Lawmakers must weigh all sides in debate over death penalty - analysis

Hot on the heals of this letter to the editor, the Chronicle published its opinion. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
----------
Lawmakers in Helena last week tabled a bill to abolish the death penalty in Montana. Absent extraordinary efforts on the part of activists and their legislative supporters, it will probably not be resurrected. But this
important issue deserves at least one more look.

Passions run high among both ardent supporters and opponents to the death penalty. In those camps, it’s unlikely that any minds will change.

But most Montana voters have never been close to a capital punishment case. (There is no requirement to be close to a capital punishment case in order to have an informed opinion.) And though nearly everyone has some opinion on the issue, most are unaware of some of the most important facts regarding the death penalty. (How do they know what "most" people are aware of?)

Consider just these five things:

• It costs more to put a convicted criminal to death than it does to house them in prison for life, by a considerable amount. (This only means that the opponents of the death penalty have been successful in making it difficult to execute someone. This means that death penalty opponents have, in essence, created their own reason to argue against the death penalty.) Appeals mandated by the U.S. and state constitutions (I was unable to find any mention of death penalty appeals in the Montana Constitution. The US Constitution does not contain the word "appeal" at all.) delay the execution for many years — even decades. That involves major legal costs that have to be shouldered by the taxpayers. And every time the case heads into another round of hearings, the survivors of the victims are forced to relive the crime again. (Once again, this cruelty has been inflicted by death penalty opponents in their efforts to make the death penalty difficult to exact.)

• Modern DNA technology has found cases where innocent people have been executed in other states. It’s a very small number of cases, but it has happened. (In other words, advancing technology has made it easier to ensure the convicted person is really guilty. Therefore, incidences of false convictions are going to be even more rare.)

•  There is a fate worse than death. Research has consistently shown that holding prisoners in solitary confinement suffer an extraordinary kind of torture — so much so that there is a strong argument to be made that it violates the Constitution’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. (How does this argue against imposing the death penalty? If we apply the logic of death penalty opponents to this, we must then be opposed to this punishment. Therefore, imprisoning people should be morally reprehensible as well!) Even so, it offers an alternative to death for those criminals the courts decide are particularly heinous. (How do they arrive at this conclusion? The death penalty is bad, so is life in prison, but life in prison offers an acceptable alternative?)

• The death penalty is rarely used in this state. There have been just three executions since 1976 and just 74 in the state’s history. There are now just two prisoners held on the state’s death row. (Its rare use would seem to indicate that there's a lot of hubbub over a sentence that hardly ever comes to fruition. We need to ask, how many people have committed capital offenses but received a life sentence when the death penalty could have been imposed? The reason this is important is that the life sentence may have been selected by juries who were squeamish about imposing the death penalty, for a variety of reasons, including the perceived difficulty in getting an actual execution. In other words, the death penalty opponents are to blame for this.)

• This is a non-partisan issue. The bill that would abolish the Montana death penalty was sponsored by two Republicans and two Democrats. (Just because there are both Democrat and Republican sponsors does not make it non-partisan. It most certainly is a political issue, because it's a matter of law, and politicians make the law. They will make the law based on what they believe about the death penalty, and that is by definition a partisan decision.)

The death penalty is an emotional issue that evokes passionate responses. But any opinion deserves at least some consideration of these important facts. (Well, we have seen the faulty basis of their interpretation of these facts. One might wonder, however, what other facts come to bear on the situation, facts not related to us by the Chronicle's opinion writers. For example, the families of the victims. What are their feelings regarding the death penalty? How do they like being run through the ringer because of all the obstacles the death penalty opponents put in the way of carrying out the sentence? And what about those who might be considering taking someone's life? If they know that the death penalty is rarely recommended and even more rarely carried out, then might they feel a little more inclined to carry out their evil intent? Clearly there are more facts that we ought to consider, notwithstanding the Chronicle's opinions about the matter.)

Court: profane phone utterance not fighting words - analysis

I originally commented on this here. Article reproduced for fair use and discussion purposes. My commentary in bold.
-----------

HELENA (AP) — A sexual slur spoken over the phone is not prohibited speech unless its intent is to threaten or offend, the Montana Supreme Court has ruled.

The Feb. 19 decision came in the case of Randall Jay Dugan of Belgrade, who was convicted of violating the state’s Privacy in Communications law for using a vulgar slur during an October 2009 phone call with a Gallatin County Victim Assistance Program worker. (The law in question, 45-8-213, says that a person violates the "privacy in communications" law if "...with the purpose to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy, or offend, communicates with a person by electronic communication and uses obscene, lewd, or profane language, suggests a lewd or lascivious act, or threatens to inflict injury or physical harm to the person or property of the person. The use of obscene, lewd, or profane language or the making of a threat or lewd or lascivious suggestions is prima facie evidence of an intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy, or offend.") 
Dugan, who had caused disturbances at victims’ services in the past, (Botice how this appears in the reporting as an aside. Apparently this irrelevelant fact is included in order to impugn Mr. Dugan. It is not illegal to cause a disturbance.) was seeking help in filing paperwork to obtain an order of protection against the mother of his children. She was about to be released from prison and he was concerned she was going to try to take the children.

When an employee told Dugan she could not help him and suggested he obtain the necessary paperwork from the clerk of court, Dugan became aggressive and agitated, yelled the vulgar slur at the woman and hung up the phone.

