him: 'But evangelical Christians tend to be appallingly ignorant,narrow-minded, self-righteous and insufferably sanctimonious.'

Um, straw man, meet irony.

He replied: SOME liberals and some Christians and some of anything are DISGUSTING...that's not the point.

My rejoinder: 'Tend to be' has now become 'some.' Feel free to backtrack as far as you like.

So, do you HAVE a point besides engaging in the same gratuitous stereotyping that so offends you?

And he responds: Wait a minute, LIBERALS aren't nec anything except, probably GOOD things, and CAN lie, cheat and steal in the name of the CAUSE.

And then this: When neither side is perfect, I can still chose which one is less dangerous.

Me: "Tend to be." "Some." And now, "neither side is perfect." Let's keep those goal posts moving...

The Nation magazine is ok with profits if they get a cut.

2011-10-24T11:26:00.002-06:00

This email came from the left-wing Nation magazine:

"Dear Nation Reader,

There's only one phone company that donates a portion of its profits [emphasis added] to progressive causes. Find out more about the progressive community's phone company -- and their special offer for Nation readers -- by reading below."

"Join America's only progressive phone company. CREDO is a company with a conscience. We fight the right wing with an activist network 2 million strong. We've raised more than $67 million for progressive nonprofits. We put our mouth—and our money—where our values are. So when you join CREDO Mobile, you'll be a part of the movement."

Don't ya love it? Credo's capitalism is just fine with the Nation magazine since Credo agrees to part with some of its profits to the benefit of "the cause." And you, yes you, can be part of the cause if you choose to buy Credo's products.

Isn't it ironic that eeevil corporations are fine and dandy under the right circumstances?

My analysis of Tester's remarks

2011-10-21T10:42:00.005-06:00

"We knew that investing in infrastructure, education and research-and development are powerful, long-term job creators. We were right." We know no such thing. There is no evidence whatsoever that government reallocation of wealth does anything except create hand-picked winners and losers. Jobs are created only when there is a need for a product or service. Government interferes with this, suppresses it, it creates an environment of uncertainty. It takes money from some and gives it to others according to whim and political expediency. Government doesn't create jobs, it robs money from the job creators. This is equivalent to taking a bucket of water out of one end of the pool and pouring it in the other.

FDR's Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, wrote this in May 1939: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and now if I am wrong somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosper. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started. And enormous debt to boot.”

"Today we know that America’s bridges, roads, electrical grids, national parks and schools are in need of repair to carry our nation and our economy into the future." Wait a second. What has happened to all those billions of dollars of highway taxes, tolls, and gas taxes? Weren't they supposed to be allocated to the nation's roads? In fact, the federal government is the biggest profiteer from gasoline sales, bigger than the producer, the wholesaler, and the retailer. None of these make 18 cents a gallon.

And what about all those property taxes we pay? Some places in the country schools spend $15,000 per student, and fail to adequately educate them. There is some serious money being spent on public education, and schools are still in need of repair? Kids have to buy their own pencils and paper? Volunteers work in the schools? Bake sales? C'mon. With that kind of money floating around, the only possible reason that our infrastructure and schools are in need of repair is due to mismanagement.

"Of course, there are provisions I supported. I support the surtax on millionaires. I feel strongly that this nation’s wealthiest should pay their fair share in taxes." What, exactly, does fair share mean? Does it mean that the wealthy should pay a proportionate amount? Currently, 86% of all income taxes are paid by the top 25% of wage earners. Sounds to me like they're already paying their fair share. But the real question is, what problem will be solved by taking more money from anyone? We already know that tax increases have never lowered the national debt, they have never solved a social problem, and they have always resulted in spending increases that exceed the amount of tax increases.

"But we should use the revenue from a new surtax on millionaires to pay for things that build our economy, like roads, bridges, transmission lines, rural broadband and water projects." In other words, spend it all. Dig the hole deeper. give some union construction workers a year-long job (um, long term, right?) It's hard to believe that people believe this nonsense. But this is the result of allowing the federal government to have too much power. These elected representatives come to believe that they have the expertise to control the economy, that by their actions they can cause things to happen without collateral effects. But these people do not have the ability, education, or skill to "manage" a multi-trillion dollar economy. And their failure to do so has not prevented them from wanting to do the same thing yet again!

"All of this can and must be done in a way that addresses one of the underlying problems hurting our economy: our growing deficit and the uncertainty it creates." Cognitive dissonance on display. Does the Senator reallly believe that lighting a pile of tax dollars on fire is going to help the deficit? This is insane. Where does this belief that everything begins and ends with government come from? What objective evidence is the Senator relying on that would support his assertions? As he looks around the country, does he see that anything he has done actually improved the situation?

"Doing nothing will not create jobs." Yes, it will. Everything you have done has failed. You have wasted trillions of dollars and have nothing to show for it. Government is borrowing 40 cents of every dollar it spends. We are on the verge of bankruptcy and yet the Senator wants to spend even more, without the least amount of evidence that what he has done so far has had any positive effect. So please, STOP DOING WHAT YOU ARE DOING. START DOING NOTHING. You are leading us into another 15 year depression.

John Tester's editorial

2011-10-21T08:53:00.001-06:00

I will be writing an analysis later.

Why I voted against the president’s jobs bill

I recently cast a vote in the Senate that was praised by some and criticized by others. I voted against the American Jobs Act after considerable discussion, research and listening to many folks. I stand by my vote, and I want to share my reasons directly with you.

First, we can’t forget our own history. A few generations ago this nation made an incredible investment in infrastructure, and the jobs it created helped lead us out of the Great Depression. President Roosevelt’s vision was to create a stronger and more productive America using the brains and brawn of American workers.

Roosevelt’s example should guide our nation now as we rebuild from this recession.

We built our way out of the Great Depression with an unprecedented investment in physical infrastructure. We built highways and bridges and parks and factories. We connected the nation with industry. We electrified rural farms and ranches. In Montana we built lodges and trails that help people the world over to enjoy Glacier National Park and Montana’s natural beauty; we built airports; we created water and irrigation systems.

We knew that investing in infrastructure, education and research-anddevelopment are powerful, long-term job creators. We were right.

Today we know that America’s bridges, roads, electrical grids, national parks and schools are in need of repair to carry our nation and our economy into the future. We also know that we have educated and able people ready to get the work done.

My vote against the president’s jobs proposal came after considering our own history and our path to the future.

The American Jobs Act invested far too little in actual job creation. In fact, only 20 percent of the $447 billion was dedicated to physical infrastructure, and only about half of that money would have been available right away.

More than $250 billion of the bill was devoted to temporary tax gimmicks that don’t create jobs. History shows us that too.

Of course, there are provisions I supported. I support the surtax on millionaires. I feel strongly that this nation’s wealthiest should pay their fair share in taxes.

But we should use the revenue from a new surtax on millionaires to pay for things that build our economy, like roads, bridges, transmission lines, rural broadband and water projects. The president’s bill would have used this revenue to pay for expensive, temporary tax gimmicks that won’t create jobs in the long term. I have no doubt we will put that revenue to much better use in the near future.

In the weeks ahead I will be working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make sure that we put Americans back to work in the short term, while making also jobs investment in the long term. I’ll work on proposals for the entire nation and specific to Montana to address our infrastructure needs, to ensure continued research and development to carry our economy forward, and to continue educating and training the children who are the future.

All of this can and must be done in a way that addresses one of the underlying problems hurting our economy: our growing deficit and the uncertainty it creates. To get there, we need a wholesale reform of our tax code to make sure wealthy Americans and big corporations pay their fair share, and to make taxes more fair for working families. And we need to ensure that critical initiatives like Social Security and Medicare are built to last, so they can benefit our kids and grandkids.

Doing nothing will not create jobs. Not paying for infrastructure now will compromise our future. I am committed to finding the balance for today’s workers and for tomorrow’s children.

Jon Tester represents Montana in the U.S. Senate.

Guest columnist

Various government styles and pizza

2011-10-20T10:38:00.003-06:00

I stole this (with some edits) from another blogger.

Bill, James, Tyler, Andrew, and Mike get together every Friday night and order pizza. They can never agree on what to get, though. Bill wants to get Meat Lovers'. James wants to get Canadian. Tyler wants to get pepperoni made with free-range meat because he is against animal cruelty. Andrew is a vegetarian, so he wants to get veggie pizza. Mike is vegan and wants to get vegetarian pizza with soy cheese. So how do they decide?

Direct Democracy
All five guys vote on toppings and eventually come to an agreement. Mike disagrees with their choice, but he got outvoted, so screw him.

Republic
The five elect Tyler to choose the toppings. Tyler considers the preferences of his buddies when choosing.

Despotism/Dictatorship/Autocracy
Bill tells his friends that they're ordering Meat Lovers', and anyone who doesn't like it can order a knuckle sandwich.

Monarchy
James claims to have special pizza-related knowledge due to the time he spent at the Institute of Italian-American Cuisine. Although this claim is never verified, James ends up ordering every week, regardless of how good or bad his choice is.

Constitutional Monarchy
James suspects that someone is about to call B.S. on him, so he lets Tyler and Mike pick the toppings, but he still acts like he picked them himself.

Socialism
Andrew takes everyone's money and orders pizza for himself. Everyone else eats crackers.

Capitalism
Bill offers to pay for the pizza if they get Meat Lovers'.

Communism
James orders plain cheese pizza, then adds each person's choice of toppings individually, after they've filled out the Pizza Requisition Forms and allowed 6 to 9 hours for processing. When the pizza finally comes, neighboring tables eat it all.

Theocracy
Mike declares vegan to be the One True Pizza, and scares everyone else into agreeing by telling them stories of the awful things that happen to meat-eating infidels.

Fascism
Andrew knows that his friends are too dumb to know what's good for them, so he orders the pizza himself, for their own good.

Oligarchy/Plutocracy
Mike and Tyler choose the pizza toppings, since they are cooler than Bill, James, and Andrew.

Imperialism
The guys order pepperoni, and they like it so much that they call the pizza place back and have them change everyone else's order to pepperoni as well.

Anarchy
The five guys argue until after the pizza place is closed. They end up eating whatever they can find in the house: instant mashed potatoes and breakfast cereal. Andrew steals Mike's breakfast cereal.

The hidden effects of government intervention

2011-10-18T09:46:00.003-06:00

It's certainly much easier to cite good intentions and easily observable benefits, but a lot harder to discern the unseen consequences of government social programs. For example, HUD has a noble intent: Provide housing for the poor. But no one seems to want to analyze the hidden fallout from government intervention. How does it impact private building projects? Unemployment? Crime? Illegitimacy? Abortion?

