Letter to the editor: Equity under arrest as code for critical race theory - by Stephani Lourie

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-----------

Ms. Lourie employs a classic diversionary technique by claiming something isn't something because it's really something else. She writes, Equity is the moral responsibility of public schools, but is under arrest as code for CRT. Well, this is is actually backwards. "Equity" is code for Critical Race Theory (CRT.) 

CRT doesn't appear in the school district's plan because of the protests. And these protests are notable to Ms. Lourie because of the conduct of the participants. Apparently there is something unseemly about clapping and cheering (things that have never, ever happened in a school board meeting before...), but I doubt she had any concern about the school board meeting where four students complained about the Fellowship of Christian Athletes school club. And that incident resulted in a lawsuit by the school district.

CRT is controversial, so much so that the Bozeman plan doesn't include the term, instead referring to it as something more innocuous: "Multicultural education." Who can be opposed to that? Why would anyone be opposed to critical thinking? Therefore, opposing "multicultural education" is the same thing as denying there is racism, you see. It means "shielding white children" from fact and history. 

Again, classic diversionary techniques.

And she keeps going. She writes of the opposition: A crowded bandwagon is accusing schools of indoctrinating students that our country is pluralistic, complex and not without injustice. No, ma'am. A group of concerned citizens is protesting the indoctrination students into cultural Marxism masquerading as education. And that's what it is, Marxism disguised. 

Ms. Lourie twice mentions a moral obligation, but never mentions what morality that would be. Is it her morality? The school district's morality? Her church's morality? The use of the word "moral" conveys a weightiness of duty far beyond a simple teaching process. This is a "moral" thing, so important, so critical, that to deny her the ability to teach "multicultural education" causes her to violate her moral duty. 

The last thing to note is that Ms. Lourie dutifully parrots the National Education Association talking points about CRT:

She is an NEA member, so it seems likely she is read in on what her union is proposing for all 50 states.

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

Sen. Daines shirking his constitutional duty - By Dan Lourie

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

Koch brothers attempting to derail our democracy -Letter by Dan Lourie

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
------------------------
Mr. Lourie is becoming a regular fixture in these pages of my blog, largely because of his relentless pursuit of bumper-sticker slogans, regurgitation of pre-printed democratic talking points, and mindless repetition of the supposed dangers of those eeevil Kochs. Read on:
-------------------------

The billionaire Koch brothers, prime corrupters of our democracy, have opened a Bozeman war office, aka Joe Balyeat’s Americans For Prosperity. They promote tea party schills like Burnett, Vance and White, and it’s time we gave them a closer look. (Quite an accusation. Let's see if he offers any evidence for his assertions.)

It’s naive to presume that their extremist propaganda machine stops at purchasing elected offices for morality-deficient candidates, although it’s clear that they’re now at work buying Montana’s Legislature. (He tosses around some hyperbolic accusations, but supplies no names, dates, or any kind of evidence. Thus, we can summarily dismiss them.)

Their wealth and resulting influence have deleterious impacts on many aspects of American lives: the environment, education, campaign finance, access to health care, jobs, and labor rights. (Continuing in the same vein using the same inflammatory language, and of course, absent any specifics, facts, or data.)

They spend heavily on: gutting Social Security — $28+ million to popularize lies that it borders on collapse; (This has been covered many times by many writers, bloggers, economists, policy wonks, accountants, and actuaries. There is no dearth of information. In these very pages we have dealt at length with the issue. The SS Administration itself admits that the SS Trust Fund contains nothing but debt. The only ones who lie about Social Security's financial status are those who derive political power by pretending it is solvent.)

re-segregating school systems, (The only people I know of who want to re-segregate are blacks themselves.)

reversing hard-won policies promoting diversity; (Actually, forcing diversity as they define it.) 

voter ID laws in 38 states making voting difficult for the elderly, poor and minorities (No evidence this is true.) —

fabricating poverty, (Wait, I thought he just said that voting is difficult for the poor? But now poverty is fabricated? Whaaa?) 

joblessness, (Joblessness is fabricated too? Is Mr. Lourie's precious government lying?) 

and health issues. We’ll beat them by getting out the vote.

