America needs to reassess noble goals - letter by Jerrold Johnson

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

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

Mr. Johnson has appeared in my sights before. I believe he was a doctor, although his content and logical skills do not always seem to be consistent with that. However, in this letter he and I actually agree on some things. Read on.

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

Since Vietnam 50 years ago we have found ourselves in one quagmire after another with our pre-emptive war strategy. I support Obama and feel he is trying to do the right thing, but I don’t support engaging Syria militarily. (At first a lot of leftists were silent on the issue. The customary hysterical invective from the leftwing activists was nearly non-existent. Then after a while, some leftist pundits began a timid opposition. More have joined their ranks, so that there is enough of Obama's traditional allies opposing him that he abruptly decided to belatedly seek congressional approval. Mr. Johnson also gives tepid condemnation of a potential invasion of Syria.) 

I do give him credit for being cautious. After 9-11, George W. Bush made a hasty decision (America invaded Iraq on the 19 of March 2003, 2 1/2 years after the World Trade Center attack. Hasty?) 

to invade Iraq when it was not involved with the terrorist attack, (That's a pretty broad statement. Al Qaeda was responsible for the WTC attacks, and Al Qaeda was and is in operation in Iraq, as well as many other middle eastern countries. Why we attacked Iraq is a matter of conjecture, since there were a lot of factors at work. This is not to say I supported the invasion, because I didn't. I am simply objecting to the generalization made as if it is a stark fact.) 

said “Mission accomplished” six weeks later and we left Iraq almost nine years later in a mess. For our tragic 9-11 loss of 2,996, we caused 89,000 direct deaths, lost 4,488 of our young men and women, (here is a chart of deaths per month up until the US began its pull out in December 2011. You'll note that deaths continued to pile up during the Obama administration, and persist even to this day. This only means that Mr. Johnson is apparently unable to separate the deaths that occurred under Bush's watch from those of Obama. Obama was terribly slow in taking action to get out of Iraq, so any protestations about Obama inheriting the situation are mitigated by the lack of immediacy on Obama's part.)

(The other thing about the death tally is the fact that every sort of death that could be remotely connected to the war is included, things like lack of healthcare, food, and medicine because commerce had been interrupted, deaths caused by terrorists themselves, friendly fire, etc. Again, I did not support the war, so I have no intention in justifying the deaths.)  

had 32,230 injured (not including PTSD), killed 132,000 civilians, spent $1.7 trillion (More like $758 billion) putting us into serious debt and have a Congress that wants to pay for it off the backs of the poor and middle class. (We were already in serious debt. A commensurate sum has been spent on bailouts and shovel-ready jobs, none of which has helped the economy at at all. As far as who is going to pay for it, well, the poor have no money. We all are going to pay for it. The weight of the debt inflicted upon us has far reaching economic effects. From my perspective, it doesn't matter what the source of the debt is. It is free spending politicians who are to blame, and they are also to blame for the continuing bad economy, saddled by enormous debt and invasive government regulation.)

The sanctimonious oratory about deaths from poison gas has a hollow ring when comparing 1,000 deaths to 100,000. (Oops. Did he intend to talk about Obama in this disparaging way? He does not name Obama, but Obama has talked in this very manner.) 

There is no way to make one death in war “nicer” than another. Is it better to get shot, blown up, napalmed, nuked, bombed, or stabbed than poisoned? When we used the atom bomb we killed roughly 200,000 civilians and many died from radiation — not illegal so far as I know. We used poison gas Agent Orange despite 5,000 scientists saying no. We sprayed 1/7th of Vietnam affecting 5 million peasants and 200,000 U.S. military, causing 400,000 deaths and 500,000 children with birth defects.

We preach noble values, yet we sell the most arms in the world, have seldom met a dictator we couldn’t support (until they turn our weapons against us), and strike first at the hint of a threat. (Hmm. Note the multiple uses of "we," as if "we" are somehow to blame and not Obama. In his outrage at the Syrian situation he managed to prominently mention Bush, Agent Orange, the atomic bomb, and napalm. But he cannot bring himself to mention Obama more than once, and that to offer a weak objection to the President's planned Syrian response. The bulk of his letter is about Bush and the Iraq war, previous atrocities, and the economic cost of war. This is classic leftist thought process; deflect, obfuscate, and divert outrage to other events and people so as to minimize damage to their heroes.)

Jerrold E. Johnson Bozeman

Piers Morgan: "I'd like to suggest a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution"

I'm going to say this again and again until everyone in the country understands. The Constitution is the document that creates, defines, and limits government. It is not about the People and what they can and cannot do. It does not grant rights or privileges or powers to the People; the People grant powers to the government.

I can forgive Piers Morgan for being ignorant, since he's not American. But his error is repeated by Americans at a disturbingly high rate. Americans are being maleducated, I think deliberately, so that they accede to government's at-will intervention into their lives. They are being conditioned to look to and depend upon government for their every need.

The fact that the government has always failed at its extra-constitutional activities doesn't seem to dissuade the True Believers. When government fails, as it inevitably does, they simply advocate more! Can't solve poverty? We need more of the same failed ideas! Social Security insolvent? Let's increase benefits! Time after time, government's excursions into social engineering have made the problems worse.

At some point the social engineers are going to push the country over the financial and moral precipice. Someone will have to pick up the pieces and reconstruct the system. It will be those who believe the Bible, the founders, and the Constitution.

Grown-ups should have ID cards to own guns - letter by Sophia Olson

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

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

This 10 year old put together a pretty good letter to the editor, which I laud. But lest I be accused of beating up on a kid, let me point out first that Ms. Olson entered the public sphere, and as such does not get a pass on what she writes. Second, my real purpose in discussing this letter is not specifically that it is a 10 year old's opinion. I noticed that what she wrote bears a striking resemblance to what a typical leftist would write, so I would suggest that either she was thoroughly coached, or that the Left tends to reason like children.

I do not expect that a 10 year old would have developed critical thinking skills. That is apparent from her letter. But since the general thrust of her letter parallels the Leftist mindset, her ideas are worth evaluating.

Read on for my comments.

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

My name is Sophia Olson and I am 10 years old and I have been hearing a lot about gun shooting lately from grown-ups, from kids like me, from the Internet, etc. and frankly, I’m disappointed. I thought grown-ups were supposed to be responsible. (Grownups are supposed to be a lot of things. There's a lot of things wrong with the world, however. Gun violence is only a symptom, and getting rid of guns will not cause adults or anyone else to be responsible.) With all that’s going on, I’ve realized that there’s a lot of bad people that are doing so many bad things like the guy who did the shooting in Connecticut. 

I don’t think that selling guns to every person is a good idea. (This is a straw man. No one has argued that every person should be able to buy a gun.) 

They might look normal, but they can always be bad or they could be sick and we sell guns to them anyway. (It is true that bad people sometimes purchase guns. Again, no one thinks we should sell them guns. But notice the use of the word "we," which suggests that private parties engaging in legal, private transactions has something to do with what "we" should or should not do. The Left frequently employs the universal "we" as a rhetorical device to suggest inclusiveness, togetherness, or a consensus that has yet to be demonstrated. So she identifies that bad people buy guns, but implies that "we" should not do this, as if "we" happily allow bad people to buy guns.) 