And what does it mean to have "cleaner air?" What is the level of pollutants deemed acceptable? How is success determined? Everything and everyone pollutes, so vaguaries like "cleaner air" are oh-so-wonderful, nuanced, and elightened positions to ascribe to, but ends up being an excuse for every sort of government intervention.

If there is one thing that seems certain, it is that government has failed to solve a single social problem with all the trillions it has spent. Poverty? Still hovers around 12%. Golobal warming? The planet is still getting warmer. Crime? Higher than ever. Employment? how many failed stimuli are needed to discredit the idea the government must spend when the private sector doesn't?

And after all this, capitalism still gets the blame.

Facebook conversation: Occupy Wall Street anger

2011-10-17T15:04:00.003-06:00

S.B. posts this:

the world, in 41 easy pictures.
CHARTS: Here's What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About...
www.businessinsider.com

Me: All those trends coincide with the increase in the size and scope of government. Government fixes have made things worse.

T.P.: The also coincide with the decrease in pirates! http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

Me: Flying spaghetti monster? How hackneyed.

S.B.: coincide but don't correlate, Rich. Actually, size of fed gov't revenues as % of GDP has been pretty flat for the past 30 years.

Me: Irrelevant.

S.B.: it's not irrelevant if you're claiming that the size of government is increasing, Rich. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts, and at least that ONE fact does not support your opinion.

Me: GDP still remains irrelevant. Compare to inflation or population, something meaningful. And please note that I also used "scope."

T.P.: Hackneyed perhaps, but true

Me: ‎"True" is different than an opinion you agree with.

T.P.: Are you saying that correlation causation is an "opinion"? Kinda like gravity? Just another random opinion of mine...

Me: Flying Spaghetti Monster. Hackneyed. See above.

T.P.: Hackneyed does not = untrue. See above.

Me: I apologize that you are having difficulty following the conversation. I pointed out that " Flying Spaghetti Monster" is a hackneyed expression. I made no assertion about veracity. I did not even type the word "untrue."

Obama's sad track record

2011-10-14T09:19:00.001-06:00

From Newsbusters:

DEBT: Total Public Debt Outstanding has increased by $4.2 trillion [source: Treasury Dept]

MORE DEBT: America accumulated as much debt over the past 1,000 days as it had in the country’s first 79,135 days (July 4, 1776 through March 3, 1993) [source: Treasury Dept]

DEBT PER DAY: America’s debt has increased by about an average of $4.2 billion per day [source: Treasury Dept]

INTEREST ON U.S. DEBT: $1.2 trillion has been spent servicing U.S. debt—that by itself would be the world’s 15th largest economy [source: Treasury Dept]

JOBS: 2.22 million jobs lost [source: BLS]

POVERTY: Nearly 3 million more Americans in poverty—poverty rate has gone from 13.2% to 15.1% [source: Census]

FOOD STAMPS: 12 million more Americans living off of food stamps [source: Dept of Agriculture // Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program]

GOVERNMENT SPENDING: Spent more than $9.6 trillion – 60% more than the federal government has taken in [source: OMB and CBO]

MORE GOVERNMENT SPENDING: Under Obama, the govt has spent an average of $6.6 million every minute and $111,111 every second [source: OMB and CBO]

CHINA: Owns $1.17 trillion of our debt (as of July) – a 58% increase from January 2009 [source: Treasury Dept]

GOVERNMENT JOBS: Excluding the U.S. Post Office, Federal Government has added 140,000 jobs [source: BLS]

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE: Has averaged 9.4% under Obama [source: BLS]

MORE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE: Has been at or above 9% for 840 of the 1000 days [source: BLS]

UNDEREMPLOYED: Nearly 5 million more Americans are underemployed [source: BLS]

REGULATIONS – NEW RULES: 7,076 new final regulatory rules issued [source: Federal Register]

REGULATIONS – FEDERAL REGISTER: 45,696 pages of new regulatory rules were added to the Federal Register [source: National Archives and Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register, various years]

AVERAGE WEEKS UNEMPLOYED: Unemployed out of work for an average of 40.5 weeks – that’s more than double since Jan 2009 [source: BLS]

JOB APPROVAL RATING: Dropped nearly 30 percentage points [source: Gallup Tracking]

SPEECHES AND PUBLIC REMARKS: Roughly 806 speeches/public remarks made – once every 1.24 days [source: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/obama-speeches/]

SPEECHES --- JOBS: Has said the word “jobs” 4,718 times in 591 speeches [source: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/obama-speeches/]

SPEECHES -- ECONOMY: Has said the word “economy” 4,541 times in 605 speeches [source: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/obama-speeches/]

CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE: Has decreased by 168,000 [source: BLS]

MANUFACTURING: 818,000 manufacturing jobs lost --- a -6.5% drop since Jan. 2009 [source: BLS]

BANK FAILURES: 371 Banks have failed [source: FDIC]

STATES: 37 States have higher unemployment rates [source: BLS]

GOLF: 82 rounds of golf --- average of one round every 12 days [source: Mark Knoller, CBS –Fox News Tracking]

REPOSSESSIONS: More than 2.4 million homes have been repossessed for failure to pay their mortgage [source: RealtyTrac]

BANKRUPTCIES: Some 4 million total (business and non-business) bankruptcies [source: American Bankruptcy Institute]

GAS PRICES: Up more than 80% and has been over $3/gallon every day in 2011 [source: AAA/OPIS]

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS: Almost $380 billion spent by federal government on unemployment benefits [source: Treasury Dept and CBO]

ECONOMIC TEAM: 7 key members of Obama’s Economic team have resigned [Summers, Romer, Bernstein, Orszag, Goolsbee Volker and Rouse] [source: News Reports/Tracking]

HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS: Health insurance premiums (family coverage) up 9% this year and 12.7% from 2009 [source: Kaiser Family Foundation]

MEDIAN INCOME: Real median household income in the U.S. in 2010 was $49,445, a -2.3% decline from 2009 [source: Census Dept]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: Spent more than $26 billion on the EPA – FY2011’s spending will be about 40% more than FY2009 [source: Treasury and OMB]

Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2011/10/14/open-thread-obamas-first-1000-days#ixzz1allllKxX

Hate the rich - FB conversation

2011-10-13T09:30:00.004-06:00

I posted this:

Occupy Wall Street supporters:
#1 Yoko Ono Net Worth - $500 million.
#2 Russell Simmons Net Worth - $325 million
#3 Roseanne Barr Net Worth - $80 million
#4 Deepak Chopra Net Worth - $80 million
... #5 Kanye West Net Worth - $70 million
#6 Alec Baldwin Net Worth - $65 million
#7 Susan Sarandon Net Worth - $50 million
#8 Michael Moore Net Worth - $50 million
#9 Tim Robbins Net Worth - $50 million
#10 Nancy Pelosi Net Worth - $35.5 million

S.B.: There is nothing inconsistent with having great wealth yet wanting corporations to be held accountable for their excess

Me: Except for the signs that say "eat the rich," and "greed kills."

Me: They're part of the hated 1%, aren't they?

S.B.: the OWS is not about hating the rich, nor about hating the Rich, Rich.

It's about calling for a re prioritization in this country so that the other 99% aren't left by the wayside.

I will no more be accountable for the signs that take that to excess, than you could be held accountable for racist (and illiterate) stuff that some of the Tea Party protest signs displayed.

Me: Apparently you are unaware of the sentiments of the gathered parties. There is a very strong undercurrent of blame the greedy rich. I am surprised you do not know this, yet you hint at this very thing by your "re prioritization" remark. This is in keeping with the general trend of the media to hide or minimize unpalatable things associated with them.

The only racist signs at the TEA parties were held by Larouche supporters and infiltrators. And I posted numerous links a few days ago the misspellings of the OWS crowd, after YOU characterized TEA partiers according to their misspellings. I take it that you do not care to apply your criteria evenly?

S.B.: Rich, I consider myself part of the OWS movement. So I will speak from my own perspective -- not the media take on it, not your take on it. this is a movement still forming and even less monolithic in its beliefs than the Tea Party. T...hough hopefully, not so opposed to compromise as that group, for I tend to be pragmatic in my politics.

I DO apply my criteria evenly. You convinced me long ago that the signs at tea party rallies were not indicative of the overall group. I'm simply applying that principle here as well.

Me: But it doesn't stop you from mocking the TEA party, using misspellings as a characterization?

S.B.: no, these days I mock the tea party for what their leaders espouse. Actually, "mock" is not the right word -- I hold them in contempt. They are willing to see this country go down in flames to adhere to a set of principles that I find both misguided and morally repugnant.

Me: Ditto. There is absolutely no redeeming quality of the OWS movement except to the extent that it ends the unholy alliance of corporations and government.

Editorial, Baucus on the deficits

2011-10-11T08:47:00.003-06:00

Senator Baucus recently sent out an email touting his appointment to what he called the “debt reduction committee,” officially known as “Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction.” Here are some excerpts:

"…I'm working with my colleagues to come up with a plan to cut our nation's debt."

Excellent. It’s an issue conservatives have been hammering for decades. But let’s define some terms. The deficit is the yearly budget shortfall, while the national debt is the total of all deficits. Senator Baucus, as you will see, conflates the two.

His email included a deficit projection, which shows an immediate large reduction in the deficit, then continuing smaller deficits over the next 10 years. He explains: "...we've already taken major steps out of [the recent large deficits]… the leveling out we see over the next ten years is because of the Budget Control Act we passed in July."

The Senator is certainly proud of that budget deal, but it was vociferously opposed by the political left, accompanied by their routinely hyperbolic rhetoric about children starving and people dying. I suppose it’s racist and homophobic as well. And lest we forget, conservatives and the TEA party also opposed the deal because it continues to furiously add to the national debt.

By the Senator's own admission, there will be deficits for the forseeable future. Unfortunately, these continuing deficits mean the national debt will INCREASE. Deficits must be eliminated and a surplus achieved to reduce the debt. Remember, that is his stated goal.

"...the 90's we were a time of surplus. Our budget was balanced with money to spare. And we were not adding to the total debt."

This persistent myth about the Clinton “surplus” is contradicted by the government's own website: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm. A quick review reveals the national debt increased all through the 90s.

"The Budget Control Act cut $1 trillion in spending right away and created the debt committee I'm now working on. It's our job to come up with a plan reduce our deficits…”

”Right away?” Um, no, the budget deal raised the debt ceiling and spending immediately increased. And projecting reduced deficits is not the same thing as cutting the debt or reducing spending. But notice he now says his job is to "reduce our deficits." Can we ask, Senator, are you clear on what your mission is?