(Yet another litany of vague charges with no substance, no refutation, no attempt at analysis, and no intellectual engagement of any kind. This is what passes for proof that the Kochs are eeevil. Wow.)

Dan Lourie Bozeman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debbie Moran, Belgrade

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

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




Now for Mr. Lourie's reply: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daines’ draconian assault on women - letter by Dan Lourie

I'm going to focus mostly on Mr. Lourie's use of language, something I've done in the past, mostly because his words are not designed to communicate, they manipulate and marginalize. It's this over-the-top rhetoric that makes it difficult to have constructive dialogue, and detracts from my ability and motivation to take him seriously. -------------------------------- Republicans’ unabashed (Unabashed: Not concealed or disguised; obvious. Mr. Lourie intends to use the word to impugn the Republicans, but he has previously used the word "insidious" [gradual and harmful: slowly and subtly harmful or destructive] to describe the agenda of those with whom he disagrees. Can we ask which it is, unabashed or insidious?)  war on women was born of reactionary ideology ("Reactionary ideology" simply means that something happened and those who oppose what happened "react" and attempt to change the results of the event) and fueled by astonishing hubris (Hubris means extreme pride or arrogance or a loss of contact with reality. I think you can start to see how it would be difficult to converse with a person who appears to believe that their ideological opponents are irrational, evil, and bent on destroying peoples' lives)  that allows men in government (We must note that there are pro-life women in government...) to presume the right to tell women what they can or cannot do with their own bodies. (Government, particularly leftists in government, are certainly happy to tell us what we can do with our own bodies all the time, so this hysterical rant rings hollow for me. Helmet laws, sugared drink limits, salt bans, and a thousand other things. But because it is convenient in this case, Mr. Lourie is outraged that some in government want to protect unborn babies)  That out-of-control agenda (These Republicans are loose cannons, indiscriminately wielding power)  attacking women was a major factor, through the alienation of both moderates and women, in their party’s overwhelming defeat in last year’s elections. (That's the leftist meme, but there's no evidence for it. Obama won 51% of the vote. There was a net gain of 13 seats by the Democrats in the US House, with Republicans maintaining a 17 seat majority, and the Democrats gained a net two seats in the Senate, with a total of 53 seats. This is hardly "overwhelming.")  They have clearly failed to learn from that experience, and once again pursue a draconian ("Draconian" meaning great severity, derived from Draco, an Athenian law scribe under whom small offenses had heavy punishments. So can we ask, what laws is he referring to, which would exact heavy legal penalties against women for committing small violations of the law?) program of assault on the rights of women. Congressman Steve Daines, ignoring the consensus of Americans across party lines, is out front, helping to lead the charge. He supported the 20-week abortion ban that ignores women’s health and safety, defying even the concerns of moderate Republicans. (A flat out lie. Yes, I called him a liar. He is so deeply inured, so completely all-in, he believes wholesale the leftist line without question. A Huffington Post poll indicate a 59% to 20% split in favor of the 20 week ban. Here are a couple of charts depicting the results: Mr. Lourie and people like him are clearly the extremists. The great majority of Americans disagree with them, and no amount of histrionics will change that. But of course, this is part of the delusion of the Left. They try to gin up support by pretending to be the majority, reasonable position, but they are in the margins. They try to make up for it by being loud. But these kinds of tactics are being unmasked, sort of like the curtain being pulled open on the wizard of Oz.) He cosponsored legislation blocking Title X funding to entities providing abortion services, despite 25,000 Montana women relying on health care services, like cancer screenings, from Title X clinics every year. (I automatically doubt the assertion, simply because he is the one making it. But to the point. The fact that an organization is providing cancer screenings is irrelevant if it is also killing unborn babies. Any sane person would oppose the entire organization, despite any good in might happen to do, if it is also doing something incredibly evil)  He cosponsored the “Blunt Amendment” allowing employers to refuse health care coverage for abortions or “other items or services to which issuer has moral or religious objection.” (Mr. Lourie is apparently pro-choice only when it involves killing babies.)  He cosponsored a bill to spend over half a billion dollars on abstinence-only sex education. (Leftists hate abstinence. They want as many people boinking as possible in every conceivable combination and situation. The idea is to make sex as free as possible, even to the detriment of other freedoms. In this conversation you will see one of the commenters actually assent to this idea.)  He cosponsored the Pro Life Act banning federal education funding to institutions with health centers making abortion-related materials available to students. (In other words, all the things Mr. Daines has done are all typical Republican positions. This is what is inflaming Mr. Lourie's hyperbole, that a Republican is actually acting like a Republican and is doing what he promised to do) Apparently that defeat has not tempered the reprehensible Republican positions on women’s health. Signs, however, point to the party’s inevitable irrelevance if they continue down this path. Former Bush advisor David Frum wrote, “We’ve had four years of self-defeating rage. Now it’s time for cool.” I hope Congressman Daines is paying attention, (To whom? Mr. Lourie's unhinged name calling? Or to the ones who elected him?)  and that he begins to represent and promote a system that values the availability of access to adequate health care, including reproductive care, for all women. Dan Lourie Bozeman