I think that we should have ID cards for guns and you should be certified, and people should lock guns up when they’re not using them. (Her solution is that people should have to have ID cards, but the possession of an ID card does not mean a person is good. But beyond that, how is it an improvement to have a gun ID, as opposed to background checks, etc?) 

Sometimes good guys turn into bad guys really quick, just like a snap when they get mad. (So a good person who buys a gun and has an ID card turns bad. How does Ms. Olson think that the ID card helps in this scenario?) 

People shooting each other for past experiences, for racial issues, for revenge and for no reason at all, makes me sad. (It makes us all sad. But people shooting people is illegal, isn't it? Will an ID card change that? Will criminals stop being criminals? And should we make laws based on emotions like sadness?) 

I don’t want to live in a world like that. I don’t feel safe in that kind of environment. (Bozeman, Montana is not that kind of environment, and if someone is making Ms. Olson feel unsafe, they are manipulating her with false specters of peril.)

If people think that having a gun is most important, I don’t understand. (Do people really think that having a gun is "most" important? This is another false meme of the Left, which falsely suggests that gun owners don't care about anything but guns.) 

What do they think it’s more important than? My education, their children and our feelings? (*Sigh* Another technique of the Left, presenting a false choice. Someone owning a gun has nothing to do with her education. Her feelings are not the basis of appropriate legislation. She has been led to certain conclusions about those dangerous, eeevil guns by the adults in her life, and she is responding on an emotional level. She seems to think that "we" ought to do things because it will make her feel better. Some day she hopefully will find out that very few people care about her feelings.) 

When the people like that say that I want my gun and I don’t care what you think, that doesn’t make me feel very good about myself. (Once again a false premise. Who, exactly, is saying that they want a gun and don't care what people think? And she repeats her hurt feelings, which is a solipsistic way of thinking. By that I mean that she considers herself the center of the universe, so external events are only important to the degree which they might impact her. However, people do things all the time without those things having anything to do with her. And somehow her self worth is attached to what people do about their guns. Strange.) 

When people say that, it makes me feel like I’m not important at all and having a gun is better than anything. (Her importance is irrelevant. There are 320,000,000 people in this country. Frankly, she is just not important to almost everyone. If someone's decision about a gun makes her feel unimportant, it's likely due to some sort of misdirected sense of self worth she has that preempts everything else that happens in the world. Hopefully she will grow out of this self-involvement. And once again, a straw man. Who says that having a gun is better than anything?)

Grown-ups tell us kids that you treat others the way you want to be treated. Why can’t they follow that rule too? (By placing herself at the center of the universe, she now proclaims that she isn't being treated properly, simply because someone, somewhere, owns a gun. If they really cared, they would get rid of their gun so that Ms. Olson can feel better. If they want to be good people, they would not hurt her feelings. If they don't want her to be afraid, they will not keep their gun. It really is all about her.

And note that at first she wanted people carry gun ID cards. Now she wants to get rid of guns. Why? Because feelings.)

Sophia Olson

Bozeman

City eyes eminent domain takeover - Richmond, CA.

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

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

Once the camel's nose is under the tent, there's no stopping him. In 2005, the US supreme Court decided in the Kelo decision that the the town of New London, CT. was justified in taking an entire neighborhood because a Pfizer plant would be built, generating more tax revenue than the homes that occupied the site.

The city based its authority to take the property on the 5th amendment: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The supreme Court ruled against the property owners and the city took their property. 

Now we have another city pushing the boundaries further. Underwater mortgages are now deemed "property." Stretching even farther, taking the contracts is "public use," and it remains to be seen what the "just compensation" will be. 

Because of the real estate crash, itself caused by government intervention into the housing market, the city of Richmond wants to intervene yet again and go into the mortgage business. They think, without evidence, that people will stay in their worthless homes if they have better mortgage terms. They think, without evidence, that they can make this program work. they think, without evidence, that it is a legitimate duty of a city government to take over peoples' mortgages.

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

A San Francisco Bay Area city voted Wednesday to try to expand a first-in-the-nation plan to use its power of eminent domain to seize hundreds of mortgages that exceed the value of homes.

The Richmond City Council voted 4-3 to set up a joint powers authority to bring more cities into the plan, according to reports in local media.

Mayor Gayle McLaughlin says the city of El Monte in Southern California has expressed interest, and she believes other cities will follow.

Under the plan, Richmond would use eminent domain to seize so-called underwater mortgages. It would then offer the bank fair market value for it and give the homeowner a new loan that would lower monthly payments and improve their chances of staying.

Banks have filed lawsuits to stop Richmond from going ahead with the strategy, and investors have shied away from purchasing city bonds since the eminent domain plan began garnering national attention.

The rich getting richer... Gap between wealthiest 1 percent, rest of America reaches widest margin since the Roaring ’20s - By Paul Wiseman

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

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

This is classic agenda reporting. The ones who so worry about how much other people make are almost exclusively on the Left. So we have this article come out today, pretty much out of the blue since there is no event that drives it, in order to reinforce tired leftist tropes about the eeevil rich.

Mr. Wiseman pretty much regurgitates what must have been a press release from a Berkeley professor and his like minded friends. One might wonder why there are no dissenting voices quoted, no contrary information presented, and frankly, no clear presentation of the issue. 

You will note that President Obama's name does not appear in the article, but he is the president who has presided over this increased income inequality. This president is supposedly an advocate for the middle class and poor, but Mr. Wiseman tacitly admits that they have suffered more under his administration than any president since the "roaring 20s." 

If Bush was president today, is there any doubt that the tone of the article would be substantially different, like this article from 2006? Bush is mentioned prominently, as is a quote from a detractor. Not so in Mr. Wiseman's article.

Mr. Wiseman does not tell us, but I suspect the income figures are raw gross, not adjusted gross or net income after taxes. In fact, there is no discussion at all about the distribution of income taxes paid, which are borne disproportionately by the top 1%. He informs us that they earn (note the word "earn;" they earn their money) 19% of the total income, BUT he does not mention that they also pay more than a third of all income tax collected. Mr. Wiseman also tells us the top 10% earned "a record 48.2% of the income," BUT is silent regarding the fact that they also pay 66% of the income tax. 

In addition, the top half of income earners pay 97% of all income taxes, which means the people who are not paying income taxes are the same people who supposedly are not getting their fair share of income. So the bottom 50% of workers bear none of the burden of government and receive a huge amount in the form of wealth transfer.

Mr. Wiseman does tell us that that government benefits like food stamps, subsidies, and other transfer payments are excluded from the calculation, but no mention of how much money that might be. Since the source of that money is the incomes of the very same rich, it seems to me that we need them making money so that the government can help themselves to a part of it and redistribute it to those less fortunate. 

Mr. Wiseman then descends into a convoluted explanation of why these things are the way they are. Some contributing factors are mentioned, all of which are leftist markers: Unions, jobs outsourcing, the minimum wage. Absent is any mention of tax policy, regulation, corporate innovation, the effects of war, Social Security, government deficits, or any of a thousand other important factors that influence the economy.