Regardless, it is nice to hear a Democrat talking about cutting spending. Usually the left tends to not worry about deficits, and even claims they’re a good thing. And they love tax increases. It’s all they talk about. I suppose if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

But tax increases have never reduced the national debt. Tax increases have never solved any budget problem. Tax increases are always eaten up by even more spending.

And when conservatives complain about spendthrift government, we get accused of selective outrage: “Where were you when Bush was running up the debt,” they nonsensically ask, offering no solutions themselves. I guess they fail to realize that the TEA party started during Bush’s presidency, and that conservatives have opposed deficit spending since Buckley. But little facts like this never seem to get in the way of the leftist template.

So anyway, this talk of spending cuts is a victory for conservatives and the country as a whole. Nevertheless, I remain skeptical, given government’s inauspicious track record. Is there any evidence that anyone in government today, including Baucus, knows the first thing about reducing the national debt? They’ve never done it before.

Actually, I think the best thing the Senator and most of his colleagues can do to reduce the debt is to resign.

Occupy Wall Street - FB conversation

2011-10-10T16:14:00.006-06:00

S.B.: in solidarity with my brothers and sisters in the "Occupy Wall Street" movement -- I am going to spend all day today, occupying space.

Me: You are much too coherent and articulate to be OWS.

S.B.: I disagree, Rich. There are all sorts of people out there in this movement, many are quite coherent and articulate.

Me: I have yet to see any. What I have seen is a lily-white, smelly bunch of entitled, hateful, screaming hypocrites.

Me: They offer no solutions, they are ignorant, and they have obviously given no thought to the issues.

A.E.: Actions speak louder than words, they say. Here's articulation in action: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/have-you-seen-the-photo-of-the-wall-street-protester-defecating-on-a-cop-car/ (I know, it's one guy. But I admire how he represents....)

S.W.: What they are not is Unified for a single cause...in Seattle, three different marches came together and expressed their general frustration. While it was good that everyone came together, they lack a single message and my guess is that many didnt care; they just wanted to participate in a Good Ole' American Protest March. End the War? Sure, but end International Terrorism at the same time. Beat up on Wall Street? Why not? But pass laws that will prevent future Bubble & Bust cycles. I forget what the other folks were protesting, and many appear to simply relish the disorder. The main thing is to keep the peace, don't destroy property or let people get hurt. I don't have to agree with these people to be glad that we are having marches, not riots.

A.E.: Meanwhile, I am occupying my workspace, taking ownership of the debts I agreed to, and taking responsibility for my own financial independence.

L.B.: A.E., the unemployment rate should indicate to you that not everyone is lucky enough to do that.

Me: Luck is an unfortunate word choice. People who benefit from working hard for a living aren't lucky, they are hard workers. Denigrating hard work is not a recipe for success.

A.E.: I don't have a job as a consequence of "luck."

S.B.: one thing life has taught me -- we ALL depend on luck as much as we do hard work. I've worked hard as well, but with a little less luck at any number of places in my life, the outcome could have been much different.

I know a LOT of people who bust their ass all day, work harder than I ever will, and have little to show for it at the end of the day but a few more aches and pains. To dismiss their efforts as not deserving credit for working hard because they work in jobs that don't pay well, is every bit as insulting.

Me: I guess you have a problem with how life works? Some people do well, some do not, and this surprises and insults you? Very odd, indeed.

S.B.: no, but to say that hard work is all you need is to deny the reality of economic life. We may have a level playing field, but some are born deep in the other team's territory, others on born with first and goal to go.

To deny the role that luck plays in how our lives work out is, I think, a form of hubris.

A.E.: S.B., it is only insulting to people who measure success and acheivement by material gain

S.B.: who's talking material gain? What about the ability to provide for one's children, to keep one's family healthy (we can't all live in a state with socialized medicine, after all), or to know that some day, there will be an opportunity to retire?

those things are far from "givens", no matter how hard one works. And becoming less and less so every day.

A.E.: you're wrong. It IS all you need. However much a person may be born into has got nothing to do with what it takes to get there. And people who believe it does are their own worst enemy. Few things are more crippling than an attitude like that. And it shows.

S.B.: keep believing the myth, Andrew. It's almost endearing to find someone who still believes in fairy tales.

Me: No, it's not the ability to provide for one's family that's at issue. It is the right to have what you think you're entitled to. All that's needed is a little strong-arming from government to ensure "fairness."

That's the real fairy tale.

CEO pay, Wall Street protest - FB Conversation

2011-10-10T13:47:00.002-06:00

M.K.: This is the bullshit I'm talking about! These CEO's who take and take, and can't do their job need to go,without taking their bloated severanse pay with them.....why can't we have more Bill Gates and Steve Jobs in this world.....

"Corporate Greed Fuels 'Occupy Wall Street' Protests"

Me: Severance pay is a voluntary contract between the CEO and the corporation. Both parties agreed to it. How would changing this situation benefit you?

Me: Bill Mahar just said, "Apple makes their s--t in China. And they could still make it here and make a big profit, but they make more of a profit by making it in China..."

M.K.: no one's perfect, except for me(ya)....

M.K.: Those that don't deserve their severance pay, or bonuses(boguses), or stock perks.....those people who are not doing their job don't deserve to be rewarded for failure.

Me: Agreed. Those that fail to improve the company should be fired and not rewarded. But we don't know the terms of those contracts. A smart company would tie these things to performance.

But the thing is, these are still voluntary arrangements. Except for making us all mad, how do these things make your life worse, and how would changing them improve your life?

R.W.: It's what they were hired for. Their compensation I mean. When you play a gig, Do you often give some back to your employer at pay time?

R.W.: Rich, why should CEO's be compensated based on performance when teachers are not?

K.B.: let's Salute Ford..they are scalling back on the Mexican production of the Fusion and bringing 4,000 jobs back to the US... but yes severance pkgs. make us mad..but are voluntary agreements...

M.K.: teachers should be held accountable too....but we're talking apples and oranges. They might hold back a child's education, not a nation's economy!!

Fewer bank choices - FB conversation

2011-10-07T11:44:00.006-06:00

S.B. posted a link to this chart:

S.B.: interesting graphic showing the concentration of financial power into fewer and fewer banks. Certainly THIS can't be good for innovation in the economy or even just the financial sector?

J.L.: ‎*yoink* I knew cats were evil

B.R.: Excellent graphic, it really adds perspective to the argument for deregulating the financial sector. If competition inspires innovation, it's probably best having those four entities as the only ones competing, they have a proven track record of putting American's best interests first. Let's fix this economy with new jobs! More jobs! More money! Buy stuff you can't afford! Hurray for usur...I mean credit!

L.B.: Two words: credit union.

Me: Hmmm, I wonder how many of these got bailed out...

Me: By the way, Travelers is no longer a part of CITI group, been that way for years.

R.B.: Granted I think this source is kind of dated, the following biggest banks from here were bailed out:

Citi Bank - $25 bil
Wells Fargo - $25 bil
JP Morgan - 25 bil (has since paid back the loan)
Bank of America - $15 bil (has since paid back the loan)

Me: So we can conclude, then, that these four banks are hand-picked by the government?

P.H.:handpicked by the government? Uh, yeah...NO. Not even close.

Me: What else is a bailout? Some institutions are deemed worthy of government largess, others not. And now we are left with the four winners picked by government, enhanced at taxpayer expense, which are now poised to really begin taking advantage of us.

By the way, do you have anything like a rebuttal available? Or is it capitalism's fault somehow? Your rudimentary denial brings no value to the conversation.

P.H.: Neither are your comments

Me: No one asked you to read them. Typical leftist.

P.H.: You're right! (Yawn) time to turn the channel...

Deficit chart

2011-10-07T10:04:00.001-06:00

This is the deficit projection Senator Baucus included in his email.

My final score

2011-10-07T09:40:00.004-06:00

As I mentioned before, I intentionally failed every question. They still want me to have the sticker and be a good little scientist. No thanks.

So I took the quiz.

2011-10-07T09:31:00.003-06:00

This is the first page of the 5 question quiz. Seems geared to children, or perhaps limited IQ adults.

I took the quiz and purposely tried to get every one wrong in order to see the responses. It is formatted as a series of quotes and responses:

Quote #1 "If you have one volcano in the world, that one volcano puts out more carbon dioxide than everything that man puts out. I don't think [global warming is] a farce, but I think temperatures go up and I think temperatures go down."

Nope, that's not science!

That was three-time U.S. senate candidate John Raese from West Virginia incorrectly asserting that volcanoes today produce more carbon dioxide than humans. When you compare natural factors that affect the climate — such as solar variation and volcanic eruptions — with human activities that affect the climate, scientists have found time and again that humans have been a major contributor to climate change over the last 50 years. In fact, the U.S. Geological Survey found that volcanic carbon dioxide emissions were less than 1 percent when compared to the global emissions released from the burning of fossil fuels.

Quote #2 "I'm not a meteorologist. All I know is 90 percent of the scientists say climate change is occurring."

Unfortunately, it's true.

This was Jon Huntsman, the former governor of Utah, confirming that an overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening and is primarily caused by human activity. He went on to add "If 90 percent of the oncological community said something was causing cancer we'd listen to them."

Quote #3 "This year, we witnessed weather disaster after weather disaster. There have been massive floods, fire, droughts, and heat waves. Yet earlier this year the House passed a bill that repealed EPA's scientific finding that climate change is occurring."

Unfortunately, it's true.

That was Representative Henry Waxman from California, commenting on the number of extreme weather events we've seen recently across the United States. Powerful rain and snow storms and intense drought periods are well-documented consequence of a global warming.

Quote #4 "The EPA has been implementing regulations to force utilities to reduce emissions of pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, and mercury even though the current emissions are not causing air-quality or public-health problems anywhere in America."

Nope, that's not science.

That was Steven Milloy, Fox News commentator and founder of the website junkscience.com, incorrectly stating in an op-ed in the Washington Times that there have been no health impacts from global warming emissions. In fact, recent Union of Concerned Scientists analysis shows that global warming threatens public health and raises health care costs by increasing ground-level ozone — the primary component of smog, which can exacerbate lung diseases such as asthma and cause breathing difficulties even in healthy individuals.

Quote #5 The planet used to be dramatically warmer when we had dinosaurs and no people. To the best of my knowledge the dinosaurs weren't driving cars."

Uh-uh, that's not science.

That was Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives attempting to explain away the facts of human-caused global warming by talking about Earth's temperature 245 to 65 million years ago. While it's true that when dinosaurs roamed the planet, global average temperatures were much higher, it's faulty logic to assume that therefore means that the temperature increases scientists have seen in the last thousand years are not caused by human activity. Scientists have found that heat-trapping emissions from human sources over the past half-century by far outweigh emissions from natural sources.