Dugan was cited. He pleaded no contest after the Justice of the Peace refused to dismiss the charge based on his appeals that his utterance was protected free speech and the privacy in communications act was vague and overly broad. (As we will see later, this point was upheld as valid.) Dugan was sentenced to 180 days in jail with all but five suspended and ordered to pay $585 in fines and fees. The sentence was stayed pending appeal to District Court. (Wow. That's quite a severe penalty for cussing at someone over the phone.)

A District Court judge also refused to dismiss the case, ruling that Dugan’s statement amounted to “fighting words,” which are not protected free speech.

The Supreme Court overturned that ruling, and noted several rulings in which the term “fighting words” is narrowly defined as those occurring in a face-to-face argument that could lead to a physical confrontation.

The justices also wrote that Dugan’s speech did not constitute an unprotected “true threat” to the woman, saying his statement was not meant to communicate an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence against her. The judges also said Dugan’s words, while rude, were not obscene because obscene material must be erotic in some significant way.

“The words used by Dugan could constitute obscenity under different circumstances, but the context suggested he uttered the words in frustration and his use is not subject to literal interpretation,” the
judges wrote.

The court did agree that the privacy in communications law was overly broad in saying that simply the use of obscene or profane language or making a threat is, on its face, proof of intent to intimidate or offend. (So the Montana Supreme Court agreed with Dugan. The law is flawed, I think fatally. The court should have thrown it out. In fact, the law is clearly in violation of the Montana and US constitution.) 

What other laws will sheriffs choose to ignore? - letter by Les AuCoin

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

------------------
As the Chronicle has reported, five Montana county sheriffs have vowed not to enforce any gun laws passed by Congress or implemented by the president of the United States. (Not exactly. Sheriffs have had various responses to the government's unconstitutional actions regarding the right to keep and bear arms. Mr. AuCoin might wish to ascertain the facts before making false assertions. For the actual statements made, see here.) 

In their zeal to ingratiate themselves to gun owners like me, (What purpose would it serve for law enforcement to ingratiate themselves to gun owners? Law enforcement carries with them the full force and approval of the government. They have nothing to gain from repudiating that position.) 

they seem to think we see no danger in people with tin stars treating the law as a “menu” from which they are free to pick and choose. (Another misleading characterization. These officers are rejection unconstitutional actions, thereby defending the law and upholding the constitution.)

What other laws would these sheriffs would selectively enforce? Speed limits? Civil rights? The right to remain silent? (I have some recommendations. I suggest law enforcement ignore any laws about slaves being property, women not being allowed to vote, and Japanese being rounded up and sent to camps. All of these were legal at one point in our history. In other words, just because it's legal doesn't make it constitutional, or moral.)

Look, when an officer of the law refuses to enforce the laws of the state and country with which he disagrees, he has stopped being a “lawman” and become a rogue cop. Period. He is engaged in law “breaking” not law enforcement. Period. What an example for children, who we want to be “law-abiding citizens!” (No, a sheriff is oath-bound to defend the constitution. When the government violates the constitution, the sheriff who refuses to obey is upholding the law.)

At this stage of our democratic experience, it should not be necessary to explain to a sheriff that s/he exists only to enforce the law, not make to it. (Actually, we should explain to elected representatives that they need to make constitutional laws.) 

To any gun zealots out there who think this latest stunt against sensible gun regulation is cute, let me point out a lesson from history: Officials who break the law to defend your rights can also break the law to take them away. (Now this is a strange statement. Mr. AuCoin just ceded his entire prior argument. He admits that certain sheriffs are defending peoples' rights by not obeying unjust laws. He further admits that certain other sheriffs are violating peoples' rights by breaking the law. This means that law enforcement is arbitrary, with a real potential for the abuse of peoples' rights. 

Therefore, should we be more comfortable with a sheriff who vows to defend the constitution by not obeying unconstitutional laws, or with a sheriff who obeys any and every law no matter how unjust? After all, "I was just following orders" is the lame excuse of the mass murderer.)

(The sheriffs I’m discussing are: Tom Rummel, Sanders County; Jay Doyle, Powell County; Scott Howard, Powell County; Chris Hoffman, Ravalli County, and Shane Harrington, Wilbaux County.)

Les AuCoin

Bozeman

Michelle Obama's accomplishments - FB conversation

Posted by FB friend B.R.:

Guys. This is our First Lady. Dancing like an idiot on national TV. Am I in the future?




Evolution Of Mom Dancing (w/ Jimmy Fallon & Michelle Obama) www.youtube.com
In honor of the First Lady's "Let's Move" campaign, Jimmy Fallon and Michelle Obama present the "Evolution of Mom Dancing." Let's Move with Michelle Obama an...

J.S.: She's so cool.

R.D.:  I KNOW. I can't even handle it - I love it so much! I was completely slayed when "The Pulp Fiction" move was followed by "The Oh My God I Love This Song" move...too damn good!

R.M.: I LOVE her!!!!!!

J.R.: Amazingly cool. I think I just heard Sean Hannity's head explode.

Me: Dignity.

B.R.: Right, Rich? She's got it in spades. She did this because she knew it would help promote her project in a fun way.

Me: Other than being married to the president, what has she accomplished?

B.R.: Um, a lot dude. Go look up Let's Move and read the new post about their third birthday. It lists tons of accomplishments in small communities and large corporations, achieving awesome fitness goals and setting new standards for healthy eating. Every First Lady takes on a project, you know that. Most succeed, others just fade away. Michelle Obama is succeeding AND lookin' good doing it.

Me: I guess I have a higher standard as to what constitutes accomplishment.

B.R.: Then you must live in a constant state of disappointment.

Me: No, I have no expectation of first ladies, therefore I am never disappointed.