The average reader is then left with the impression that the rich are keeping the rest of us down, and that the historical parallel is the roaring 20s. Truly spectacular journalistic malpractice.

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

WASHINGTON — The gulf between the richest 1 percent and the rest of America is the widest it’s been since the Roaring ‘20s.

The very wealthiest Americans earned more than 19 percent of the country’s household income last year — their biggest share since 1928, the year before the stock market crash. And the top 10 percent captured a record 48.2 percent of total earnings last year.

U.S. income inequality has been growing for almost three decades. And it grew again last year, according to an analysis of Internal Revenue Service figures dating to 1913 by economists at the University of California, Berkeley, the Paris School of Economics and Oxford University.

One of them, Berkeley’s Emmanuel Saez, said the incomes of the richest Americans surged last year in part because they cashed in stock holdings to avoid higher capital gains taxes that took effect in January.

In 2012, the incomes of the top 1 percent rose nearly 20 percent compared with a 1 percent increase for the remaining 99 percent.

The richest Americans were hit hard by the financial crisis. Their incomes fell more than 36 percent in the Great Recession of 2007-09 as stock prices plummeted. Incomes for the bottom 99 percent fell just 11.6 percent, according to the analysis.

But since the recession officially ended in June 2009, the top 1 percent have enjoyed the benefits of rising corporate profits and stock prices: 95 percent of the income gains reported since 2009 have gone to the top 1 percent.

That compares with a 45 percent share for the top 1 percent in the economic expansion of the 1990s and a 65 percent share from the expansion that followed the 2001 recession. The top 1 percent of American households had pretax income above $394,000 last year. The top 10 percent had income exceeding $114,000.

The income figures include wages, pension payments, dividends and capital gains from the sale of stocks and other assets. They do not include so called transfer payments from government programs such as unemployment benefits and Social Security.

The gap between rich and poor narrowed after World War II as unions negotiated better pay and benefits and as the government enacted a minimum wage and other policies to help the poor and middle class.

The top 1 percent’s share of income bottomed out at 7.7 percent in 1973 and has risen steadily since the early 1980s, according to the analysis.

Economists point to several reasons for widening income inequality. In some industries, U.S. workers now compete with low-wage labor in China and other developing countries. Clerical and call-center jobs have been outsourced to countries such as India and the Philippines.

Pa. parents charged in girl’s starvation death

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

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

This horrifying story illustrates how completely evil people can be. A helpless, innocent child experiences a gruesome, painful death.

Now you will forgive me for noting the unpleasant truth. Three years and one month ago, this child could have been legally killed for the very same reasons or no reason at all. Three years and one month ago this child would yet to have been born, and the parents could have ended her life without repercussions. Three years and one month ago this little girl would could have been deemed to be too much of a burden. Three years and one month ago her life could have been judged to be not worth living.

In fact, had the child been aborted, the parents would have been heroes. They would have prevented needless suffering for this child. They would have reduced the burden on society and helped save the healthcare system. They would have been lionized for making a courageous choice.

Now this unwanted child will become the poster girl of the pro-choice movement. "See?" They will say. "This child should have been aborted, but because she was allowed to live, she endured needless suffering that could have been avoided." They will claim abortion is justified, desirable, and noble, while simultaneously claiming to want abortion to be safe, legal, and RARE. 

But we will never know what kind of life this little girl would have had if she wasn't labeled undesirable. She might have saved someone's life at a crosswalk, or become a wife and mother. She might have talked someone out of suicide or become someone's best friend. We will never know, all because we have decided that certain kinds of life are less valuable and not worth living.

There is absolutely no difference between the actions of these parents and the events at an abortion chop shop. None. In either case, the little girl is deemed to be less than human.

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

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A Philadelphia couple faces murder charges in the starvation death of their disabled 3-year-old girl, a case with harrowing echoes in a city where a series of children have suffered the same slow, agonizing death.

Twin Nathalyz Rivera weighed just 11 pounds when she died Monday. Although she had severe disabilities, she had not seen a doctor in more than a year, and was apparently not on the radar of social services.

Carlos Rivera, 30, and his wife Carmen Ramirez, 27, were charged Tuesday with third-degree murder. They have four other children, who were placed in protective custody. Neither parent immediately had a lawyer listed in court records, and attempts to reach relatives proved unsuccessful.

“The fact you can have a child that literally starved to death in the city of Philadelphia is abysmal,” said Dr. Rachel P. Berger, chief of the division of child advocacy at Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, who is not involved in the case.

“The real question is, as a society, how did we fail this child? Who saw this child, outside of the family or even within the family?”

Police did not disclose Nathalyz’s specific health issues, although Ramirez told police that her daughter was born blind and had Down’s Syndrome, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported. The family last had contact with the Department of Human Services in 2008, before she was born.

"True Love is Not Contingent on Reciprocity." FB discussion

I posted this on FB:

"True Love is Not Contingent on Reciprocity."

B.R.: well I'd say true love as it lives in an individual is not contingent on reciprocity. True love as it lives between two or more people IS, however. No?

Me: In my opinion, love cannot have contingencies or provisos, otherwise it isn't love.

D.G.: Agape, Philia, Storge, or Eros?

B.R.: I totally agree, when it comes to love as it resides within the individual. You can have pure love without rules inside your heart, regardless of any conditions or changes internally or externally. The thing you love can change, ignore, hurt, disappear, and it doesn't matter, the pure love can still exist unharmed within the person who loves. However, love that exists as a connection or relationship between two or more entities can be changed based on each individual's free will. For that multi-entity love to be considered "true love", in my opinion, there must be reciprocity.

Me: Storge is a good example in that the object of love frequently is unable or unwilling to return the love. Like an infant, an infirm/dying spouse, a prodigal child, etc.. Agape and Eros are beyond the scope of my post. Did you mean Phileo?

Me: Love is independent of relationship. Relationship is not required to love. Relationship is a vehicle for the expression of love, not love itself.

B.R.: I agree with each of your statements. And additionally, there are many forms of love. One is the love that exists inside an individual. Another is the love that exists between multiple individuals. Relationship is the vehicle for this latter kind of love.

Me: By extension, things like compassion, mercy, and empathy are expressions of love, though they are not love themselves. Love is the internal status while the expressions are the external.

B.R.: By your definitions, I agree with your original post. However, in my view, an expression of love is synonymous with love, undifferentiated, and it's largely unnecessary to distinguish a difference.

Me: Being vs. doing...

B.R.: Both valid forms of love...

P.H.: When we acknowledge the source of pure undefiled love, and let His spirit rule our lives, we can love without reason or reciprocity, and we won't stop loving for any reason. All forms of love will flow with healthy abandon if it's rooted in the Father!

Me: Which is kinda why I was avoiding Agape, which is the love you're talking about, Paul. I don't think Agape love is even possible or available without having the Holy Spirit.

B.R.: I have Agape love without having the Holy Spirit - unless the Holy Spirit is acting anonymously in my life.

Me: Agape is a Greek word found in the New Testament. It uniquely applies to a particular kind of love that proceeds from God. The Holy Spirit may indeed be acting in your life, who am I to say?