Union of Concered Scientists quizz

2011-10-07T09:02:00.002-06:00

I dunno, something about this creeps me out. The email header from The Nation magazine says, "Fun quiz, free sticker."

Text of Max Baucus' email

2011-10-06T10:20:00.002-06:00

As you know, I'm working with my colleagues to come up with a plan to cut our nation's debt. I'll be looking at everything we do on the Debt Reduction Committee through the lens of jobs. Our jobs deficit and our fiscal deficit go hand-in-hand. We can't solve one at the expense of the other.

As always, what's right for Montana will be my guiding principle. I'm just a hired hand and you are my bosses - the best bosses around, I might add. So I want to hear from you.

Whether it's through my website, our tele-town halls, or face-to-face at the Cat and Griz games these past few weekends - I can't thank you enough for the wisdom and guidance you've given me so far. And I ask you to keep it coming.

As we work together to find solutions moving forward, it's important to take stock of where we are now and how we got here.

As one of our founding fathers once said, "I know no way of judging the future but by the past."

The chart below shows our federal deficits over the past 20 years, and where we are headed over the next 10. The peaks show years of prosperity, when we had a surplus. And the valleys show that we were spending more money in one year than we were taking in.

We made up for those valleys by borrowing money. And all the money we've borrowed to fill in the valleys over the years makes up the total federal debt.
As the chart shows - and you remember - the 90's we were a time of surplus. Our budget was balanced with money to spare. And we were not adding to the total debt.
But in 2001 we started on a path toward a record high in the money we were spending and a record low in the money we were taking in.

All at once, the world changed in 2001. We soon began two costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But at the same time as our spending ramped up dramatically, we also dramatically cut the money coming in with tax cuts.

Now, I'll be honest, I supported some of those cuts for working families, teachers and Montana small businesses in 2001 when the fiscal outlook wasn't so grim. And I still support them today.

But by 2003, it was clear our spending was on an unsustainable path. And I voted against additional tax cuts for the extremely wealthy because we couldn't afford them and they didn't help Montana families or small businesses.

You'll see on the graph that for a short period we seemed like we may be heading back up. But our fiscal house was much less solid than it was before the wars and loss of revenue. So when the recession hit in 2007, we headed down a steep valley. And that's where we are today.

With the recession, the war spending and costly tax cuts are now compounded by high unemployment. When folks don't have jobs, they can't pay taxes. And that means we are taking in even less money to cover our expenses.

I'll say it again: our jobs deficit and our fiscal deficit go hand-in-hand. We can't solve one at the expense of the other.

The good news is we've already taken major steps out of this valley toward a new plateau. The upward spike and then the leveling out we see over the next ten years is because of the Budget Control Act we passed in in July.

But we only reach this plateau if we continue our efforts to cut spending, and take a serious look at which tax cuts we need to support working families and employers that create jobs - and which tax spending we need to reign in.

The Budget Control Act cut $1 trillion in spending right away and created the debt committee I'm now working on. It's our job to come up with a plan reduce our deficits by at least $1.5 trillion more.

We've got our work cut out for us.

We'll have to work together. We'll have to be balanced. And we'll have to think big - aiming to outpace our goal, not simply meet it.

We have a unique opportunity before us to affect serious change that puts America back on solid fiscal ground for our kids and grandkids.

The world is watching. And I'm listening to you.

I'll keep checking in with updates, and tele-town halls, and visits back home as much as I can. And I'm asking you to keep sending me your ideas.

You can send your ideas through the Cutting the Debt: Share your Ideas with Max form found through the homepage of my website at http://baucus.senate.gov; though the mail at: Office of Senator Max Baucus, Attention: Ideas for Cutting the Deficit, 511 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510; or by calling my office at: (800) 332-6106.

Your insights are absolutely invaluable to our work over the next few months.
Together we can get our America back on track and get Americans back to work.

Government or big business: a false choice

2011-10-06T09:47:00.002-06:00

Leftists spell better... FB conversation

2011-10-04T13:52:00.002-06:00

I posted this:

"Unruly mobs are protesting Wall Street, and the Media are remarkably incurious and approving. When grandmas and soccer moms protested with the TEA party, they were accused of having no solutions. Yep."

S.B.: we spell better.

S.B.: ‎(journalists respect things like spelling and proper punctuation) ;-)

S.B.: ‎(at least, the mainstream ones do....)

Me: Yeah, oooops: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5x6Dnq1M_A&feature=relatedEnd

Me: double ooooops: http://news.yahoo.com/photos/-rage-against-wall-street-power-clogs-sidewalks-1316463530-slideshow/occupy-wall-street-protest-sign-leans-against-tree-photo-001309958.html#crsl=%252Fphotos%252F-rage-against-wall-street-power-clogs-sidewalks-1316463530-slideshow%252Fcouple-kisses-during-march-support-york-occupy-wall-photo-023056011.html

Photo #11

Me: And phots 12 and 18

In defense of Planned Parenthood: emotional appeals

2011-10-03T13:09:00.002-06:00

I received this passionate plea from Emilys List via The Nation:

"Dear Friend,

Let's call it for what it is: a witch hunt. Congressman Cliff Stearns, the Florida Republican who chairs a House oversight subcommittee, has set his sights on Planned Parenthood, conducting a far-reaching investigation against one of the most important providers of health care for American women.

Stop the witch hunt now. Tell Congressional Republicans to end their War on Women and let Planned Parenthood continue providing cancer screenings and other essential women's health care.

This is the Republican War on Women in its rawest form. Stearns is demanding detailed records from every single Planned Parenthood health center in an attempt to find something, anything he can use to discredit the organization. His committee -- without any concern for or authority on women's health -- is carrying out the far-right's vendetta against one of the most critical care providers for at-risk women.

Make no mistake: the Republicans want to get rid of Planned Parenthood once and for all. They don't care if millions of women are left without the basic care like family planning and cancer screenings they've come to depend on. They don't care if they violate the privacy of women and their personal medical choices. And if this is their top priority, then they must not care about the millions of Americans who are looking for work.

These outrageous attacks must stop now. We cannot stand by while Republicans go after our health, our privacy, and our basic rights.

Click here to tell Republicans in Congress to end the attacks against Planned Parenthood, to stop their War on Women, and to focus on the real problems Americans face every day.

Enough is enough. We cannot -- we must not stand by while Republicans try to destroy Planned Parenthood. I hope you will join me and the rest of the EMILY's List community in standing with them."

The first thing worth noting is the clever misdirection: "...let Planned Parenthood continue providing cancer screenings..." One might think that the congressman being referenced is against cancer screening, but in actual fact he is interested in scrutinizing the organization for fraud, waste, and abuse of taxpayer money.

Now, perhaps Planned Parenthood is innocent of any wrongdoing, but it seems to me that this has yet to be established. Since federal money is involved, I would say the congressman's inquiry is reasonable. But characterizing the congressman's actions as a witch hunt is, shall we say, somewhat hyperbolic?

The second thing to notice is that Planned Parenthood is presented as providing nothing other than health services. A recent inquiry revealed, however, that Planned Parenthood devoted something like 5% of its budget to actual general health care. The remainder of its budget went to abortion services and political advocacy.

In fact, some of its branches do absolutely no healthcare screenings whatsoever. They are, for lack of a better word, abortion mills. What Planned Parenthood is actually resisting is the implementation of any sort of sanitary or procedural standards or oversight of their operations, under the guise of womens' rights.

Regardless of the abortion issue, a health facility ought to held to medical standards. Women have died in these places with alarming regularity. Since Planned Parenthood isn't interested in cleaning up their federally funded operation, it seems quite proper for congress to clean it up for them.

Baucus and the deficit

2011-09-30T08:51:00.006-06:00

I will be posting an expanded version of what was formerly in this post.

There are no anti-intellectual democrats? FB conversation

2011-09-28T15:08:00.005-06:00

S.B.: this was too good not to share:

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” ― Isaac Asimov..

A.E.: Don't you think it's kind of funny how neoconservatives dismiss anyone who disagrees with them as unpatriotic and anti-American? Intellectually, this is a fallacy. And yet "intellectualism" is employed here in precisely the same way.

S.B.: can you seriously deny that there is a strong anti-intellectual tendency in much of the rhetoric coming out of the political right? Bachman and Perry, in particular, make statements that are anti-intellectual, anti-science, all in the name of a sort of faux populism that seems to be their homage to Reagan.

I think it's a pretty lousy (and, coming from you, lazy) analogy.

B.B.: Maybe A.E. had an HPV vaccination. *ducks and runs very quickly away*

Me: can't wait for the obligatory shot at religion, fox news, and limbaugh...

S.B.: I try not to take shots at religion, Rich. I'm not religious myself, but I don't have a problem with people who are. On the other hand -- Fox and Limbaugh -- I think they're fair game in any discussion of the anti-intellectual movement....

There are plenty of thoughtful, intelligent and well studied conservatives in this country and always have been. So it's not like conservatism NEEDS to be go in that direction. But I think any honest examination of the political rhetoric of the mainstream political candidates will support the idea that there's an anti-intellectual bent to it.

H.C.: Saying FOX, Limbaugh, AND intellectual in the same sentence is just wrong...

Me: the reflexive repetition of bumper sticker slogans by the left is anti-intellectual. Does anyone really think "faux" is in any way clever?

The left is a repository for some of the most anti-intellectual, personally destructive rhetoric that I have ever heard. Latest news, Gov. Christie may be too fat to run for president. Yes, this is thoughtful, intellectual commentary from the left.

S.B.: how is that a left wing perspective, Rich? That's just mean.

Me: Because this kind of stuff is modus operandi for the left, and it was two extreme leftists who discussed it: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/09/27/joy-behar-asks-michael-moore-about-chris-christie-do-you-think-countr

S.B.: look, I'm not going to defend Joy Behar, who to the best of my knowledge isn't even a political commentator. I happen to like Michael Moore quite a bit, we're much on the same page politically -- but asking Moore about whether someone's weight is an issue seems like an obvious question since he is himself overweight and often criticized for it.

In any event, I'm not talking about political COMMENTARY, Rich -- I read very little of it from any part of the spectrum because it bores me (especially the stuff I agree with, but commentary in general).

I'm talking about declared (or in the case of Palin,undeclared but obvious) candidates for political office.

Me: Well, your original quote from R.Y., and your first comment, are much more generic. Unless, of course, you are trying to formulate a No True Scotsman?