B.R.: Wait...you have no expectation of First Ladies, and you're not impressed by anything she's done?

J.R.: Still, it's hard to compare that with what Republican First Ladies have done. Who can forget Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No!" campaign? Or the Betty Ford Clinic?

Me: Nope. Riding on the coattails of a powerful man does not impress me.

Imitation assault rifles unnecessary - letter by Vern Smalley - analysis

This letter appeared in today's paper. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

--------------------
I see a serious problem with semi-automatic imitation assault rifles. (Notice he sees a "serious problem." Let's see how serious it is and why.) 

I think that many of these rifle owners have visions of being like Rambo when trouble happens, (He thinks, without evidence, that many people who own guns that look menacing are delusional.) 

and that means (That is, his conclusion drawn from baseless supposition.) 

thoughtless, careless, kneejerk reactions, with excess lead flying all over the place, and the shooter’s house turning into a gazebo.(Get it? People with scary looking guns are prone to be thoughtless, careless, and are shooting everything in sight.)

He’d have bullets penetrating walls and being a danger to the entire neighborhood. (And he would be a menace to the neighborhood, a danger to himself and others. Because of the way his gun looks.)

I’m solidly pro-gun, but I have reasonable limits. (He uses the word "reasonable" as if he knows what reasonable is. Re-read his first paragraph again to see if he is indeed reasonable. But more to the point, why does he think his own "reasonable" limits translate in any way to what MUST be reasonable for others, and particularly, carrying the force of law?) 

I believe we should be able to own guns for hunting, self defense, target shooting, or collections. (Here's the collective "we," which implies "you and I," but without a doubt he wants government to act. Leftists hide behind the word "we." It sounds so cooperative, so unifying, so consensus-building. But in actuality, the word "we" is leftist code-speak for "government." They use the word whenever they want to force people, using the power of government, to do something.) 

We don’t need imitation assault rifles that excite the imaginations of Rambo-wannabe’s. (Remember, this is the "serious problem." Apparently there are Rambo-wannabes all over the place who have shot up their homes and neighborhoods, bare-chested and bellowing war cries. And because of this, "we" need "reasonable" restrictions which apparently include the way the gun looks. 

As I noted in other posts, the Left loves to pretend like today is a new day, nothing has happened in the past, and everything they're proposing is to respond to a crisis that has never been addressed before. In this case, apparently we have absolutely no gun restrictions, and people are so caught up in Rambo-like personas that they're rampaging through the streets with ammo belts draped across their chest. This is a "serious problem.") 

Shotguns used for hunting are more than adequate for home defense, and their BBs are less likely to go through the walls. Neighbors will be safer. (We are in danger! Who knows when your neighbor might snap. He has a mean-looking gun, and he might shoot it through his wall and kill you! "We" must do something, and it must be done right now! It's for the chillun!) 

Then we have the paranoid (Whoa. After citing the danger of wildmen running the streets, did he really just use the word "paranoid?") 

who rationalizes criminals have immense firepower and he’s got to be equal when (not if) heavily armed criminals show up on his doorstep. (As is typical for the Left, they are uncomfortable with people choosing for themselves  how they will live their lives. The Left has its own ideas on what other people "should" do, and they are more than happy to to assume the "we" and bring the weight of government coercion upon people who might might be making"wrong" choices otherwise.) 

He claims he’s justified since the police aren’t immediately available. (This "claim" doesn't get refuted, only poo-pooed. Apparently Mr Smalley is unaware that the police are under no obligation to respond.) 

If you’re a drug dealer or involved in criminal activity, I can understand but not condone your desire to be well armed. (Whoa again. Two sentences ago Mr. Smalley dismissed the idea that criminals "have immense firepower." Now he concedes that criminals understandably want immense firepower. So which is it, Mr. Smalley?)

But the rest of us honest souls don’t need that kind of firepower. (Mr. Smalley negates his prior point entirely. He seems to believe that criminals wanting superior firepower is reasonable, but law-abiding citizens wanting the same is foolish, risky, and should be illegal. And he presumes to know what "we" need.)

When did some heavily armed criminal last show up on anybody’s doorstep? (Mr. Smalley opened his letter with a spectacular strawman scenario about Rambo-wannabes, but now claims that heavily-armed criminals do not show up at peoples' houses to commit crimes. In Mr. Smalley's pink rainbow universe, there has never been a case of a heavily armed criminal committing a crime, so there is no justification for someone owning anything more than a shotgun.

Except the police, apparently. Police carry guns like these

even though there are no heavily-armed criminals. One must ask, then, why should the police carry heavy weaponry to match up with criminals who do not arm themselves?)

This rationale doesn’t hold up, and shows people will say anything just to keep their toys. (After stumbling all over the processes of logical thought, Mr. Smalley somehow believes he has trumped the position of his ideological adversaries. And note the tacit admission that he does indeed want government to take away our guns.)

Along the line of saying anything to do what you want to do is the fellow who fears our government is so unstable, it’s on the verge of collapse and will turn oppressive against its citizens. Ergo, citizens must arm themselves with imitation assault rifles and be ready. (Whether this is true or not, it does not speak to the ownership of scary guns. But more to the point, government has been oppressive many times in its 200+ years of existence. It has perpetrated many injustices against its own citizenry. To this day it believes that it can kill US citizens without a trial. I'd say there is ample reason to believe that government could show up on your doorstep, heavily armed and believing it does not need a search warrant.) You can also arm yourself with fully automatic machine guns, but you must first prove to the government that you aren’t nuts. Enough said.