Letter writers sink to unfortunate low - letter by Dan Lourie - commentary

Dan Lourie is a frequent contributor to the letters section of the Chronicle, and he has tangled with Peter Arnone before with less than spectacular results. Here is yet another foray into inanity as Mr. Lourie impugns and derides people in a glaring display of intellectual bankruptcy. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

-------------
Rightist mouthpiece Henry Kriegel’s (reproduced below.)

regressive attack on Sen. Baucus (read Mr. Krigel's editorial below and see if you can discern how he attacked Max Baucus. I just don't see it. So if this is the standard Mr. Lourie embraces as far as what constitutes an "attack, " I'm going to hold him to the same standard regarding his letter.) 

and the estate tax (“death tax” in Kriegel’s teaparty-ese) and Peter Arnone’s commie-baiting devolution (I wasn't able to locate this letter.) 

into the hateful, malodorous morass of Mc-Carthyism, provide more insight into the deranged right’s extremist propaganda than they advance the cause of moral, rational and equitable governing of our democracy. (We are starting to get a feel for Mr. Lourie's idea of respectful, civil discourse, aren't we?) 

They also demonstrate how a party’s thorough repudiation (Um, yeah. President Obama received 51% of the vote...) 

at the polls inspires irresponsible rants, not constructive musings on healing wounds and coming together as a civilized society. (Wow. Just wow. Mr. Lourie just finished using descriptors like "commie-bating," "hateful," "malodorous morass," "deranged," and "extremist propaganda." Yet his very next sentence calls for "...constructive musings on healing wounds and coming together as a civilized society." Is this not an impressive cognitive disconnect? How could any rational person rip someone up one side and down the other is the most vile, hateful way, and then in the very next breath call for civility?) 

Arnone was joined by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, deservedly ridiculed by fellow Republicans for contending that, at Harvard Law School, “there were 12 ... (faculty) Marxists who believed in ... overthrowing the U.S. government.” (Senator Cruz's actual words: "There were fewer declared Republicans in the faculty when we were there than Communists! There was one Republican. But there were twelve who would say they were Marxists who believed in the Communists overthrowing the United States government." Note that Senator Cruz was a law student at Harvard, he's not some backwoods yokel. And also note that this speech was from 2010, yet it's just now making rounds through the left-wing echo-chamber. Senator Cruz is speaking from first hand experience, and his observations are corroborated here.) 

Arnone should brush up on the definition of Communism, and Cruz might want to move past being a late night comedian’s punch line as the price for becoming known in his senatorial rookie year.