I wonder, though, since we are now talking about presidential candidates, if it is fair game to discuss Obama's intellectual foibles?

A.E.: If by "anti-intellectual" you mean recognizing incredulous snobbery, then yes, I am an anti-intellectual. It's a superiority complex. And the funny part is that the self-proclaimed "intellectually elite" hail from both ends of the political spectrum. They are just so convinced of their own superior intellects that naturally anything or anyone that could possibly disagree with them must be sub-intellectual. Which would be why my observation is characterized as "lousy."

S.B.: it is always fair game to tackle the candidates, but keep in mind, I'm not talking (here) about the validity of policies, but the worldview which the candidates seem to espouse.

I reposted the quote because, for one, I think it is timeless (and transcends politics, since as Andrew just pointed out as I type this, that all parts of the spectrum invoke it to suit their purpose).

But at present, I think that there IS a strong anti-science, anti-intellect component to the political rhetoric of the republican candidates. If you disagree, say so - but that is the only point I am trying to make. I'm not interested in a critique of any specific policies in this thread, just the worldview from which they appear to sprout.

A.E.: I'll agree with your last paragraph. And add that, from the left end of the spectrum, there is an equal component of faux-science and intellectual elitism.

Me: And my point is that the left's smug superiority is unjustified, given the palapable anti-intellectualism of the left. Further, I think it is a generalization to suggest that policy disagreements are categorizable as anti-intellectual. Indeed, the very assertion that a whole class of people tends to be anti-intellectual is in itself anti-intellectual statement.

The best way I can illustrate this is a parody of one-liners I posted on my blog: http://mountainmantrails.blogspot.com/2011/05/liberal-humor.htmlSee MoreMountain Man Trails: Liberal humor
mountainmantrails.blogspot.com

L.W.: Could you direct me to examples of anti-intellectual statements by the left?

I, myself, have noted disparaging comments about intellectuals from the right, but not from the left. Perhaps I am not reading or listening to the same sources that you are.

S.B.: ‎"Perhaps I am not reading or listening to the same sources that you are." I am guessing that this is a true statement.....lol.

Me: L.W., with all due respect, do your own research. It's all over the internet.

Regarding the sources we read, I read leftwing websites all the time so that I know what the other side is saying. May I suggest that you should consider a similar strategy?

L.W.: If you can, give me pointers to the websites you find the most credible,
both "leftwing" and those you agree with. The Internet is a big place. It's
hard to discuss an issue when the sources which are being cited are
identified as being "all over the Internet" or "leftwing websites". Which websites? What statements? By whom? When?

Me: ‎*sigh* Try googling "stupid democrat quotes" or some such thing. You will find gems like this: http://washingtonscene.thehill.com/in-the-know/36-news/3169-rep-hank-johnson-guam-could-tip-over-and-capsize

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/democratquotes/Democrat_Quotes.htm

Me: I keep remembering more of the anti-intellectual things from the left:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIBhg1v4bMo

"...during the trans-Atlantic slave trade some 200 million African slaves bound for America had been thrown overboard by their white captors. This, he explained, had permanently changed the ecology of the Atlantic Ocean and had caused sharks, as a species, to begin following ships (in search of food)." http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1766

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2iiirr5KI8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-usmvYOPfco

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACbwND52rrw

A.E.: One of my all-time favorites is Nancy Pelosi's "We'll have to pass the bill to see what's in it."

L.W.: Well, now, see, that isn't something I'd ever googled before, so you've taught me something already.

Here's a good quote that your links led me to:'Refudiate,' 'misunderestimate,' 'wee-wee'd up.' 'English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it.' That is a Sarah Palin, mistaking her illiteracy for something else.

L.W.: Thank you for all those links! There must be some very anti-intellectual leftwingers out there after all. I'm out of time and will have to look them up later today. I did follow the very first one, though. Perhaps you didn't intend it? President Obama states in the video that banks have fewer employees because people use ATMs instead of going to the teller, and at the airport instead of dealing with a person, they use the kiosks. Have you not observed this fact yourself? How is this statement stupid, wrong, or anti-intellectual?

Me: ‎"How is this statement stupid, wrong, or anti-intellectual?" He was linking automation, technology, and efficiency to the loss of employment. This is luddite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite_fallacy)

L.W.: The business of the airlines won't be decreased by kiosks, so the total number of their employees won't necessarily be affected by the use of them. The airline will employ fewer ticket agents. The kiosks aren't a "labor saving device". They make it unnecessary and less efficient to use a (human) ticket agent, so there will be fewer ticket agents. How does Obama's statement that training programs need to prepare people for real world jobs (not to be ticket agents, because ticket agents are being replaced by kiosks) make him an anti-intellectual Luddite?

Me: ‎"The kiosks aren't a 'labor saving device'. They make it unnecessary and less efficient to use a (human) ticket agent, so there will be fewer ticket agents." A) fewer ticket agents = labor savings, i.e. less labor. B) "The business of the airlines won't be decreased by kiosks, so the total number of their employees won't necessarily be affected by the use of them." So kiosks do not decrease number of employes, which means you've just explained the luddite fallacy. C) "President Obama states in the video that banks have fewer employees because people use ATMs instead of going to the teller..." i.e., he embraces the fallacy. So, you answered your own question.

The rich are not undertaxed

2011-09-23T10:18:00.000-06:00

Prayer with confidence

2011-09-23T10:01:00.003-06:00

This, then, is how you should pray:

Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.

Matt. 6:9-13

I noticed for the first time a forcefulness in what we are commanded to pray. We aren't instructed to beg. Hallowed, give us, forgive us, lead us not, deliver us. These are all direct statements. There is no groveling, no "please please please." There is no deference, no "if it is your will, God."

This identifies a problem with the way we sometimes view ourselves in relation to God. We don't realize who God has made us. We are sons of the living God, we have an inheritance, a destiny, a position that God has elevated us to, we are now partakers of the Kingdom.

We are not beggars. There is no command to plead with God. We come boldly before the Throne because we are entitled to be there by the blood of Christ. Our hearts are no longer wicked. We no longer have the stain of sin. We are new creations, made in the image of Christ, recipents of every promise of God.

Our prayers, when done in accordance with God's Word, are no longer namby-pamby requests, they are reaffirmations of what God has already said. They are declarations to the heavenlies of the truth, of reality, of holy principles.

This is not to say that we arrogantly strut around proclaiming our blessing, favor, or prosperity. There is a difference between agreeing with God and presumption.

Grace, often defined as the "undeserved favor of God," should be redefined as the "deserved favor of those who are co-heirs in Christ." It's time we balanced the fear of the Lord with an embrace of our sonship. We need both.

I don't quite know what to think about this...

2011-09-22T15:38:00.000-06:00

One of these could really come in handy

2011-09-21T10:26:00.001-06:00

Poverty rate

2011-09-15T11:13:00.002-06:00

Generally speaking, anti-poverty programs have had no effect on poverty.

Gov't porker

2011-09-14T16:13:00.002-06:00

With apologies to the artist, I made some revisions.

The poor: FB conversation

2011-09-14T09:45:00.005-06:00

R.W. posted: The TRUTH about the poor in this country.

What You Don't Know About Poverty in America. In his address to the joint session of Congress last week, President Barack Obama called for $477 billion in new federal spending, which he said would give hundreds of thousands of disadvantaged young people hope and dignity while giving their low-income parents “ladders out of poverty.”

A.F.: Having been one of the poor people this article talks about I find it very offensive and misleading. Did you read the full report that it takes it's facts from?

R.W.: The facts come from the census. I have not read the full census. It does not change the facts. What we think of ad poor does not always mean homeless and starving. At least not in this country.

A.F.: You're right, it doesn't always mean homeless and starving. But often times it means being one paycheck away from that. Just because a person has a TV does not mean they're living the high life. No where in the data does it say how much these people had paid for any of these items. Maybe their TV is 20 years old and cost $10? All I can say is it is a life I would not want to go back to and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

J.J.: How poor do we have to be before we help, professor? Somalia poor? Mexico poor? Starving baby with flies around the eyes poor? Because they have a car they are fine? Is that it? I wish you would have resisted posting this. (by the way, that heritage report also calculates that most poor people have a refrigerator for food. Those lazy bastards.)

R.W.: J.J., it's too bad you couldn't resist chiming in. A.F., being one paycheck away, is not the same as BEING poor. J.J., if a person can afford an X-box and games that person does not deserve help from tax payer money. If a person has CABLE, that person does not deserve help from tax payer money. If he is spending money on Booze, cigarettes and hookers, he does not deserve tax payer money. Many of these Poor have flat screen Angela. Not all but some. Unless it was a gift, why are we subsidizing them with tax payer money. You two want to help the poor, write them a check. I have done it. I have brought them into my house. I have offered to pay for their treatment. My Mother has given them jobs around the house, and driven them to doctors. She has taken in the metally ill. Thousands of people do things like that everyday. All without stealing from anyone else. You want a charitable society? So do I. Our society however is NOT our government. It is our PEOPLE. Charity can not be forced. Being poor is also not a life long condition usually. People get into poverty and they work themselves out. It is almost ALWAYS a temporary condition. By Government standards, I'll bet my son is poor, and I KNOW my youngest is. Doesn't mean they need government help. And Angela, I grew up poor. VERY poor. I was in High school before we owned a house. 6 of us lived in a single wide, in the desert of Claifornia. We NEVER took government aid.

J.J.: You did not answer my question, professor. How poor before the government, we--we own the government. How poor before we help? At what point to you allow my government to help? Cholera outbreak? Starvation? When, Rick? Do we ever get to step in and help or do we just hope your mom has plenty of time?

K.M.: Poor in this country is undeniably different than poor in most other countries--we are a privileged nation. And these numbers do show some surprising things, things I never would have guessed. BUT, these numbers are still misleading in many ways. Like your friend said--when did they acquire these things? and how? What condition are they in? I have a friend whose family has one car, acquired years and years ago (by the way, until some siblings moved out that was one truck for a family of 7). It just got ruined in a car accident. Since unlike when they got it, one of the parents can't work now, they can't afford to get it fixed. But hey, they own a car. And they can say their kid hasn't been hungry in the past year, their kid is at a school that has scholarships that pay for food, that says nothing about how hungry they may have been or their private monetary situation. Some of the things you are talking about are in fact just as they appear, undoubtedly, and that is surprising, and gives us some perspective. But some of them aren't, and I question the validity of surveys that do not take specifics into account, and instead give us as little information as possible to make their argument appear stronger.

Me: Get out your checkbook and help.

J.J.: That is a good idea. If all of us band together and help we can really do some good. I wonder if there is a way to collect a large amounts of money and distribute it to those in need without each of us running over with a check ? When we work together good things happen.