Vern G. Smalley Bozeman

Police gun stance distressing, sad - Letter by Scott Swanson - Commentary

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

---------------
I was saddened and distressed to read the article on the position of the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association on gun violence. (You can find the article here.)

It appears by virtue of the article that the association decided to drop the ball on a critical issue of national safety. The statement, “Taking guns away from citizens doesn’t alleviate or eliminate the threat of violence...” is absurd on its face value. The killer in a Colorado theater had guns. The killer of Connecticut school children had guns. The killer of police officers and other citizens in southern California had guns! (Unfortunately, Mr. Swanson seems to lack the ability to comprehend the meaning of the statement issued by the MSPOA. Two paragraphs earlier in the article we read that "...the association opposes any legislation that takes away constitutional protections, including gun rights, from law-abiding citizens." Clearly this excludes people who murder people. 

Further, the Chronicle article itself, as is typical, gets about half the facts wrong. On the MSPOA website we read the actual unmolested quote: "The MSPOA feels that any legislation that takes away constitutional protections, including gun rights, from law-abiding citizens will not alleviate or eliminate the threat from violent or mentally ill individuals. In fact, it would expose our law-abiding neighbors to violence with fewer resources to counter them with." Note the phrase "law-abiding citizens," which is missing from the Chronicle paraphrase.

Compare that with reporter Whitney Bermes' characterization: "Taking guns away from citizens doesn’t alleviate or eliminate the threat of violence, but in fact exposes people to violence, because they would have less protection, the organization said." The phrase "have less protection" does not appear in the MSPOA's statement in the context of people having less of it. This is an editorialization by the reporter.

The reason all of this is important is that the assertion made by Mr. Swanson ["absurd on its face"] is predicated on a mischaracterization of the MSPOA statement. The fact that some people who are criminals or mentally disturbed commit crimes with guns does not mean the MSPOA statement is absurd, in error, or outside the mainstream of reasonable thought.)

While the article no doubt does not reflect the entire position of the association, I ask where do they stand on universal background checks, specific methods to keep guns from the hands of those who should not have them, specifics on how to restrict the unfettered availability of weapons of war? (There is no burden upon the MSPOA to address topics invented by Mr. Swanson. The article was specific in its thrust to address the constitutional issues of gun control. That was the topic. If Mr. Swanson has other questions about other topics, why doesn't he call them up and ask them, or search their website?

"Unfettered weapons of war." What? Who has access to unfettered weapons of war? Not the average citizen. There is no such thing as unfettered weapons of war, since owning an automatic firearm is illegal. This is nothing but emotionalized hyperbole.) 

Their statement seems to be little more than political pabulum in which the group recites broad generalities (The MSPOA statement makes several very specific assertions. Therefore, Mr. Swanson did not read the statement or is lying about its contents.) 

that have been made time and time again, and have resulted in little actual action that benefits public safety. (What? How many gun laws are there on the books? Hundreds? Thousands? Plenty of gun-restricting action has been undertaken to limit gun violence, including total bans. The places with the most stringent gun laws are also some of the most violent with respect to guns. Mr. Swanson does what is typical for the Left. They pretend like nothing has been done, like today is a new day and the past doesn't exist, and therefore their issues are always crises that need immediate action.) 

I expect much more from a group of professionals that should be looking out for the greater good of our communities. (Who is Mr. Swanson to tell what the MSPOA or any other organization what it should be doing? The MSPOA mission statement: "The mission of the Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association is to improve the effectiveness of and to provide support for professional law enforcement in Montana." If Mr. Swanson thinks they should be "looking out for the greater good of our communities," I suggest he join the organization and try to persuade them to adopt his preferences. 

But what does it mean to be "looking out for the greater good of our communities?" That sounds to me like little more than political pablum.)

Scott D. Swanson

Bozeman

Climate-change rally aims to influence Legislature - commentary

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

-------------------
By JOLENE KELLER

Chronicle Staff Writer 

As a crowd estimated at 40,000 converged on Washington D.C., Sunday for the Forward on Climate Rally, upwards of 100 climate minded Gallatin Valley residents met at the Bozeman Public Library for the same cause. (Does anyone note the irony of the carbon impact of these gatherings? I guarantee you the most of these people arrived via carbon-spewing, fossil fuel burning, wasteful and egregiously polluting motorized conveyances.)

According to organizers, the rally was held at the nation’s capital and at satellite locations across the country to urge President Obama to take the first steps needed to reduce CO 2 emissions globally by rejecting export of carbon intensive tar sands oil through the Keystone XL pipeline. (First steps? Nothing has been done up to this point? And if Keystone is stopped, do these people really think that other sources of oil will not be consumed?)

Here in Bozeman, attendees were looking to the state Legislature to initiate bills to curb climate change.

Montana Sen. Mike Phillips Williams, a Bozeman Democrat and member of the Senate Natural Resources Committee, addressed the rally’s attendees to discuss the challenges that face those fighting against climate change.

“You’ll hear people, like my colleagues in the Legislature, who argue climate change is hooey,” Phillips told the crowd. “But they couldn’t be more wrong. We’re the first-ever human population to be living in an atmosphere with 390 parts per million of CO 2 . (And what percentage of the span of earth's history has been occupied by humankind? And what amount of time have reliable records of CO2 concentration been kept? Kind of a limited view of history here, can't we say? I say to my colleagues who claim it’s all hooey, that these levels might be a big deal.” Phillips detailed some of the current bills set for hearings, including SB 281, a bill he’s sponsored that would allow the Department of Environmental Quality to work with the University of Montana to prepare a Montana Climate Assessment and Adaptation Report. The bill will be heard on Monday at 3 p.m. by the Senate Natural Resources Committee.