Kriegel’s pandering to those funding his already marginalized, out-of-touch, reactionary fringe group by opposing a reasonable and fair estate tax, seeks simply to enhance the ongoing proliferation of plutocracy. In 2010, Congress permanently set estate exemptions at $5 million (keyed to inflation,) eliminating estate tax for 99+ percent of the population, guaranteeing that all but the richest of the rich will be able to protect their holdings from taxes. Its purpose is less raising revenue than putting a (welcome) check on the massive, pernicious concentration of wealth in a few hands. (This is the purpose of taxation? To change peoples' behavior and "guide" society into certain kinds of outcomes? Did you notice how Mr. Lourie bristled at the idea there were numerous Marxists at Harvard, but is happy to advocate Marxist doctrines like using the power of the state to transfer wealth?)

I find it difficult to sympathize with election corrupting billionaires and those, like Kriegel, who do their bidding. Wouldn’t their wealth and energy be better spent (Like a typical Marxist, Mr. Lourie is always happy to tell people how they should spend their own money. And if they won't do so voluntarily, we have just seen in the previous paragraph that Mr. Lourie is overjoyed at the idea of government forcing people to do those things.) 

enhancing educational opportunities for all children regardless of economic status, providing universal access to quality health care for all Americans,  guaranteeing care, jobs and housing for returning veterans, and investing in job-creating infrastructure repairs? (In other words, rather than fight against government excess and creeping totalitarianism, why can't Mr. Kreigel simply adopt the leftist agenda? Wouldn't it make more sense for him to abandon what he believes in favor of what Mr. Lourie thinks he should believe? After all, Mr. Lourie wants to engage in "healing wounds and coming together as a civilized society," and what better way to achieve this than to eliminate dissent?

Whew. I'm exhausted. Mr. Lourie veers from topic to topic like a drunken sailor on shore leave weaving down the street from bar to bar. He starts with Henry Kreigel, then moves on to Peter Arnone and Senator Ted Cruz, then back to Mr. Kreigel, all in the space of 300 words. This is a tour de force of leftist talking points, scorched-earth rhetorical tactics, and the typical inability of leftists to follow a logical train of thought. Any thinking leftist has got to be wondering, "How do we shut this guy up? We can't keep having him embarrass us.")

Dan Lourie

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

Henry Kriegel's editorial: 

Few federal tax policies are as immediately revolting as the death tax. The idea that the government has the right to confiscate a set percentage of an individual’s assets after his death strikes us as downright immoral. It punishes grieving family members, adds stressful burdens both before and after death, and lets government step between the dying person and their bequest to the designated inheritors. Moreover, it's double taxation because the deceased person already paid taxes on the income used to buy his assets.

It's particularly troublesome to Montana ag and small business owners. The last thing Montana’s ranchers and farmers need is to have Uncle Sam confiscating almost half of their property instead of allowing it to transfer to their family. Thus, I'd like to take solace that the death tax may be reduced or abolished when Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, says things like, “We cannot let Montana families get hit with an estate tax hike next year ... I'm doing all I can to get the best possible deal to make sure family farms and ranches can stay in the family where they belong.” After all, Sen. Baucus’s chairmanship gives him the power to hold hearings on the elimination of the death tax, fight for legislation that eliminates the death tax, and make it a part of his policy agenda to eliminate the death tax. If he really was doing “all I can” to ensure the protection of Montana’s ranchers and farms from Uncle Sam’s greedy grasp, he should be doing these things.

But instead, Sen. Baucus has done practically nothing to abolish the death tax thus far in the new session of Congress.

In fact, Sen. Baucus voted for an increase to the death tax when he voted for the poorly-named American Taxpayer Relief Act at the beginning of the year. The provision permanently raised the maximum death tax rate from its previous level at 35 percent to 40 percent. Individuals are allowed to transfer up to $5.25 million to surviving family members, but they will get slammed at 40 percent taxes if the amount of their assets exceeds the $5.25 million mark. This can easily be the case with Montana family farms and, farmers – who are usually land rich and cash poor – can find themselves needing to sell the farm to pay the 40 percent tax.