Me: Absolutely. Catholic charities. The Red Cross. Samaritan's purse. Love Inc. Every single one of them gladly accept donations. None of them force you to do a thing. Voluntary. I will match you dollar for dollar.

R.W.: Damn it, Rich, you beat me to it! You can add Good Will, ANY hospital, Jerry Lewis, etc.

R.W.: It's funny that a smart guy like Jay didn't know this. Maybe he just expected others to do it for him.

Praise

2011-09-09T11:27:00.000-06:00

Towdah, sacrifice of praise
Yadah, let your hands be raised
Barouch, with a quiet voice
Halell, let your soul rejoice
Zamar, sing to Him a song,
Tehillah, you can sing along
Shabach, shout for joy

Editorial, my rants

2011-09-08T10:57:00.011-06:00

I just gotta rant:

Why can’t manhole covers be located where we don’t drive on them?

Why are you so willing for government to dictate what is beautiful, moral, or good for you? From the color of your house to what foods you can eat, what’s so great about government running your life?

A recent Chronicle article presented a teacher who was teaching his students about the Constitution. Good. But the result was the students imposed a bunch of rules on themselves. Had the Constitution been accurately portrayed, however, the students would have imposed rules on the teacher.

Stop criticizing President Obama for non-political issues. Yes, it’s an easy trap to fall into, and I know you want him treated the way Bush is treated, but that’s no excuse. Bad behavior does not justify bad behavior.

Valley Center Road was the recipient of $4 million in stimulus funds. After two years, it’s now wider and smoother. A typical government enterprise, it has sidewalks next to farmers’ fields and no center turn lane.

My detractors often conflate Republicans with conservatives and therefore expect me to defend Republican positions. I am not Republican.

I want limited government, but I am a supposedly a hypocrite for being silent on my critics’ pet issues, despite having previously stated my positions. For the record, I am not opposed to MMJ. I oppose the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind. I am against the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and America. I do not support mandatory auto insurance.

Further, I am against government involvement in marriage, no matter what genders or species are involved. I don't care who you love or your sexual predilections. I don't care how, why, or when you have sex. I don't care what orifice you deem worthy of constitutional protection. I don't care. I. Don't. Care. Go do your thing, but leave me out of it.

Did you know that TEA partiers are racist? You haven’t heard? Well they are. You want evidence? Well, um, ahhh. Did you know the TEA partiers are stupid? They offer no solutions. And where were they when Bush was running up the debt…

Did you know that if you criticize something you favor its opposite? Criticizing Social Security means you want seniors to starve. Questioning government solutions to global warming means you want pollution and are anti-science. If you favor tax cuts, you are racist. Advocating limited government means you are against highways and fire protection. Pro-life means anti-woman. Does this anti-intellectual crap really persuade anyone any more?

Christians, stop arguing for Christian moral values if you aren't living those values. Your complaints about government welfare ring hollow if you are not helping the poor. You have a fish symbol on your car and you speed. You divorce your spouse, belittle your kids, and give a tiny tip in a restaurant. You are a hypocrite. Do something about it.

Warren Buffet famously wants his taxes raised, yet he’s delinquent on his taxes. Dude, pay up. Pay extra if you want. Don’t take your tax write-offs. Easy.

And what about ultra-rich environmentalists like Al Gore, who has a carbon footprint as large as a small city? I'll make you a deal. When y'all start actually living like you preach, I will then listen attentively as you expound on the virtues of the IRS and the EPA.

One of my Facebook friends insists that good government is about compromise. Compromise, as far as I can tell, is when Republicans agree with Democrats. And “good government” has led us to the brink of economic disaster. I think I’ve had quite enough good government.

Can we just admit that the Streamline bus experiment is a failure? And by the way, why is it that people expect to be driven around and have others pick up their tab?

It’s too bad I have a word limit, because I have a lot more complaining to do. Maybe another time…

Forgiving sins and destiny - FB conversation

2011-09-08T09:09:00.005-06:00

My Facebook friend M.L. linked to this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4VpH1FKkSQ&feature=share

He then commented: "...who can forgive sins but God alone?" Mark 2:7

Me: Don't think she said that...

M.L.: What do you think she said? And why would she say the following right after that "am I allowed to do this?, "I really don't know about this." She's obviously concerned about it and knows deep down inside it's wrong, what she heard a false spirit tell her. She should have 'tested the spirit' And the other thing I noticed is that she did not share the gospel with this guy. She said "I release God's presence over him". I didn't know we had power over God. It's repenting & believing the gospel of Jesus that saves. I don't believe she was listening to the living God of the Bible.

Me: She also said, "Your sins have been forgiven," not "I forgive your sins." "The Father is going to meet you today," not "I am going to meet you today." "You can enter into God's Kingdom tonight," not "You can enter into my kingdom tonight." We do need to gaurd against false teaching, and there is a lot of it out there. But llittle snippets of video (Clearly she's not a pastor or leader) don't give us context. We don't know what events led up to this woman, or what was said after. We are tempted to make blanket assessments with minimal information as a result.

I believe that only God can forgive sins, and apparently, so does Bethel Church: http://www.ibethel.org/we-believeSee More

M.L.: she is clearly saying that God told her that if you(meaning her) forgive his sin then they are forgiven. In essence, she is saying that God gave her the authority to forgive sin. Now this is clearly anti-scriptural. She asked the Lord "what should I do". If it were truly God, He would have highlighted Jesus to the man, not her. That's blasphemous. It slaps Jesus in the face. How dare they. Sounds like a catholic priest to me. That's the emergent church for you. I know that she's not a leader but the leadership is responsible for what someone says in their church especially from the pulpit. What should have followed was correction from leadership right then and there. I have not found that yet. I believe that she is a product of the false doctrine that is being taught there.

I have reviewed their website and many things are troubling We have to remember that satan sometimes comes as an angel of light and in very subtle ways. He intertwines false doctrine with truth. It truly is a war and we have to be even more thorough. We have to be willing to spend the time and really examine everything that people say, practice & teach.

I have reviewed their website. These are only a few examples.

They say: "This is a ministry to restore people back to their God given destiny, producing good fruit and developing leaves of healing for the nations."

My thoughts: Say what?! I have yet to come across God giving us a "destiny" in the bible. He gives us His will, His call, His Hope,a cross etc. What in the world are they about talking when they say. "developing leaves of healing for the nations" Is this scriptural?

They say: "The victorious redemptive work of Christ on the cross provides freedom from the power of the enemy - sin, lies, sickness and torment."

My thoughts: The enemy never put sin on us. God placed a sin curse on us.Proverbs 3:33 "The curse of the LORD is in the house of the wicked: but he blesseth the habitation of the just." Sin is our doing! It sounds like they are blaming the devil for sin and sickness.

They say: "The Church exists to carry on the ministry of Jesus Christ and further advance His kingdom by undoing the works of the enemy".

My thoughts: I have not found in scripture where we are to concern ourselves with undoing the works of the enemy. We are to resist the devil and he will flee from us and we are to expose the works of the enemy. The Apostles were commanded to preach the Gospel. We are to preach the gospel.making disciples and contend for the faith.

They say: "It is our goal for God's love to be manifest in signs, wonders and miracles as well as practical demonstrations of care and affection."

My thoughts : No, their goal should not be for Gods' love to be manifested through signs, wonders and miracles. "A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed." Matt 16:4 Their goal should be for God's love to be manifested through His Son "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16

I posted this as one example of many of the anti-scriptural practices and mindsets that are not 'out there somewhere' but trying to come into the house of the Lord.
Just something to consider...

Me: Wow, don't know what to say to all that.

Me: Are you thinking that it is my job to defend that church?

Me: ‎"For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." Jer 29:11

"On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations." Rev 22:2

Me: Not to flog a dead horse, but again, we need to be careful about the judgments we make when not all the facts are at hand. Yes, only God forgives sins, but Matt 6:14-15 says, "For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."

M.L.: This is in response to your previous 3 comments:

You got me there with that particular scripture being in the bible. I have read it but as usual they are using it incorrectly. They are using it out of context and twisting it to make themselves feel important. I also definitely see some traces of Dominionism. Not good.

This in response to your very last comment. It's not the same thing, We can't forgive someones sin for them before God. Our personal responsibility before God is to have mercy on them. Quick example: say my wife cheats on me I have to forgive her. This does not make her right with God. It makes me right with God. we cannot justify people before God only Christ has that authority. God never gave us or will ever give us the authority to forgive other people's sin in place of Him. Showing mercy shows them Christ who alone has the power to forgive sin making them legally right before God.As far as making judgments , if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck , walks like a duck it's a duck. I have done plenty of research out of necessity not desire wondering what in the world is going on.

M.L.: just a quick comment on Jer.29:11. We need to look at this scripture from a spiritual and not carnal perspective. Our hope is Jesus Christ. Our future is Heaven and we are prosperous b/c we are free from the bondage of sin. He will not harm us meaning lead us to evil and hell.' To live is Christ. To die is gain'

Me: Are you so sure that the lady did not mean the same thing? Again, we have no context. We don't know if she was being asked to forgive his sins for the exact purpose you described, do we? And may I point out that your original claim was that only God can forgive sins? In certain contexts this is true, but again, it is context. We don't know the context!

Me: You said, "I have yet to come across God giving us a "destiny" in the bible." I provided you with a destiny Scripture. Now we are debating the nature of that destiny you denied existed?

M.L.: Rich, you are right. You are flogging a dead horse. :) I'm absolutely sure she did not mean the same thing. It's consistent to what's coming out of that synagogue of satan. Doctrines of demons fueled by seducing spirits. As far as the "destiny" thing. Our destiny is either Heaven or Hell not what the emergent church is selling/using to attract people.

Taxing the poor, capitalism, SS - FB conversation

2011-08-22T09:54:00.004-06:00

S.B. posts a link: http://news.yahoo.com/gop-may-ok-tax-increase-obama-hopes-block-124016578.html

S.B.: Interesting. So, if a tax break affects primarily low and middle income workers, it's OK with the GOP to let it expire?

Me: The poor pay no income tax, and it's time they did.

S.B.: just out of principle, Rich? As a punitive measure for being poor? Because they've got it too easy?

This is not actually part of the income tax, per se. The poor DO pay plenty of taxes, of course -- state and local taxes, social security, etc. You're obviously entitled to your opinion, but I'm curious as to the rationale behind your statement?

Me: No one should be exampt from paying taxes, rich or poor doesn't matter. Everyone should experience and live with the results of the excesses in government, and therefore have a stake in the reduction of it.