Phillips, though, said he believes will not survive past Monday’s hearing. Despite that sentiment, he did add that citizens who want to influence their legislators should not throw in the towel.

“You’ve got to be a squeaky wheel that demands grease,” Phillips said. “I promise you can make a difference, but it won’t be easy. You are pushing up against a status quo that’s entrenched.” (Squeaky wheel, indeed. As is typical for the Left, the lack of popularity for their cause only makes them howl louder, and especially, claim that their ideological opponents are evil, stupid, or don't care.)

Other speakers at the rally offered their opinions and advice, including organizer Kristen Walser, a former teacher turnedclimate-change advocate who now works for the Bozeman Climate Alliance , the organization that initiated Sunday’s rally at the library.

“In Montana we have a quarter of the country’s coal reserves,” Walser said. “We’re on the path of the Keystone XL pipeline, and we have a huge part to play. Our Legislature influences climate by its decisions, so we can hopefully influence Legislature. And now is the time to do it.” (Influence them to do what? Oppose the development of this huge repository of natural resources? Relegate us to a pre-industrial society? Increase geometrically the price of heating our homes? Is that the end game here?)

Kristi Chester Vance, Bozeman resident and deputy director of ForestEthics, an organization that works to move corporations toward environmentally friendly practices, also addressed Sunday’s crowd. (An innocuous description of a far-left environmental group. If you think that this is all they do, you may wish to peruse their website. You'll find much more than that.)  With her were her daughters, Stella, 7, and Zoey, 5. The young girls carried signs that read, “I’m worth fighting for,” and “Keep it snowing.” (Why not manipulate children?)

“We want our kids to thrive, with clean air, fresh water, and a stable climate. We need that,” Chester Vance told the crowd. “Thousands of people are standing up and demanding a future where our economy and environment thrive. We are a country of innovators. We can do this. It’s time.”

JOLENE KELLER/CHRONICLE

Nearly 100 climate-minded residents met at the Bozeman Public Library on Sunday for a local version of the larger Forward on Climate Rally held in Washington, D.C.

Death penalty does not deter murderers - Lynne McLaren - commentary

This letter appeared in today's paper. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

----------------------
HB 370 will replace the death penalty with life without parole. Facts show the death penalty is not a deterrent and is not cost effective. (The death penalty was not implemented for the purpose of deterrence. It was implemented as a punishment. It does, however deter at least one person -  the recipient of the death penalty. I suspect that the death penalty might have more of a deterrent influence if the process of execution didn't result in seemingly endless legal maneuvering, delays, and appeals. If justice is not swift, it is not justice at all, and the deterrent effect lessens.) 

The death penalty generates notoriety for the murderer, and the media profits. (This is a strange objection. What does notoriety have to do with justice? What does media profit have to do with how we decide the issue of the death penalty?)

Millions are spent for appeals that drag on for an average of 18 years. (This extended process is the direct result of leftist protests and lawsuits in an effort to de-legitimize the death penalty. So they have achieved the complication of the death penalty process and are now using that complication as a reason to end the death penalty. And why is the expense of any government process suddenly a concern for the left? They are never concerned with any other financial burdens imposed on the people.)

Meanwhile, the victim’s family and loved ones suffer silently in the margins. (Yes, they suffer because the victims seem to have fewer rights than the guilty. This too can be laid at the feet of the Left in their quest to make it so difficult to execute a murderer [generally, it is murderers who are executed] that the family of the victim is forced through a multi-decade process of appeals and hearings.)

Too many mistakes have been made. (Justice is not perfect. Innocent people have been convicted. But that doesn't invalidate the process.)

Nationally, hundreds of men and women convicted of murder and put to death have later been found innocent. In 2011, after 24 years of incarceration in Montana State Prison, Barry Allan Beach, convicted of murder, was released when new information surfaced, allowing him another trial to prove his innocence. (It is unfortunate that justice fails. However, the reason innocent people are being freed is because the state-of-the-art in criminal forensics has improved so much. This means that fewer innocent people will be incarcerated and suffer the death penalty. But let's make note of the fact that Mr. Beach spent 24 unjust years in jail. Should we not send convicted criminals to jail because there's the possibility of innocence? 

After all, if it's reprehensible to execute what may turn out to be an innocent man, then it must be reprehensible to send a possibly innocent man to jail for 24 years. By that logic, no one should be sent to jail because of the possibility that they're innocent. Indeed, then what's the point in having a trial? Why bother to arrest them? What's the point of having a police force, if there's even the slightest possibility of the innocence of the person?) 

If our society is against murder, then let’s get out of the murder business. By retaining the death penalty, we all become murderers by proxy. (A breathtaking leap of logic. A person convicted of a capital crime and is executed is the recipient of justice, not murder. Even if discovered to be innocent later, justice was still administered. Justice does not require perfection.)