For a senator that talks big about the death tax when he’s addressing his constituents, Sen. Baucus’ complicit non-action on this issue casts significant doubt on his credibility. If he truly stands by his words that he is “doing all I can” to make sure that the estates of Montana’s ranchers and farmers go to their family members after death, then why has he not done anything to match his talk?

Montana’s farmers and ranchers currently pay an arm and a leg in taxes on the income they already make. Taxing them again through the death tax is an immoral form of double or triple taxation on the same wealth they’ve already paid taxes for over their entire lives. Their family members don’t need to deal with the hassle and stress that comes from the death tax when they eventually die.

It’s time for Sen. Baucus to use his position as finance chair to put action behind his words and put an end to the death tax, not just for Montana, but for all Americans.

Democratic Party is for the people - letter by Dan Lourie - commentary

I've previously dealt with Mr. Lourie here, here, here, and here. If you would review these posts, you would discover that Mr. Lourie has some serious challenges regarding logical thought. His latest letter to the editor is below, interspersed with my comments in bold.

Published here for fair use and discussion purposes.
-------------
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders recently asked if we’ll really seek to balance the budget by cutting disability benefits for veterans who have lost arms and legs defending us, while we continue to fund tax breaks for billionaires (They're seeking to balance the budget? When? How? That's certainly a surprising assertion. Anyway, the budget cliff was created over a year ago in exchange for raising the deficit cap. Remember that? So this "crisis" was created by government, and has been percolating for a long time and could have been addressed a long time ago.

Oh, and this little tidbit. On November 21, 2011, Obama said this: "My message to [Congress] is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off-ramps on this one."

Continuing in our analysis, do you notice how Mr. Lourie creates a false comparison? He wants to create the impression that Republicans favored cuts to veterans {and emotional ploy, by the way. The Left typically trots out sob stories like this to manipulate opinion} when in actual fact both Republicans and Democrats were scrambling to avoid the fiscal cliff. Indeed, the House passed the "cliff bill" on Tuesday with a vote of 257-167. Oops, Mr. Lourie!).

Pretty harsh? Beyond belief? Unfathomable, given the Congressional oath of office (That oath is: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." So where in there is an obligation to fund programs at a specified level? Indeed, the very Constitution they swear to uphold and defend they regularly ignore, manipulate, or misstate.)

It’s exactly what Republican obstructionists in Congress are demanding in the fiscal crisis negotiations. (Obstructionists? The Republicans hold the majority in the House. Definitionally, they cannot be obstructionists.)

Speaker Boehner failed to mobilize extremist (Note the pejorative language, where principled dissent is represented as illegitimate.)

votes for compromise with President Obama (What? There is some sort of obligation to compromise with Obama? Did the Democrats compromise with Bush, or did the continually and relentlessly impugn his integrity and intelligence?).

Right wingers, showing continued hatred for the president (Yes, that's what it is... hatred. After all, who could disagree with the Light-Bringer? There can't be a simple disagreement over policy, no, it must be hatred. And Mr. Lourie is blessed with the ability to read minds. He knows peoples' motivations. Wow. What an amazing guy.) 

and anger over his overwhelming re-election victory (Overwhelming? 51% is overwhelming? in what fairies and unicorns universe is that overwhelming?),

have simply decided to shaft the country (Yes, that's it. Never mind that there's a $17 trillion debt, and that the 2008 crash stole 40% of average Americans' net worth. And a true unemployment rate of 12%. No, none of that shafted the country. But attempting to hold off on deficit spending, well THAT is shafting the country.) .