S.B.: fair enough. I assumed that was the case, but I don't like to assume too much about how other people think....

Me: It is interesting, however, that you are admitting that ths SS tax is a tax, and not an "investment."

Nevertheless, it really doesn't interest me what this or that republican is in favor of, since I'm not a republican. I personally am in favor of phasing out social security entirely.

S.B.: well, we have pretty radically different visions for what this country ought to aspire to, Rich. As if this wasn't already clear.

Me: Maybe, maybe not. Time to give up on failed programs and try another way.

S.B.: this is true. Capitalism has run its course. It is broken. Time to move on.

Me: Capitalism as in the government spending 46 cents of every healthcare dollar in the US? Capitalism as in preventing children from selling lemonade in their front yards? Capitalism as in mandating free birth control? Capitalism as in shutting down entire farms because it might harm the snail darter? Capitalism as in forbidding restaurants from using salt? Capitalism as in preventing walmart from building stores?

I'm looking for capitalism out there and all I see is government. What capitalism do you refer to?

The superiority of the conservative philosophy, editorial

2011-08-19T14:11:00.004-06:00

It's fair to say that we choose to support various political figures because of their stated positions on issues. Their positions draw our vote, our loyalty, and even perhaps our dollars.

But I wonder, have you ever been so sure about something, so convinced that you understood it, tested it, and lived it, only to discover that it was a lie? Right up to the moment of your discovery, you operated in what you thought was the truth. You believed that this was the way the world worked, but now you are shaken.

So, if you happen to think that politicians are really telling you what they believe, that government is a problem solver for society and is doing all these wonderful and noble things, what would it take to abandon such a belief? In light of our continued economic slide, with government running out of fixes to try, and after decades of politicians promising to fix problems like poverty, racism, and hunger with little or nothing to show for all those tax dollars they spent, why are you still a believer?

We need to understand that politics is not about helping people. It is not about fixing the economy or creating jobs. Feeding the hungry is not the goal. You are being deceived. Politics is about the acquisition, accumulation, retention of power. And if “doing good” happens to coincide with the real goal of getting more power, so much the better.

What is the aim of all this power? Certainly being a politician is an almost guaranteed path to millionaire status, but that is only part of it. They want to remold society according to their vision. They believe that government ought to transform how society works. They believe that they can change the world. They want to force you to change and have you pay for it too.

We might think that they are trying to do “good.” Maybe they even think they are. But the problem is, government power is not limited to doing good. If the wrong people are elected to office, there is nothing to stop them from wielding that power in their own way. We have abandoned the mechanism, constitutional limits, that would rein in that power.

My friend and I had lunch the other day, and he asked me, "Could those who hold elective office simply refuse to step down, essentially overthrowing the government?" We discussed possibilities like imposing martial law, amending the Constitution, delaying or fixing elections, and even a military coup.

I suggested that given the apathy of the American public, a stealth takeover of government could be staged relatively easily. In fact, one could justifiably assert that various moneyed interests like unions and corporations have indeed taken over government. We don’t need to speculate about shadowy secret societies exerting influence, it’s right out in the open.

As government consolidates more and more power for itself, liberty suffers. We become servants the government, not the other way around. With a lot of money at stake, with powerful interests influencing policy, and with career politicians who are willing to do whatever it takes to retain their positions, government has become unmanageable at best, and unstoppable at worst.

This is why a powerful government is the philosophical Achilles’ heel of the political Left. I would suggest that conservative philosophy is therefore superior to liberal philosophy. The conservative wants to restrain and limit government. He distrusts the power of government, even when it might be in his favor. A limited government, when corrupted, can only do limited damage. It is much easier to correct. A limited government has minimal impact on peoples' lives. A limited government cannot steer taxpayer money to special interests.

Big government will turn against you. Sooner or later it does to everyone. That’s why it should be limited.

What does God require? FB conversation

2011-08-17T10:09:00.003-06:00

M.L.: You have heard from preachers telling you to "Love God" or "Love God more". How does one do that?

Me: With all your heart, mind, and strength.

M.L.: Good answer, but what does that look like? How do you make your heart or your mind do that?

Me: ‎"Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks." There is nothing more important to God than for us to be true worshipers. Our calling is to possess a heart and soul and mind fully occupied with celebrating the glories of God.

M.L.: I believe it's simply getting to know the Lord through His Word.

Me: Indeed. I quoted part of that very Word, which gives us insight on how we are to love Him... worship in spirit and truth.

Me: In fact, I just finished an extended commentary on this very subject. It's posted on my blog, if you want to read it: http://mountainmantrails.blogspot.com/2011/08/manifesto-centrality-of-worship-by-rich.html

J.L.: We are to love the Lord with all our heart,soul, mind and strength but we can't love someone we don't know so we have to get to know Him through His Word and spending time with Him in prayer. To know Him is to love Him. To love Him is to cause us to cry out in humble adoration & to serve Him and obey Him with gladness. In spirit is in opposition to our flesh and in truth is conforming to His will and His Word and His ways. We give the sacrifice of praise. There is a reason it is referred to as a sacrifice. It takes the spotlight off of us and onto Him and we are so naturally self worshiping and self indulgent. There seems to be a worship of 'worship' in the church today and not a worship of the Living God. Why? Because we don't know Him. We are constantly presented another 'jesus' through hirelings, wolves, worship, books etc. who most people aren't recognizing as a counterfeit b/c they don't know Him or His Word. There's no other way to know Him than through His Word and the Holy Spirit giving us revelation through that. This is where it begins and ends. It's simple and yet so deep we can't fathom it. We should never call it old hat but should tremble at His Word and in His awesome presence.See More

Me: I agree with everything you say, J.L.. So are you disagreeing, agreeing, or adding to what I said?

J.L.: Not disagreeing with you at all. Just answering the question M.L. posed and adding to what you said. What you said is absolutely true but we have to look at practical application and understanding of this awesome truth. The emergent church has so perverted just about every scripture ref. that we have to be so clear in what we say and what we mean so as to distinguish ourselves from them. I wasn't sure what you meant by your answer b/c of this...10 people could look at the same scripture and get something totally different from itbut if it is the same Spirit guiding us into all truth then we will only confirm/undergird that truth to each other not come up with different truth... glad we are on the same page : ) just trying to be as clear as possible...

Me: No problem. I just wanted to make sure I understood.

The perversion of Scripture is nothing new. It started with "Has God really said..." in Genesis. The teaching of the emergent church is old false doctrine.

That being said, while we hold fast to the truth and the teaching of the apostles (Acts 2:42), I find nothing in Scripture that demands perfect doctrine as a condition of pleasing God. Approved workmen rightly dividing the Word (2 Tim 2:15), yes. Holding fast to what is good (1 Thes 5:21), of course.

Me: But simply knowing the Truth perfectly is useless. The Truth is a means, not an end. The Truth is what washes us and prepares us. The Truth establishes us, trains us, orders our inner man.

What is meaningful about the Truth is not the accumulation of it, but rather the spending of it. Where does the Truth lead us? To understanding regarding who we are, and revelation about God's desire.

Which is why I focus on worship. Worship is relationship, and God is looking for relationship. The Body is relationship, "as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." It is quote possible to know the Truth but not have relationship, and thereby dishonor God.

J.L.: today in the birth of the church age, we have made an idol of worship. Not that worship isn't important for we are commanded to worship God but what that really is and what we've made it to be are two different things. Unfortunately there are 'christians' who have also made an idol of the law and they give those of us who truly care about truth a bad name. When we stand up for truth we are lumped right in with them. We are accused of loving knowledge more than Christ. It is precisely because of our love of Christ that we love truth. 2 Thess. 2:10. I agree completely with what you said that to love truth without relationship to Jesus is to dishonor God. No doubt about it. But it goes both ways: to' love' Jesus and disregard truth will also dishonor God and confuse the world.

J.L.: Relationship with Christ according to His Word is central to worship and fuels it. Paul said in 2 Tim. 4:3 in the last days people would not be able to endure sound doctrine. I hear more pastors and teachers and people quote the Bible and yet are so off base in their application that there is no way on earth they know Jesus. Rick Warren comes to mind among others. That may sound harsh but the devil knows the Bible better than me and you and so do many people but without being born again, going from carnal to spiritual man there can be no understanding of spiritual things. 2 Cor.2:14. I don't believe the problem in the church is that we need to focus on worship more. The problem is people need to be born again, truly saved and when this occurs there is no problem. Worship is an extension of that relationship. You never have to tell a true believer to worship more. It is the first thing they do when saved and continue to do for eternity. I'm not talking about uber-spiritual christians who are perfect and who have everything right. I'm talking about truly born again christians whose lives have been changed and are continuing to change by the power of the Holy Spirit. A healthy church is full of healthy imperfect sheep. They are at different levels of sanctification but they are growing and maturing.

J.L.: I agree with what you said but let me throw some thoughts at you to better explain why I am placing such importance on sound doctrine. Just because the emergent church is not new and I agree with you completely on that point does not mean that we should not do as the Bible says in Jude 3 to 'contend earnestly for the faith' Every Christian in every century from the beginning of the church age has had to do just that because truth matters. Many have had to die for and are dying for that as you know. That is the battle. That's it. Pretty simple and yet we complicate it so much. Nowhere in the Bible does it say to contend earnestly for worship. There is no mention of worship leader or what we see of worship in Christendom today in the birth of the church age. We have made an idol of worship. Not that worship isn't important for we are commanded to worship God but what that really is and what we've made it to be are two different things.

Me: M.L.'s question was "how do we love God more." It wasn't "how do we embrace truth," or "what do we do about the teachers of false doctrine," or "what do we do about the failings of people in the church."

Worship is the response of the redeemed heart. We don't contend for worship, we agree with God who commands us to worship. What passes for worship in church is not what I'm defending. The idolatry of worship is only one of many possible ways a person can sin, and is not relevant to our obilgation to be worshipers. Did you read my manifesto? It explains my position completely.

This is not a binary equation (sound doctrine vs. worship). What I'm trying to point out is that we study the Bible to infuse ourselves with God's truth, and we discover that one of those truths is that we are called to be worshipers above all else.

The reason I'm emphasizing worship is BECAUSE the church is so bad at it and gets it so wrong. If we were to judge worship soley based on what happens in church, of course we would conclude that it is a futle and unholy pursuit. That's the problem. We don't know how to worship, which is the same thing as saying we don't know how to love God.

Bankruptcy...