Lynne McLaren Bozeman

Charitable giving goes to the clergy - comments

A commenter tried to suggest that most charitable contributions went to clergy. According to the government,  this is not true at all. Below is a chart from the website:

What ever happened to drive for less government? - Mimi Hood Dayhuff - Analysis

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

----------------
What happened to “we need less government?” Why is the Republican Montana House putting forth bills to have government dictate “their” morals? Why are they wanting government to mandate parental permission? Why are they inconsistent with their beliefs about keeping government hands off? They definitely want government hands off their money, guns and religion and then turn around and want government hands on teen education, on women’s bodies and on dictating school policies. (It's curious that Ms. Dayhuff complains about government control when leftists have their own list of perfectly acceptable government controls. But more to the point, choosing the other side of a government control she doesn't like is simply a different version of government control. For example, the education issue. I think she is referring to the proposal that would require parental permission for a child to participate in a sex-ed class, whereas the present situation is that the parents must sign an opt-out. You will note that the public school is a government entity, which is controlling what the student will learn. So since the government controls the situation either way, there is no change in the invasiveness of government.

Note the question she asks: "Why are they wanting government to mandate parental permission?" Stop and think for a minute. Ms. Dayhuff deems this to be increased government, but the action gives parents more control over their childrens' education. Oh, but it does increase government control over the educational system, doesn't it? It's strange to me that the government controlling their own institutions is interpreted as bigger government.)
I guess Daniel Webster was right when he said “Every man’s (sic) life, liberty and property are in danger when the Legislature is in session.” Well it is not only “man’s” life, liberty and property but everyone’s. Women and children now, who since 1852 have gained a certain measure of equal rights, are still at the most risk of being controlled by government laws. (Her selective outrage is noteworthy. Considering the tens of thousands of laws in this country, each of which limits human behavior in some fashion, Ms. Dayhuff only seems to care about one or two. and  none of them really increase government at all.)

We still do not see the lawmakers propose that each and every man needs permission from his parents or the law to provide his “seed” and if he does not get legal permission, he will be subject to severe legal consequences. (??? I have read this sentence three times and still do not know what she's talking about.) Although who knows, maybe even this type of bill will be proposed by our current Montana Legislature. I suggest we all stay keenly alert. The Montana Legislature is now in session. (Good advice. I shall include the US congress.)

Mimi Hood Dayhuff Bozeman

Bad worship songs - Salvation is here - Hillsongs

Link to the audio.
----------------------------------------

From time to to we examine the lyrics of worship songs. Our desire is not to mock or humiliate, but rather to honestly examine content with a view to calling forth a better worship expression.

With the great volume and variety of worship music available, none of us should have to settle for bad worship songs. We should be able to select hundreds or even thousands of top notch songs very easily.

What makes a song a worship song? Is it enough to contain words like God or holy? How about vaguely spiritual sounding phrases? Should Jesus be mentioned? 

We think an excellent worship song should contain the following elements:

• A direct expression of adoration (God, you are...)
• A progression of ideas that culminates in a coherent story
• A focus on God, not us
• Lyrics that do not create uncertainty or cause confusion
• A certain amount of profundity
• A singable, interesting melody
• Allusions to Scripture
• Doctrinal soundness
• Not excessively metaphorical
• Not excessively repetitive
• Jesus is not your boyfriend

It's worth noting the most worship songs contain at least something good. That is, there might be a musical idea or a lyric that has merit. Such is the case with this song. Praise Goes On has a catchy beat and slick production. But... it's a bad worship song.

You might also want to check out our criteria for judging worship songs.

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

Another phony pro-gun argument - Ruth Marcus

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

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

The latest weapon in the war against reasonable restrictions on access to guns (The Left always deals with this as if there are no restrictions at present, like the issue is brand new and their outrage is because nothing is being done.) is the straw woman. Don’t fall for her.

This formulation would have you believe gun rights are women’s rights, and that limits on guns would harm women disproportionately. The insinuation is that only insensitive men, who can’t possibly identify with the vulnerable position in which women find themselves, would be foisting gun control on them.

“Guns make women safer,” Gayle Trotter of the conservative Independent Women’s Forum, told the Senate Judiciary Committee at its hearing on gun violence. “For women, the ability to arm ourselves for our protection is even more consequential than for men. Because guns are the great equalizer in a violent confrontation. As a result, we protect women by safeguarding our Second Amendment rights. Every woman deserves a fighting chance.”

This argument would be powerful, if only it were true. The facts suggest precisely the opposite.

First, women are far more likely to be the victims of gun violence than to benefit from using a gun in self-defense. (How does this refute the argument presented? We are not comparing the number of female gun victims to the number of females who defend themselves with guns. There is no useful metric to be derived from such a comparison. We would need to know how many of those female victims used a gun in their defense, wouldn't we?)

Second, the restrictions under discussion would not harm women. They would either make women safer or, at the very least, not impede their ability to use guns in self-defense. (Um, this is the subject of the argument. She asserts the "factual" nature of her side of the argument as proof her side of the argument is true! This is a tautology.)

On the threat that guns pose to women, consider: Women are far less likely to be the victims of gun violence than men. (Either Ms. Marcus is having difficulty with connecting logical streams of thought together, or she is engaging in obfuscation. Two paragraphs ago she argued that "woman are far more likely to be victims of gun violence than to benefit from using a gun..." Now she's arguing that women are far less likely to be victims of gun violence..." So either guns are more dangerous for women or they are not.)  But they are far more likely than men to be killed by someone they know, generally a spouse or partner.

Women with a gun in the home were nearly three times as likely to be the victim of homicide than women living in a home without firearms, according to a 2003 study in the Annals of Emergency Medicine. (This does not speak at all to a woman possessing a firearm for self defense. We need to know who the guns belong to, who shot the woman and why, were they shot in the home, and did they use a gun to defend themselves.)

“There’s good evidence that a gun in the home increases the likelihood that a woman in the home will die,” said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. “There is no evidence that a gun in the home is protective for the woman.” (Again, this does not speak at all to women possessing a firearm for self defense.)