Here's link that will provide context:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/romans/passage.aspx?q=romans+5%3A5%3Bromans+5%3A8%3Bromans+8%3A35www.biblestudytools.com

B.R.: It doesn't just apply to God, but it's definitely used in that way. Agape is perhaps the primary form of love in my life. It's a good descriptor for my love of humanity, the earth, the cosmos, and the supreme mystery of existence. And your original post definitely applies to me here: my love of any or all of these things does not depend on them loving me back. And I agree that it's hard to find in many Churches. I find it instead in my close community; many of my friends certainly display a fine breadth of Agape love in their lives, and in their cases it's not tied to a God or religion.

Me: Meaning no disrespect, but definitionally it must be tied to God. So if Agape manifests in your life, it is God's work in you. He is no respecter of persons, so it doesn't matter who you are. You don't have to be part of the club for God to be affecting your life. But it certainly means that you should carefully consider what God is planning for you and saying to you.

B.R.: I take no disrespect. However, the word "agape", and the kind of love that it refers to, does not originate in The New Testament, and does not belong to a monotheistic system, or any one system for that matter. The term has been used since Plato's day, and has retained virtually the same meaning to this day. Agape is no more tied to the concept of God than "salvation", "grace", and "spirit" are.

That said, I agree that my life's manifestation of Agape is God's work in me, at least by my own definition of God. My love of my fellow human being is quite inseparable from my love of God, and vice versa. And I agree that God's love (by my terms) affects all lives regardless of their belief or reciprocation. And believe me, I do carefully consider what God is planning and saying - we're on frequent speaking terms.

Me: Every word in the N.T. originated from somewhere else. It uses a real language, Greek, to communicate concepts. Those concepts, in their context and environment, mean something specific. There are no made up words in the N.T.

Of course Plato used the word, he was Greek. What relevance is that?

B.R.: TL;DR: Agape love is not definitionally tied to God, but I agree with most of what you're saying.

Portal School

I know these folks very well. Good people.

They're embarking on this new ministry, and of course have a lot to say about it. But in dozens of web pages and thousands of words, there are only two Scriptures mentioned, here and here.

In charismatic circles there is a language spoken about discovery and relationship and destiny that seems revelational, but doesn't in actual fact say much at all without an understanding of the underlying concepts. We charismatics tend to say things as if people know what we're talking about, forgetting to tie these concepts into the living Word of God. Then people say, "Ah, THIS is that."

It could be just an oversight. But maybe they're purposeful in their presentation. Perhaps they are trying to filter out people who don't talk the language. I don't know. But I do know that if we want to facilitate the advance the kingdom of God, we need to not assume people know these concepts and how they're tied to Scripture.

Hate here one day; let’s show fairness, respect, love all year - By Liz Welch

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

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

(The overwrought reaction of the Left to the arrival of a handful of Westboro protesters in Bozeman is interesting to watch. The Westboro people are nobodies. Offensive, yes. Wrong, of course. Dangerous, maybe. Important, absolutely not. But they've gained a lot of press through their demonstrations. The Perpetually Offended Left pays them a lot of attention, which gains them visibility and power way beyond what they should have. 

The only reason I can see that the Westboro people are continually played up is because they are useful whipping boys for the Leftist agenda. Leftists can point at them and say, "See, hate/racism/intolerance/evil is still alive and well in America. We need more laws!" As a result, we get more and more legislated [that is, legally forced] "tolerance."

It's a peculiar breed of "tolerance." Any deviation from the prescriptions and proscriptions is met with hysterical putdown. There is no room for diversity from those who are Diverse. Everyone must toe the line, no dissent, no variation, no independent thought.

Don't mistake me, I'm not defending the ideas of Westboro. Frankly, I'm not even defending their free speech rights. But I understand the root of their anger. No one likes to be told what they must believe or how they must conduct themselves. They have their beliefs, and though I don't like those beliefs, it does not mean they are invalid. But I'm not even suggesting that we should look for merit in them. My point is that they're not crazies simply because the hysterical Left disagrees with them.

Most people are not bigots. In fact, very few are. Most people really don't care what other people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Most people haven't got a hate agenda. Most people just want to live their lives and not be told they are intolerant simply because they don't dot every "I" and cross every "T" of the gay agenda.

The gay agenda is a shoutdown offensive. No matter how small the infraction, it is met with vociferous cat calls and character assassination. Most people will think twice before daring to open their mouths again if this is the price they pay. 

The below editorial makes all the right noises for the Tolerant Ones. It casts all LGBTs as victims, literally injured by the piddly little Westboro protest. I certainly have sympathy for people who have been abused or mistreated, but I am not willing to assume that someone's speech can effect such automatic, lasting scars upon a whole class of people. I think they doth protest too much, and are simply looking for reasons to be offended.
 
The author does note that the protest isn't the issue, the LGBT agenda is the issue. But she probably says a little too much. Showing her hand, she writes, "Right here, right now in Bozeman, people are working on an LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination ordinance to protect people from discrimination in employment, housing and when patronizing local businesses." Here is the problem with this. These people do not like choice. They do not like voluntary association. They don't like people having their own tastes, preferences, or convictions, especially if those convictions are religious.  

They insist that people just shut up about these things. If you don't like it, they will bring the force of law to bear against you. They cannot tolerate the idea that people will make choices that vary from their own. They will expect you to do exactly what they say, no matter what your own preference is. 

The thing is, I am sympathetic towards parts of the gay agenda. But this is anti-intellectual and anti-freedom. 

-----------------------
By now most people in Bozeman, and many across Montana, are aware that the Westboro Baptist Church is bringing its hateful and hurtful anti-gay picket to Bozeman on Monday.

Their plan is to picket at Montana State University and at Bozeman High School. And many citizens who oppose their views are ready to counter-protest.

It’s always good to stand up publicly and denounce hate. While the Westboro Baptist Church has a First Amendment right to picket peacefully, we also have a responsibility to speak up for the people that church attacks with its message. We must support lesbian, gay and transgender people in Bozeman, across Montana and across the nation.

But the truth is that protesting the Westboro Baptists isn’t the most productive way to do that. There is a lot more positive work on LGBT rights that needs people in Bozeman and across the state to get behind it. Supporting work on nondiscrimination ordinances and relationship recognition matters much more to our gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender family, friends and neighbors than shouting at a handful of out-of-state hate spreaders.

Right here, right now in Bozeman, people are working on an LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination ordinance to protect people from discrimination in employment, housing and when patronizing local businesses. No one should be discriminated against simply for being who they are. Similar efforts are underway in Butte and Billings.

And the ACLU of Montana continues to press forward with its lawsuit to win legal protections in Montana for loving, committed same-sex couples. Signing the statement of support and talking to friends and relatives about the importance of making sure these couples can care for one another is vitally important. Three of the plaintiff couples in that lawsuit live in or near Bozeman.

My hope is that people don’t focus on the sideshow that Westboro Baptist is bringing to town and then forget all the other work for fairness once they foldup and go home.