2011-08-17T10:07:00.000-06:00

Warren Buffet - FB conversation

2011-08-15T10:42:00.002-06:00

S.B.: gotta love Warren Buffett. "I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone - not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 - shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain," he said

Stop coddling the super-rich: Buffett' on Yahoo! News. (Reuters) - Billionaire Warren Buffett urged lawmakers to raise taxes on the country's super-rich to help cut the budget deficit, saying such a move will not hurt investments.

Me: Yeah, and Pat Buchanan said that Buffet should stop posturing about tax increases for the rich and write a check for $5 billion to the government. If he wants higher taxes, there is nothing stopping him from doing something about it.

L.E.: just tired of the brou-ha-ha...

R.B.: Buffet is a communist who has never worked a day in his life.

B.S.: Too funny, Ryan. Did you actually read the article? One of the points he makes is that people who earn their money by working shouldn't be taxed more than people like him who earn their money from having money.

B.S.: Rich - then Pat Buchanan was just reporting what Buffet had already begun - promoted the idea among his close circle of billionaire friends that they give away half their net worth.

Me: Different subject. There is a cadre of billionaires talking about giving money to charity. Buchanan is talking about Buffet wanting govt to raise taxes on the wealthy.

B.L.: I agree. The working class should pay less taxes proportionatley than the mega rich.

M.D.: The middle class is much larger and thus higher taxes on it will raise a lot more revenues. The rich use their money to create jobs

S.B.: M.D., that's actually not true. If you look at the distribution of wealth (*not incomes) in this country, something like 90% of the wealth is in the hands of fewer than 5% of the people. And increasingly, that wealth is NOT being used to create jobs -- economists note that despite good profitability and record cash reserves, companies are NOT increasing hiring, instead looking to automation and other forms of productivity increases to get the work done. When jobs ARE created, they're increasingly being created overseas, for a wide variety of reasons including the fact that is where the new markets are.

If you want to increase jobs, find a way to increase real income for the middle class. That has been flat or worse for decades, and without demand, there's no point in being a supplier.

Me: It is not the purpose of wealth to create jobs. Jobs are created when there is work to be done. There is no work for 22% of the people, thanks to Bush II and III.

By the way, all that wealth is not hidden in a mattress somewhere.

S.B.: No, much of it is being invested in emerging economies, creating jobs THERE, not here.

Me: I take it you're an advocate of protectionism and closed borders?

S.B.: Not really. Just observing that it cannot be taken for granted that wealth accumulated in the us is going to be reinvested here.

"Dawn of the Debt:" I wonder if it is even curable...

2011-08-12T08:55:00.002-06:00

An explanation to my conservative friend

2011-08-10T16:25:00.002-06:00

Rick, you just don't understand. Rich people are evil. They're want to throw the poor and sick into the street. They got their wealth by stealing it. Government is good, because it takes that money from the rich and gives it to the people who really deserve it.

Further, government is always right. No matter how much money it has, it's never enough because of those greedy conservatives. Everything wrong with this country is because of conservatives. If only they would go away, we would have justice.

You conservatives believe the way you do because you are intolerant bigots with low IQ. You just don't see the nuance and shades of gray. You are unenlightened. You hate science. You fear progress and resist change. In fact, you want to return us to a time when blacks were property and women were barefoot and pregant.

Don't bother denying it. A denial is proof that I'm right. And all the evidence you present is of questionable sources, like people who are on the payroll of Big Oil. Either that, or your evidence should be ignored. Better still, your evidence will be thrown back at you, properly interpreted by people who are clearly smarter than you.

If you had two brain cells to rub together, you would simply agree with the superior wisdom and insight. But you won't, because you just don't get it: Government is the answer to every problem.

R.W.: Your words frighten me. Can you make it simpler for me to understand?

Me: Don't be scared. Just come over from the Dark Side and become a liberal. All you have to do is repeat bumper sticker slogans like what I wrote.

R.W.: Hope and Change, Hope and Change, Hope and Change.....

J.J.: Rick, I read the article. Clearly, I believe there is so much wrong with it that it would take take a week to draft an essay to point it all out. Jut to show you that I read it, I will say the only decent phrase in the whole article is "A compassionate society rightly hopes to rescue its least fortunate members..."

Medved was a crummy movie reviewer and I think he is just as bad as a pundit. None of this will come a surprise.

I will say this, between the article and Sherlock's self-loathing rants, I gained some true insight into the Conservative Theory.

Conservatisim believes, at its very core, that inequality cannot, be fixed and no one should try. The article and Sherlock puts moneyed people above people without money. The article clearly states that moneyed people are good while people without are not. Rich's self-hatred is obvious.

Rich, you do not know me in the slightest. You have no idea if I have money, do not have money or how I feel about the government or even if I am a Dem or a Republican. I never said "rich people are evil." The only thing I have said is that the corporations and people making over a certain amount of income should pay their fair share. I do not agree with the continous cuts for the wealthy while putting the tax burden on what is left of the middleclass and the poor and cutting programs to help the weakest in our society. That is it. The position infuriates some to such a degree that I, frankly, have trouble understanding why.

Through the article and Rich's pitiful rants, plus studying the history of the Conservative movement, it is clear that, for better or worse, the conservtives firmly believe that those with money are better and are above those without.

"They should not be taxed because they create jobs." Nevermind that during the last decade or so, the majority of jobs have been created by the small, middleclass business people. "If we tax the wealthy, they will want to stop working or contributing to society." So, no taxes so they keep working. I get taxed more and I work all the damn time.

The difference between my side of the fence and yours is that I do not, under any stretch of the imagination, believe people with money are better then me or deserve special treatment. Conservatives do and they believe it is good for the country. I do not.

In The United States, ours is a long history of making sure everyone gets a chance whether they have money or not (homestead act, university land purchase, education funding, the list goes on.) Yet, the conservative movement, believes, according to Medved, that the government offering a way up out of poverty and ignorance weakens the nation, makes us weak. I do not believe that nor never will.

Rich, you have no idea what I am about. I do not know you other than you choose to use a homo-erotic photo of Chuck Norris as your calling card and like to start calling people names when you run out of constructive things to say. For all I know you are a closeted 7th grader. Whatever the case may be, I don't think I am better than you, nor do I think you are better than me. Whether rich or poor, I think you need to pay taxes to the government and I think the government needs to be there for all segments of our society not just those with money or the corporations. I believe in regualtions and taxes as much as you beileve in law and order.

You both believe the role of government is only for law and order and protection. I do not believe that.

I believe government has a role in protecting all our rights. You will never believe that.

Democracy, as very messy and and as very troubling as it is, lays in between those thoughts.

Me: You don't know what conservatives believe. No idea. Your statements about conservatives are not only wrong, but spectacularly so.

J.J., your posts make clear that you're not here to create understanding. You're not here to have an intellectual, respectful exchange. It's patently obvious that you believe certain things to be absolutely true, and everyone who disagrees with you has an ulterior motive or just is too stupid to catch on. Your imperiousness is a conversation-ender. You aren't interested in dialogue, you're here to lecture and belittle. Classic leftist condescension.

You came here with your guns blazing, with smug self-assurance that you are right and anyone who disagress with you is wrong. You ask no questions, you do not seek information. You aren't interested in finding out what anyone else believes, your mind is made up.

That is known as being narrow-minded, something leftists frequently accuse conservatives of being. Prove me wrong. Lose the superior attitude. Ask Rick what he believes about a topic and why. Have one conversation where you actually display an genuine interest and respect for R.W.'s views.

I doubt you can. I doubt you even capable of listening to another point of view.

Worse, you're a homophobe. You don't know my sexual orientation, but you somehow feel fee to denigrate me based on assumptions. Truly despicable.

Tax code and behavioral modification - Editorial

2011-08-09T10:20:00.002-06:00

The tax code was originally intended to fund government, but has morphed into a behavioral modification program. Taxation is routinely used to target certain activities, either to discourage an activity (tobacco taxes, for example), or to encourage it (like the home mortgage deduction). Not content with simply funding government, our legislators think they know how we ought to live, and they reward or punish us based on our conformity with their values.

One way they do this it to fund certain programs or benefits with taxes that are earmarked for that specific purpose. These include campsite fees, gas taxes, tolls, car licenses, Social Security, etc. The stated intent is to make the users of a service pay for it. But I’m sure you know that the real reason government does this is to create new revenue streams while simultaneously leaving the existing revenue structure open for continued manipulation.

This is why the city of Bozeman can keep increasing water and sewer taxes while simultaneously justifying impact fees by saying they keep service costs lower for existing property owners. This makes perfect sense if you love the power government has over the people. As a bonus you get to pretend to help them as you suck money out of their pockets. Diabolical brilliance.

I have this picture of our government officials gathering around a table in the dead of night to invent new ways of prying money out of our hands. They rub their hands together and cackle at their cleverness as they create new burdens for us. “Woohoo, I have an idea. How about if we pass a law that requires everyone to pay a tax on plastic grocery bags?” “Hahahahaha, that’s good, but what about this: Why don’t we make it illegal to smoke in places where people like to come and smoke?” Snorf, chortle, guffaw.

Each new tax, every one a “worthy” cause with compassionate intent, piles on until we taxpayers reel under the burden. Under the guise of improving our lives (at least, improving it according to their priorities), government makes it harder for people to live them. And more expensive.

But the fact is, we just cannot afford this anymore. Government has been riding the crest of prosperity funded by debt, and the carnival is ending. The false prosperity of the Bush years, buoyed by gargantuan spending programs guided by a philosophy of government economic intervention that is traceable back to the New Deal, has led to this latest financial crisis. Ironically, Bush III (Obama) has been content to make no change in the Bush II approach, deepening the financial devastation.

I was guardedly optimistic that the TEA party influence would reverse the tide. I applauded as they stood firm as one bad deal after another paraded by. However, there are just not enough of them to make an impact. And unfortunately, so many caved. All told, 59 freshmen voted for the debt bill and 28 voted against it. Only a few short months and the TEA partiers are now part of the problem.

We watched an elaborate dance with much posturing and bellowing. Boehner wobbled like a tower made of jello, and the Democrats, having no plan on the table, became the party of no. But once again, in the dead of night I’m sure, they cut a sweetheart deal that benefits only government. And yet again, we will pay. Dearly. This deal will add $12 trillion to the national debt over the next ten years. It raised the debt ceiling. There are no cuts, it only lowered rate of increase. Slightly.

Unfortunately, there are still so many of us still cling to this failed system. It’s like trying to squeeze just a little more toothpaste from the empty tube. But it’s time to face the truth. From the City of Bozeman to the feds in D.C., the clever manipulations of government have yielded no answers. We are out of money. It’s time to face reality.

The Face of Government Healthcare

2011-08-08T09:24:00.002-06:00