They’re determined to steal benefits from veterans, children, the ill and the elderly (Cue the weeping mothers and the wheelchairs. *sob*),

in order to ensure the president’s failure (The president has already failed. He won the election but every one of his initiatives has failed to solve the financial situation. Trillions of dollars spent and nothing to show for it.).

No outrage, no harm, no draconian denial of benefits befitting a moral democracy (Moral democracy? Impossible! Democracies are majority rule. Morality has nothing to do with it. And we need to be reminded once again that we do not have a democracy.) 

are too extreme in the corporate dictated, tea party demand to scuttle compromise (There's that word "compromise" again. Compromise is always the obligation of Republicans. There is never compromise going the other way.).

We Democrats are the party of compassion for those less fortunate (Ensuring that they remain in destitution generation after generation. Yeah, that's compassionate. Would it be inappropriate to ask Mr. Lourie how much he personally gives to the less fortunate? That's the real measure of compassion, not government extracting money out of our wallets.),

believing in a thriving middle class (And making sure no one moves up out of the middle class, because then they are rich and oh how we hate the rich!),

the right of hardworking Americans to bargain collectively (Which no one denies.), providing our young with an education preparing them for participation in the American Dream (An education becoming increasingly worthless as students are now graduating unable to read or write.), advocating for those without voice or power (like the unborn?).

Protection of long standing guarantees for life enhancing support in old age and access to quality health care top our list of priorities (Every dime of funding, of course, is extracted from the taxpayer. How compassionate they are with your and my money! How caring that they can spend trillions of dollars and never worry about parting with any of their own money! What a country this is, with government spending trillions of dollars on poverty programs, which has yielded a poverty rate exactly the same as it was decades ago! How wonderful that our great grand children's taxes have already been spent!  And millions more people on food stamps! And seniors having to choose between food and medicine! And inner city poverty and crime is skyrocketing! 

Yes, you Democrats have a lot to be proud of. You care so much, and give so much. You have sacrificed so much of others' wealth.Yes, you leftists have really done a bang up job.). 

Raising the age of Social Security benefit eligibility, without demanding that all wage earners pay the same percentage of their income into the system betrays our compact with our government (Does the fact the government has already spent the SS Trust Fund represent a violation of this compact? A "pact" means "something agreed upon." What agreement is it that is "our compact with our government?" There is no such agreement. SS was a law passed by Congress. As we have discussed before, Fleming Vs Nestor established that there is no right to SS benefits, and reaffirmed that Congress can modify or discontinue the program at any time. There is no "compact!".

Americans work all their lives, expecting at age 65 the comfort and support earned by their labors — government’s solemn promise (Gawd, I can hardly stand it! The emotional manipulation is unbearable! Americans work all their lives, having significant sums of money extracted from their pay just to be frittered away by government on every conceivable idiotic scheme, yet Mr. Lourie writes with false earnestness about this high moral charge. What pompous nonsense!).

Recalcitrant Republicans, answering to wealthy donors rather than to working Americans, must not be allowed to deny this right (As we have noted, there is no "right" in play here.). 

Millions of our fellow citizens are in dire need. We Democrats are committed to demanding that they are cared for (Get out your checkbook, sir. Volunteer at a soup kitchen. Buy gas for poor peoples' cars. Go mow your neighbor's yard. Get off your ass and do something yourself instead of expecting other people to pay for your moral obligation.).

Dan Lourie Bozeman

Dan Lourie tries to refute Peter Arnone - letters to the editor

Peter Arnone wrote this, and Dan Lourie responds below. My comments are interspersed in bold.
 -----------------
Arnone: Truly, the Democrat Party has been hijacked. Led by Barack Obama, we witnessed its Progressive/Marxist leadership and ideological bent in no uncertain terms at the recent DNC. All the “God bless America’s” couldn’t hide its loathing of traditional American values. The greatest con on earth? How else can one describe the convention? Rank and file members are clueless.