It’s more productive to focus on the positive work going on in Montana. I urge people in Bozeman to put their energy behind ensuring passage of the nondiscrimination ordinance and supporting same-sex couples’ efforts to win legal recognition in Montana. You can find out more about these efforts and what you can do to help at FairIsFair-Montana.org.

Liz Welch is the LGBT advocacy coordinator for the ACLU of Montana. She lives in Helena.

Comments to my letter

These are the comments posted after my letter to the editor appeared. 

The reason I'm posting them is because they are a fascinating case study in how the leftist mind works. You will note that only a handful of comments address the substance of my letter. Most of the comments deal with minor points, things I did not discuss, or projections as to what I must believe. 

I'll leave them to you to discover for yourself.

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

• xcskier posted at 8:33 am on Mon, Aug 26, 2013.

          Posts: 15

          Like Rich says, we should be proud to be wasteful, use-it-up, forget the grandkids Americans! 

• MRM posted at 6:39 pm on Sun, Aug 25, 2013.

  Posts: 110
  SW2, I'm all for ending all subsidies and all non-profits as well. 

  • call'em_out posted at 6:58 pm on Sun, Aug 25, 2013.

    Posts: 198
    What problems do non-profits cause? 

• call'em_out posted at 5:35 pm on Sun, Aug 25, 2013.

  Posts: 198
  Whether Rich realizes it or not, he is defending the right that industries have had to to externalize the costs of their producing their product. If he doesn't know this, he is only being naive. But if he does know it, he is being intellectually dishonest.
  To draw a parallel to the carbon argument...companies like Anaconda Copper / Atlantic Richfield were allowed to externalize the costs of cleanup of the mess created by their copper mining business. The cost (in real dollars) of containing the contaminated groundwater that accumulates in the Berkeley Pit has already far exceeded the value of the ore that was extracted from it (adjusted for inflation). And the U.S. taxpayer will be paying for it FOREVER. After all, it can't be cleaned up - it can only be contained by pumping and treating the water that accumulates in the pit.
  I'm not at all trying to say that the world economy didn't need the ore that was produced. And I'm not saying that the U.S. public or Congress should have known better at the time. But hindsight is 20/20, and it is clear that allowing that to happen was a mistake. So is it so crazy to suggest that we ought to recognize the mistakes of the past and try not to repeat them with carbon on a scale with global consequences...?
  Would a carbon tax hurt the economy to the extent that it would hurt my livelihood? Probably. Is it possible for Rich's version of the "American way of life" to survive if we were to drastically cut back on the amount of energy that Americans use? That's hard to say. But when self proclaimed "conservative" voices like Rich insist using the same old tired partisan stereotypes ("the universal leftist problem solving strategy ... tax it", "environmental extremists", etc.), it's pretty hard to take them seriously. I just don't understand why people like this feel threatened by the opinions people who have a conscience...is it not perfectly clear that the carbon-emitting industries have already won this legislative battle?

• bullgod posted at 11:53 am on Sun, Aug 25, 2013.

  Posts: 146
  You can't argue with the liberal enviro-nazis. There arguments are entirely emotion based and trying to explain facts to them is pointless.

• MRM posted at 8:35 am on Sun, Aug 25, 2013.

  Posts: 110
  "A real person, man or woman, should know how to survive without the comforts of heat, electricity, and a.c. Complaining about the prices of a luxury good, electric heat and a.c., doesn't make sense.... don't buy it then if you don't like it. Isn't that capitalism?"
  Tell that to the elderly. In case you don't follow the news, and by the above statement it's evident that you don't, the weakest of our population always suffer during extreme heat waves or prolonged cold spells. Usually the elderly. That is to whom I am referring.
  As far as the human condition is around the world, I pray every night for it to improve.
  Also, if you care to read carefully, I didn't say for one second that higher prices will affect me. I asked who the left will blame for problems they caused.
  The fact is that coal still remains the best, cheapest and one of the most abundant sources we have for cheap power. Would you rather burn it here with some kind of reasonable regulation or send it to China where it puts over twice the pollutants in the air? 

  • Snidely Whiplash II posted at 4:25 pm on Sun, Aug 25, 2013.

    Posts: 340
    "The fact is that coal still remains the best, cheapest and one of the most abundant sources we have for cheap power. Would you rather burn it here with some kind of reasonable regulation or send it to China where it puts over twice the pollutants in the air?"
    A fair question, I would rather not see coal burned at all unless the generating station is fully equipped with scrubbers and modern anti-pollution controls.
    Let China mine their own coal.
    Coal, or gasoline, remain cheap (relatively speaking) because much of the impacts involved in their production and consumption are not factored into their true costs. 

• MRM posted at 12:59 pm on Sat, Aug 24, 2013.

  Posts: 110
  Tknees, how is your home powered? Probably by electricity supplied by the coal industry. So in that sense you are part of the problem.
  Also, as the railroad is privately owned, why do the trains, owned by the same company in most cases, have to pay taxes? If you own your home do you charge yourself rent?
  What is the solution? There is not enough wind to meet our needs and never will be. It's a pipe dream and is more subsidized than the coal industry. What are your thoughts on that?
  My favorite though is this "In fact the coal industry has turned Montana and Wyoming into a Coal Colony for the sake of Communist China. " So over the top laughable I had to read it twice to see if you were serious.
  Governor Schwiezer is responsible for Otter Creek. As for Wyoming read this and it will tell you the state of the coal industry there http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/a-wyoming-first-no-bids-for-coal-mining-tract-in/article_1e2ee657-45f3-54e8-8a4f-4cc33ab36b25.html
  I'm curious as to who the left will blame for high priced electricity when coal fired plans shut down all over the country. When people are dying because they can't afford to heat (or cool) their homes, who will they point their long bony finger towards?

  • magicdragon posted at 4:12 pm on Sat, Aug 24, 2013.

    Posts: 2726
    "China has the largest wind market size of any country, according to the WWEA. By last June, China had around 67.7 gigawatts of wind capacity from its installations. Gsänger said that number is likely closer to 80 now."
    " Currently the United States has close to 60 gigawatts, Gsänger said. However the total number of installments per capita in the United States isn't as impressive."
    "Germany leads the European wind market with more than 30 gigawatts, helping the EU surpass 100 gigawatts of installed wind energy last fall."
    Granted this is just a fraction of what we use but it is a start. Many European nations realize the importance of cutting the use of fossil fuels. Of all the political parties in the world the GOP in our country is the only one that has as one of their tenets fossil fuel use should increase. Drill, baby, drill. Carter put solar in the White House and tried to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Reagan took them down and during his term we were the only industrialized nation that wasn't building efficient rail systems. Instead during those years we lost thousands of miles of track. Even though highways are the most highly subsidized form of travel and cartage we seem to want to make semis and cargo vans our mainstay. 

  • lovelife posted at 6:42 pm on Sat, Aug 24, 2013.

    Posts: 117
    Really MRM? "When people are dying because they can't afford to heat (or cool) their homes, who will they point their long bony finger towards?"
    Build a fire when it is cold, go to the mountains when it is hot or jump into some water when it is hot. There are people across the world who don't have heat or air conditioning and they are surviving. Are you an entitled human that can just continue environmental degradation for sissy pants comfort? A real person, man or woman, should know how to survive without the comforts of heat, electricity, and a.c. Complaining about the prices of a luxury good, electric heat and a.c., doesn't make sense.... don't buy it then if you don't like it. Isn't that capitalism? 