So much for guns making women safer. (Ms. Marcus constructs a straw man and tears it down. But none of it speaks to a woman arming herself for self defense!) 

Still, the Second Amendment grants women as well as men the freedom to take the risk of having one at home. (The Second Amendment grants no one any rights. It affirms the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution is a document that creates and limits government. It does not speak to the people except to establish those governmental limits.)

Then on to the second issue: whether various gun control proposals — enhanced background checks, limits on magazine sizes, restrictions on assault weapons — would make it more difficult for women to defend themselves.

Trotter’s Exhibit A was Sarah McKinley, an Oklahoma widow alone with her 3-month-old son when two intruders, one armed with a foot-long knife, broke into her home. McKinley shot and killed one of them with a Remington 12-gauge shotgun.

But here’s the problem with Trotter’s example: Nothing in the restrictions under discussion would have stopped McKinley. (Ms. Marcus spent the first half of her editorial attempting to establish that guns do not make women safer. Now when she discusses an instance where a gun did make a women safer, she changes subjects to what the gun restriction proposals are. That is not the issue. Women defending themselves with guns is the issue.)

As Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse observed, “I think it proves the point that with ordinary firearms, not hundred-magazine peculiar types of artifacts, people are quite capable of defending themselves.” (This is not a matter of dispute. Of course people can and do defend themselves with every kind of firearm. Ms. Marcus has yet to offer any argument at all that women should not defend themselves with guns, regardless of the capacity of gun magazines.)

Trotter remained impervious to Whitehouse’s logic. “How can you say that?” she asked. “You are a large man. ... You cannot understand. You are not a woman stuck in her house having to defend her children, not able to leave her child, not able to go seek safety.”

Trotter argued that assault weapons like the AR-15 are young women’s “weapon of choice” because they are accurate, light and, most of all, intimidating. “The peace of mind that a woman has as she’s facing three, four, five violent attackers ... knowing that she has a scary-looking gun,” she said, “gives her more courage when she’s fighting hardened violent criminals.”

You have got to be kidding. The intruder is going to be more scared off — the woman is going to feel more empowered — because the gun is scarier-looking? (Ms. Trotter did not say that the intruder is going to scared. She said "...a scary-looking gun gives HER more courage..." And even if Ms. Trotter was saying the intruder would be more scared, how would this be a bad thing? Either he's more scared than when a conventional gun is pointed at him, or he is similarly scared. Either situation is more favorable to the armed woman.)

If anything, women should be clamoring for gun control measures — in particular, for expanded background checks. Individuals convicted of domestic violence are prohibited from buying guns — but, of course, the porousness of the current background check system lets abusers dodge that rule. (In other words, because government has failed, we need more government.) 

And, according to the National Institute of Justice, abused women are six times more likely to be killed when a gun is in the home. (Killed by whom? Killed by what? Killed at home? These kinds of questions are products of a kind of curiosity that Ms. Marcus does not seem to possess.)

“I speak on behalf of millions of American women across the country who urge you to defend our Second Amendment right to choose to defend ourselves,” Trotter proclaimed.

I’d say that I speak for millions of American women who reject this phony solicitude, but there is a better representative. She spoke at the hearing, too. “Too many children are dying,” she said, painfully enunciating each syllable. “We must do something.”

Her name is Gabby Giffords. Anyone dare tell her that guns make women safer? (False equivalency. Ms. Marcus is attempting to use a specific to argue for the general. We do not make policy or law from a single example.

The fact that women die from guns does not speak to the issue of women being armed. Did Ms. Giffords have a gun at the time? Did anyone in the vicinity attempt to defend her with a firearm? Of course not. But this is the kind of "logic" that passes for rational thought among the Left.)

Ruth Marcus is a columnist for the Washington Post.

The cost of inequality: how wealth and income extremes hurt us all - OXFAM

This was published by OXFAM. Our comments in bold. If you want to see the footnotes, the bare article is here.
--------------
 MEDIA BRIEFING

18 January 2013 Ref: 02/2012

The world must urgently set goals to tackle extreme inequality and extreme wealth. (First thing to note: an appeal to the world, but there is no "world power" with the authority to do any of this. However, the use of the word gives us insight into the mindset of this organization, that they intend a redistribution of wealth on a world wide scale.) 

It is now widely accepted that rapidly growing extreme wealth and inequality are harmful to human progress (Hmmm. Widely accepted is not the same thing as factually demonstrated. There are certainly many Leftists, statists, and socialists who believe this, but that doesn't mean it's true. If anything, "widely accepted" is nothing more than the effectiveness of their propaganda initiatives, the promulgation of marxist rhetoric and dogma.),

and that something needs to be done ("Something." As in the things they are about to suggest, which we suspect will be absent any appeal to free market forces, which have been the only thing proven successful in raising people out of poverty.).

Already this year, the World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report rated inequality as one of the top global risks of 2013(1). The IMF and the Economist(2) agree. Around the world, the Occupy protests demonstrated the increasing public anger and feeling that inequality has gone too far(3). (So we have an appeal to four authorities here. The World Economic Forum is a leftist think thank composed of  democratic socialists bent on forming a one world government. The supplied link brings you to an 80 page report filled with charts and graphs. The bottom line is nothing but speculation wrapped up in a quasi-scientific format. 

The IMF link is to their blog, which is just an opinion piece. The Economist link is also an opinion piece analyzing various factors from a Left wing viewpoint. As such, it offers no real information or data that supports the OXFAM position. And as far as Occupy, well, listing them as a sober reference is very nearly comical.