• Tknees posted at 12:09 pm on Sat, Aug 24, 2013.

  Posts: 55
  This author of the article is rather bootlicking for the dirty energy companies in his writings; His propaganda comes straight off Faux news and corporate pro oil/gas/coal energy websites.
  
  In his essay, does he mention that the coal hauled out of Wyoming is heavily subsidized by the Federal government and they pay a tiny percent of their profit from these diggings to us back in taxes? No!
  Does he mention that coal companies pay only $10 dollars a ton in taxes for extracting 'our'- national resources and then quickly resells it at $120 per ton to the communist Chinese and pay absolutely no tax on that? No!
  Does he mention that the endless line of coal trains coming out of Wyoming and through our Montana towns day and night pay no taxes at all to Montana? No!
  Does he mention that the rail companies only have to pay 5% of any infrastructure improvements while the tax payers foot the 95%. No! For instance, Livingston and Park Country and the State of Montana is getting stuck paying for 95% of the cost for a much needed multi million dollar over pass because of the congestion brought on by the endless coal trains(which will soon triple in number) while the train company will skate and only pay 5% of the bill.
  Does he mention that with the opening of the Otter Creek Basin in South Montana that the trains that are coming 15 per day will go up to 45 and 60 per day and we will be overwhelmed with endless two mile long trains that will wreck havoc on communities from here to the West Coast and the only people getting rich on this are coal CEO's, bankers and Communist? No!
  Does he mention that the cattle ranchers and wheat farmers will soon be at risk of not being able to find space for their products to go to market on the soon to be log jammed train tracks because the coal companies will soon hog all the available space with the opening of the Otter Creek Basin? No. I guess cattle and wheat means nothing to this author who is licking corporate boots in favor over local farmers/ranchers yet he implies that environmentalist do not like poor or middle class folks.
  For some reason this lackey for the coal and energy companies thinks that those in these dirty, polluting, global warming industries have our best interests at stake, while in fact they do not. They get the riches from 'our' national treasures while we locals get the diesel fumes, coal grit, endless lines of trains, traffic jams, and then get stuck with the bill to pay for any improvements to make life livable here in Montana.
  In fact the coal industry has turned Montana and Wyoming into a Coal Colony for the sake of Communist China.
  Please go to this link heavytraffic.com as it will fill you folks in as to what this writers friends in the coal industry have planned for the rest of us in Montana. It is not good.

• lovelife posted at 11:49 am on Sat, Aug 24, 2013.

  Posts: 117
  I don't get it. Why are so many people against cleaning up the environment regardless of their political affiliation? We should all want cleaner air, water, and soil. Most of Montana's economy is based on the natural environment whether it be farming, fishing, hunting, other recreation, and tourism. This shouldn't be a political issue, but a human issue. Let's clean up our environment because it is good for everyone! We should be preserving Montana's natural resources even if it is for selfish reasons and our own personal benefits. Why shouldn't everyone not want to waste? I hate wasting food that I can't finish at a restaurant and take them home for leftovers. Waste is being inefficient and that costs money. If we have extra of something and it is just going to be wasted, why not give it to someone else to use? Why would anyone want to promote wastefulness and pollution? It just doesn't make sense. Let's not forget the responsibility of our state government and our citizens:
  ARTICLE IX ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
  Section 1. PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT.
  (1) The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.
  (2) The legislature shall provide for the administration and enforcement of this duty.
  (3) The legislature shall provide adquate remedies for the protection of the environmental
  life support system from degradation and provide adequate remedies to prevent unreasonable
  depletion and degradation of natural resources.

  • magicdragon posted at 4:23 pm on Sat, Aug 24, 2013.

    Posts: 2726
    Limbaugh, Beck, Palin and Santorum all equate climate change with religion. Others too.
    "The study, based on data from the 2007 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, uncovered that belief in the “Second Coming” of Jesus reduced the probability of strongly supporting government action on climate change by 12 percent when controlling for a number of demographic and cultural factors. When the effects of party affiliation, political ideology, and media distrust were removed from the analysis, the belief in the “Second Coming” increased this effect by almost 20 percent. (This suggests there is a significant overlap between those three variables and belief in the “Second Coming.”)
    That very sentiment has been expressed by federal legislators. Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) said in 2010 that he opposed action on climate change because “the Earth will end only when God declares it to be over.” He is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy."
    Maranatha. 

• Averageguy posted at 11:29 am on Sat, Aug 24, 2013.

  Posts: 66
  Rich cant just disagree with the letter because he believes Walser is wrong or misinformed, because she doesn't agree with his opinion she "hates the American way of life." Drama queen mush Rich? 

  • magicdragon posted at 4:57 pm on Sat, Aug 24, 2013.

    Posts: 2726
    Really, is his America the one you want your kids and grandkids to grow and live? 

• dogmantrainer posted at 10:19 pm on Fri, Aug 23, 2013.

  Posts: 266
  Now you did it Rich, you confronted both environmentalists and progressive socialists. OOOOu they gonna git you now.
  The environmentalists don't like manwomanglbt-kind as a basic premise. MWGLBT is THE item scheduled for deletion according to their leadership (which includes IPCC - I did some research). On top of that they do not believe that THEY THEMSELVES are the culprit and should on that basis not be deleted from the earth equation. However, on behalf of all of us scum bag demons who cut trees, mine, extract, disagree with environmentalists and aren't progressive socialists: Welcome - you just made the list buddy (and don’t ever call me Francis….) (that's an obscure movie line reference).
  
  Truth is fluid to the socialist – they don’t have absolutes, the words you use might be the same as theirs but their definitions are fluid and their meaning changes according to which best achieves the party’s objectives. Wasteful to you isn't the same as wasteful to them.
  American way of life means something else too - which is why they fundamentally want progress for forward change with hope and as far away from the way you mean it as they can get. 

• magicdragon posted at 11:33 am on Fri, Aug 23, 2013.

  Posts: 2726
  What exactly is the American way of life? In the post Civil War years anyone who spoke out against genocide against Native Americans was branded with the same label. Those who earlier opposed slavery were also mocked and belittled. In the south if you were for equal rights and against the Jim Crow laws you were unAmerican according to the racists. Women who wanted a say in government were branded as seditious. Nixon called all war protesters traitors. McCarthy went on a with hunt.
  If you take time to read the Constitution you will find that speaking up for your cause is protected and the founding fathers welcomed opposing views. If environmentalists are American citizens then by definition they are working for the American way of life.
  What you mean is that those who do not share your views hate your definition of American life which means that your views are contrary to them as well. We are all Americans. Your definitions mean squat. I have learned a few things in my sixty years. One of them is that no one really gives a rat's patootie what you or I think, One person's beliefs are just as valid as the next's. You seem to want sheep rather than thinking citizens. 

  • longneck posted at 3:50 pm on Fri, Aug 23, 2013.

    Posts: 349
    Well put Magicdragon. To add to what you have to say----the American way of life is historically fluid and is quite adaptable to the times. 

    • magicdragon posted at 10:09 pm on Fri, Aug 23, 2013.

      Posts: 2726
      And yes that was witch hunt, I type with a lisp. 

  • Tknees posted at 12:12 pm on Sat, Aug 24, 2013.

    Posts: 55
    Great reply! 

• Caelan Simeone posted at 10:44 am on Fri, Aug 23, 2013.

  Posts: 1
  Rich,
  I do not think that you can conclude that every extreme environmentalist hates the American way of life simply based off of one example. I agree with you on the idea that if we implemented a green tax today in the way Kristen Walser suggested it would most likely not end well for the American economy. On the other hand there are a wide variety of other methods that could be used to implement a green tax. One of these ideas is a Net Zero Tax. In this system taxes would be placed on things that do not benefit the American people such as carbon emissions and environmental destruction. The incomes based off of this tax would then be offset by reductions in other taxes such as the Income Tax, Sales Tax, or Payroll tax. This would create incentives for Americans to do positive economic activities such as make, spend and save more money, while building a society that takes better care of its natural lands and environment. Several books such as Natural Capitalism and the Ecology of Commerce talk about some of these ideas in more depth.

  • Snidely Whiplash II posted at 2:53 pm on Fri, Aug 23, 2013.

    Posts: 340
    Caelan, nice try but using logic and acting nice is a waste of time with some extremists (Rich).
    After all Rich is in favor of "the wasteful American way of life".
    Rich as I am quite sure you will read this, do you not believe that there is a large amount of waste generated by the current American way of life?
    I see it everyday, don't you? 

    • magicdragon posted at 10:08 pm on Fri, Aug 23, 2013.

      Posts: 2726
      Don't we give all that waste back to Mother Earth when we burn it, bury it and send it to the bottom of the sea? What nice children we are.

Washburn aims to limit voter rights - letter by Tom Stonecipher

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

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

I previous dealt with this issue here, but I may end up repeating myself. I believe that Mr. Stonecipher is an attorney, which automatically caused my radar to beep. I don't know him, so I am not impugning his character, only questioning his reasoning.

--------------------------- 
At a time when five Supreme Court justices have gutted the Voting Rights Act, (I know the Left has used the term "gut," the reality is a bit more pedestrian. The decision simply removed certain states from federal oversight regarding their election practices. The NY Times noted Chief Justice Roberts' intent: "Chief Justice Roberts wrote that Congress remained free to try to impose federal oversight on states where voting rights were at risk, but must do so based on contemporary data." The article went on to say that the invalidated provision "determined which states must receive clearance from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington before they made minor changes to voting procedures, like moving a polling place, or major ones, like redrawing electoral districts." 

So these kinds of things are now left to the states in question, which in itself seems consistent with states possessing the authority to determine their own polling practices. Indeed, many believe that federal intrusion into this area is in itself a violation of the Constitution. 

The Times then acknowledged the pervasive racism of the past was no longer applicable: "In the 2004 election, the last before the law was reauthorized, the black registration rate in Mississippi was 76 percent, almost four percentage points higher than the white rate. In the 2012 election, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “African-American voter turnout exceeded white voter turnout in five of the six states originally covered by Section 5.”

So rather than the Act being "gutted," we must conclude that the Act did its job and was basically moot.) encouraging states like Texas and North Carolina, states with histories of the random, unpunished lynchings of black men, to enact restrictive voting regulations aimed only at keeping the poor and those of color from voting or registering to vote, let us take stock of what is happening, as Montanans and Americans.

Ask yourself this: Should elected officials be chosen on the vote of all American citizens, or should they be selected by ensuring that citizens who disagree with them don’t get to vote at all? The latter is undeniably the goal of laws which, for voting, call for state-issued photo IDs, current drivers’ licenses (who can’t afford cars? Oh yes, poor Americans), limit registration to vote within 30 days of the election — all when the evidence of voter fraud among all states is virtually non-existent. (This is the standard, almost verbatim Leftist take on the issue. But there is no evidence at all that proving who you are when you vote is an onerous burden, any more than proving who you are to take out a loan, buy tobacco, or get a fishing license is. And no one has suggested any of these ID requirements are discriminatory. 

Mr. Stonecipher rather indelicately lumps the ID requirements together, as if all of those IDs must be presented in order to vote. However, any state-approved ID will suffice. And the fact is, knowing who the person is when he/she votes is a perfectly reasonable, and also, constitutionally required activity. Only citizens are allowed to vote according to the Constitution, therefore the state has a compelling interest to ensure that people are who they say they are and vote only once.

We know that voter fraud is not "virtually non-existent." There are news stories everywhere about dead people voting, people voting multiple times, and people voting while pretending to be someone they are not. But the point really isn't relevant, anyway. Even if voter fraud is "virtually non-existent," the state still must ensure proper procedure. An since the procedure is evenly applied, it cannot be viewed as racist.)
In Montana, the man pushing this national strategy is our local representative, Ted Washburn. Washburrn has for years introduced bills to require state-issued photo IDs to vote, to limit and restrict voter registration before elections, and generally do whatever might help keep the poor, single moms, Native Americans, and our small population of American Hispanics from voting in elections, because they might not support Ted’s core political philosophy. All with no evidence of any voter fraud here. (Mr. Stonecipher imputes a motive to Mr. Washburn that he cannot possibly know. More to the point, there has been a large influx of of undocumented persons flowing into the US for many years. If there isn't a problem at present, there sure will be. People of all races, origins, or status must be able to prove they are eligible to vote.)

What does Washburn have in mind? Ask him when you see him out and about and weigh his answer for yourself. Only our governors’ vetoes have kept his efforts to disenfranchise Montana citizens from success. His fellow party members are ardent cheerleaders for his work. Are you?

Tom Stonecipher

Bozeman

Moribund Congress needs to move on Social Security - Editorial by Pat Williams

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

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

(Pat Williams was a Congressman in the US house from 1978 to 1996. He was reliably Left, but inexplicably managed to win with large majorities in conservative Montana. Except his last election in 1992 when he managed only 51%. I suspect he realized the handwriting was on the wall, and decided against running again.)

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

Imagine if tomorrow morning’s headline was this: “Four hundred thousand to get one half billion dollar boost in income.” The underlying news story announces that hundreds of thousands of people here in three states of the Northern Rockies whose good earning jobs are behind them will share $500 million each year for the rest of their lives.

One half billion dollars distributed among people in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, particularly the 15 percent who no longer bring home good salaries, would be one of the greatest bursts of targeted payroll in our history, a boon for spending in our small businesses and a continuing economic shot in the arm for our region.

Of course, this vital economic engine already exists — Social Security. (An astounding departure from rationality. Mr. Williams is identifying a pot of money, $500 million, that is sourced from Social Security. This "vital economic engine" is supposedly helping an economy where 90 million people are out of work, where people are settling for part time employment in record numbers, where the unemployment rate is stubbornly above 7.5%, and where the annual deficits have exceed One TRILLION dollars every year since President Obama took office. 