We should note the somber, quasi scientific nature of this report upon on which we are commenting. It also is replete with footnotes, providing a veneer of scholarly burnish to it, but when we start looking at the various references we find like-minded organizations rubbing each others' backs. We're sure if we took the time and dug deep enough, we would find many of the same people populating the membership of these organizations. 

This is a clever strategy, designed to lend credence to their position by appealing to what appears to be a broad and diverse base of support. Some supporters have allowed themselves to be co-opted into this, perhaps unawares, which bolsters even more the appearance of credibility. The grand achievement is to enlist corporate support, and now the image is complete.) 

In the last decade, the focus has been exclusively on one half of the inequality equation - ending extreme poverty. (This is not true. Ever since the communist revolution the focus has been on the struggle against the bourgeois. The wealthy have been targets for more than a century, if not via rhetoric and revolution, certainly by progressive taxation. If anything, the poor have been the excuse for large-scale wealth distribution schemes that seek only to bring the wealthy down a notch, regardless of any benefit to the poor.)

Inequality and the extreme wealth that contributes to it (Strange sentence construction. By definition, wealth inequality must include "extreme wealth" as one of the characteristics. This sentence is a tautology.) 

were seen as either not relevant, or a prerequisite for the growth that would also help the poorest, as the wealth created trickled down to the benefit of everyone. (They leave this assertion alone, as if simply by repeating it is sufficient to prove its absurdity. However, "trickledown" is simply another name for capitalism, which is really the target of their hate. But either we have trickle-down wealth or trickle-down government, and there is no evidence whatsoever that wealth in the hands of government trickles down.)

There has been great progress in the fight against extreme poverty. Hundreds of millions of people have seen their lives improve dramatically – an historically unprecedented achievement of which the world should be proud(4). (The reference is yet another blog.) 

But as we look to the next decade, and new development goals we need to define progress, we must demonstrate that we are also tackling inequality - and that means looking at not just the poorest but the richest(5). Oxfam believes that reducing inequality is a key part of fighting poverty and securing a sustainable future for all. In a world of finite resources, we cannot end poverty unless we reduce inequality rapidly. (Translation: Taxing the rich has failed, so now we need to tax the rich even more. The thing is, the stated goal of "equality" is unachievable, even if it were desirable. There is no way to confiscate the "excess" wealth of people without destroying property rights, and the desire to invest, innovate, create, and advance. We have ample evidence that redistributing wealth destroys families, enforces poverty, and contributes to crime, illegitimacy, and racism. 

Our present economic and social environment has been directly caused by government intervention. But as is typical of the Left, failure is not a deterrent, it is only something to misdiagnose, explain away, or reinterpret so as to retain one's political world view. The end result is that they want more of what caused the problems in the first place.) 

That is why we are calling for a new global goal to end extreme wealth by 2025, (Now that is an astounding statement. Read it again. They want to end extreme wealth. Wow. They want to be be the judge of who has too much and simply take away the excess from them. Can you imagine? If any organization or government had this kind of power, no one would be safe. Because if they have the power to decide if you have too much wealth, they also have the power to tell you what to eat, how to live, and what to believe. Who in their right mind would grant that kind of power to anyone? 

And what guarantee do we have that such a power would remain benevolent? History is replete with governments with too much power killing millions. If there is anyone to blame for the sorry state of world affairs, it is government.) 

and reverse the  rapid increase in inequality seen in the majority of countries in the last twenty years, taking inequality back to 1990 levels(6)(7). (Does anyone really believe that these people would stop there? If they are granted the power to roll back wealth disparity to 1990 levels, then what's to stop them from going farther? These marxists are relatively harmless now, because they really don't have the ability to carry out their desire for worldwide domination due to the checks in power on them as provided for in the Constitution. No wonder they hate it! But as they push their ideas farther into government via sympathetic officials, into society via low-information voters, and into academia via sympathetic professors, we may yet see the basic building blocks of society get destroyed by the hand of would be utopianists.)  

The cost of inequality: how wealth and income extremes hurt us all - *analysis completed*

This was published by OXFAM. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments are found here.
--------------
 MEDIA BRIEFING

18 January 2013 Ref: 02/2012

The world must urgently set goals to tackle extreme inequality and extreme wealth. It is now widely accepted that rapidly growing extreme wealth and inequality are harmful to human progress. Already this year, the World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report rated inequality as one of the top global risks of 2013(1). The IMF and the Economist(2) agree. Around the world, the Occupy protests demonstrated the increasing public anger and feeling that inequality has gone too far(3).

In the last decade, the focus has been exclusively on one half of the inequality equation - ending extreme poverty.  Inequality and the extreme wealth that contributes to it  were seen as either not relevant, or a prerequisite for the growth that would also help the poorest, as the wealth created trickled down to the benefit of everyone.

There has been great progress in the fight against extreme poverty. Hundreds of millions of people have seen their lives improve dramatically – an historically unprecedented achievement of which the world should be proud(4). But as we look to the next decade, and new development goals we need to define progress, we must demonstrate that we are also tackling inequality - and that means looking at not just the poorest but the richest(5). Oxfam believes that reducing inequality is a key part of fighting poverty and securing a sustainable future for all. In a world of finite resources, we cannot end poverty unless we reduce inequality rapidly.

That is why we are calling for a new global goal to end extreme wealth by 2025, and reverse the  rapid increase in inequality seen in the majority of countries in the last twenty years, taking inequality back to 1990 levels(6)(7).  Extreme wealth and inequality are reaching levels never before seen and are getting worse