Did this $500 million magically appear, Mr. Williams? Is it somehow just sitting around, waiting for someone to tap into it? No, that money is extracted from workers' wages and transferred to retirees and others who are no longer contributing economically to society. The money that first belonged to someone else is being spent by people who did not earn it. We are left guess as to how this constitutes a "vital economic engine."

Yes, yes, those retirees did contribute while they were working. Their money was shifted to prior retired workers, who spent that money just like today's retirees are spending today's workers' money. And we know it only takes a few years to fully recoup contributions. After that, Social security is nothing more than a welfare program for the aged. 

There is no new money here, only someone elses' money. There can be no enhanced financial benefit to the economy, because the same amount of money is still in play. The only difference is the money is in the hands of different people.)

The first monthly Social Security check was cut for $22.54 and delivered to Ida May Fuller in Brattleboro, Vt., 73 years ago. Today’s Americans receive Social Security checks averaging $1,180 per month.

Both critics and supporters of Social Security are justifiably concerned about the financial solvency of the system. (Justifiably concerned? Why?) Although the retirement fund enjoys by far the largest surplus, $2.7 trillion, of any government trust fund, that money is expected to start being reduced in 2021. (Wait, wait, wait. It has a surplus? I thought we could be "justifiably concerned?" With a recrd surplus, why should we be concerned?

Please forgive me for rehashing this, but there is no money at all in Social Security. Its assets are non-marketable bonds issued by the Federal Government. The government creates a special bond [an I.O.U.] that only it can buy or sell, and gives it to the SS trust fund. It then takes money in an amount equal to the bond, and spends it in the general fund. Therefore, the trust fund loans money to the government. The trust fund contains nothing but government promises to pay back its debt. The fund has no cash.)

Low employment, the Great Recession that began under President George W. Bush, (He has to get in the obligatory Bush-bashing.) and increasing life spans have all presented unanticipated difficulties for the fund. (I thought it had a record surplus? How can it be having difficulties? And who says they're unanticipated? Economists have been warning us for decades, while politicians like Mr. Williams have been poo-pooing them.) However, the worry about future fund shortages has happened several times during the past half century (Um, yeah. So he negates his assertion about being "unanticipated" by admitting the fund has been repaired several times.) and each time was easily repaired by adjusting benefits for future retirees or increasing the payroll tax known as FICA. (Translated, that is increasing taxes and delaying and reducing payouts. This is what constitutes repairs. But if something is repaired, why does it keep needing to be repaired?) 

There is a proposal by the president and many members of Congress to make small reductions in benefits to those retiring in the future. ("Small reductions," which means lower payments to retirees who already have to choose between food and medicine? I thought the eeevil Republicans we doing this? 

And I thought SS was an "economic engine." So shouldn't Congress be increasing benefits because of the supposed boon to the economy? Wouldn't cutting benefits reduce the economic engine? Whaaa?) One of the more interesting legislative proposals ("interesting" always means "higher taxes" to a liberal. I'm surprised he didn't use the term "thoughtful," or "nuanced" as well.) on the tax side is this: People earning up to $110,000 each year now pay a Social Security (FICA) tax, but those earning above that amount pay no additional FICA. If that tax was applied to all earnings up to $250,000, (Why stop there? Why not take the cap off entirely and watch the "economic engine" really heat up!) Social Security would not only be financially sound for the rest of this century, but monthly benefit payments could be increased. (These are the words of a true believer, where tax increases are the solution to every problem, where simply adding money will make a bad program good, where the rich are the perpetual scapegoats. Oh, and by the way, SS benefits are tied to the inflation index, so they are already increasing on a regular basis. 

Once again, I apologize for covering this ground again, but with the Left, every day is a new day. Nothing has ever been done before, every idea is a novel solution that has never been tried. They start each day fresh, like their propositions are unique and innovative, breaking new ground and blazing new trails.)

Whatever the solution, our moribund, reluctant congressmen and women ought to get a move on and readjust our essential Social Security system, which provides our states with an enormous economic boost.
(Well, Mr. Williams restates his thesis without ever offering evidence that it is true. Apparently it is self-evident. It's an article of faith with the Left: government programs are always good, always help, and never fail. And anyone who even mildly criticizes them are characterized as being in favor of the problem.

Moribund: 1. in a dying state; near death. 2. on the verge of extinction or termination. 3. not progressing or advancing; stagnant. Probably the most accurate thing Mr. Williams has wrote. One could only hope that these buddies of his in government, who have mismanaged the economy, violated the Constitution, and padded their own pockets while doling out huge sums of money and political favors to their pals were indeed moribund. Here's wishing for a moribund Congress.

But what they certainly ought not do is implement another tax increase "repair" to the SS system, especially at the prodding of an economically illiterate former congressman who is largely responsible for the mess we find ourselves in.)

Pat Williams served nine terms as a U.S. Representative from Montana. After his retirement, he returned to Montana and taught at the University of Montana.

Public leery of another Middle East entanglement *updated*

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

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

*Update* In case you think I'm being overly sensitive about the condescending press, I refer you here.  The takeaway quote is, "If you found the above sentence kind of confusing, or aren’t exactly sure why Syria is fighting a civil war, or even where Syria is located, then this is the article for you."Not the eerie similarity to the second sentence of the below article.
---------------

The single thing I wanted to note here is the glaring presumption of the writer. He tells us that Americans don't support a military strike in Syria, and then tells us why: We are too stupid and uniformed!

This attitude towards the general public is typical from both journalists and government. Apparently, we need them to tell us how to think and what to do. If we differ with them on their preferred attitudes and actions, we are stupid, misinformed, mind-numbed robots who listen to too much talk radio.

We can't possibly differ because of independent study and thoughtful consideration of the issues. No, you see, if we aren't reaching the same conclusions, we just don't have the facts.

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

WASHINGTON (MCT) — The American public doesn’t have much appetite for a military strike in Syria.

People don’t fully understand how America has a national interest. They’re not well-versed on who’s fighting whom and they wonder why this country is not spending precious federal dollars on boosting the domestic economy rather than engaging in faraway conflicts.

And, said Ipsos pollster Julia Clark, “they’re a little bit burned by mismanaged expectations” of American missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Support for military action would jump, according to polls, if it was proven that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons on its own people. But even that boost wouldn’t fully erase the deep skepticism.

“No question people would have a highly negative reaction to the use of chemical weapons. But there is just limited support for involvement in the Middle East and in Syria,” said Carroll Doherty, an analyst at the Pew Research Center.

An NBC News poll conducted Wednesday and Thursday found half of Americans do not support military action in Syria. By 41 percent to 27 percent, they do not think the use of military force will improve the situation for Syrian civilians.

Members of Congress are hearing the same kinds of doubts, one reason they’re clamoring for President Barack Obama to lay out his case clearly before embarking on any military mission. The public agrees — nearly four in five want Obama to get congressional approval before acting.

In a rare display of bipartisan agreement, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California echoed the same concerns as those of Republican House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio.

“There needs to be more consultation with all members of Congress and additional transparency into the decision making process and timing,” she said, “and that the case needs to be made to the American people.”