Spelled out in the Democrats’ most un-American platform ever, the “God” debacle will hopefully wake up the party faithful to the national catastrophe Obama’s godless administration is taking us. If ever vigilance and activism were called for, it is now. Never in our history has an adversary posed a greater threat. Never has our freedom faced the clear and present danger Obama poses. Historically, we have been a nation of unmistakable trust in God. For Obama and his dictatorial collaborators, “the government is the only thing we all belong to.” Sustaining and expanding their power and control is priority #1.

Cuban-American Sen. Marco Rubio nailed the Democrat agenda at the RNC: “These are tired and old big government ideas that have failed every time and everywhere they have been tried. These are ideas that people come to America to get away from.”

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

Lourie: We assume that satirist Peter Arnone, a recurrent Chronicle buffoon, rants to entertain, given the absurdity of his fabricated claims, pathetically and transparently untrue (Ok, remember the standard Mr. Lourie sets for Mr. Arnone. Mr. Lourie is accusing Mr. Arnone of "fabricated claims, pathetically and transparently untrue." This means the burden upon Mr. Lourie is to identify and refute those fabricated claims. Let's see how he does.).

Or he simply lies, his delusional rhetoric failing to hide his candidate Mitt Romney’s incompetence (Mr. Lourie's first point is a tangent, unrelated to the matter at hand. Mr. Arnone did not mention Romney, let alone identify Romney as his candidate.),

his flip flopping, his dismissal of 47 percent of Americans as moochers (Another rabbit trail, again, unrelated to the matter at hand. But since we are here, let us be reminded that Romney did no such thing. Romney's remarks were regarding campaign strategy. He was discussing that people who pay no income tax are not going to be swayed by his campaign strategy of tax cuts. This seems simple and insightful. Also, the fact that Romney's statistic was accurate is rather inconvenient.).

During my participation in the Democratic convention, I heard no outrageous Arnone fantasies of “Marxist ideological bent,” “loathing of ... American values,” a “godless administration.” (Mr. Lourie's experience at the convention is a subset of everything that happened there. Since he could not know everything that happened, his particular experiences are incomplete, and for that matter, anecdotal. 

Further, since Mr. Lourie is politically Left, as a matter of course he would not admit - or perhaps, would not recognize - anything of a nature described by Mr. Arnone. Therefore, Mr. Arnone is not lying about anything. The worst he could be is mistaken about his opinion. This is a far cry from engaging in fabricated claims.)  

For that mendacity (i.e., lie), Arnone relinquishes any credibility (so we are left with the question, what lie did Mr. Arnone tell which causes him to relinquish his credibility?).

I did hear the recounting of a successful president keeping his promise to change our great nation back to its iconic morality, a nation caring for its less fortunate, guaranteeing equality for all citizens, using its resources wisely to ensure a safer, healthier, better educated, more economically viable future for all Americans (I'm sure he heard all of that. He probably ate it up. But none of it is relevant to the accusation. His experiences, as we have noted, are not comprehensive, they are off topic, and certainly, these assertions are a matter of debate themselves.).

President Obama ended the war in Iraq (Again irrelevant, but for the sake of argument, let us note that President Obama adhered to the Bush schedule. Let us also note that troops are still dying there and in Afghanistan, Gitmo is still open, and the President is still lobbing unmanned missile drones into the middle east, killing many),

saved the auto industry (Both GM and Chrysler declared bankruptcy after receiving bailout money),

worked to expand health care access to all Americans (Recent news shows that 6 million people will pay the no insurance penalty),

and began our ascent from the Republican legacy of recession with a recovery program already creating nearly three million jobs (Hmm, I thought it was 4 million. After first losing 7 million. And the recovery is noteworthy due to its anemia.).

It’s an extraordinary record of achievement for a first term (True. No other president has presided over such economic devastation, with no end in sight.),

despite the intransigence (Defintion: "Refusing to moderate a position, especially an extreme position; uncompromising...." This is an odd accusation, since that is what political parties do. We can only conclude that because Mr. Lourie defines compromise as going along with the unimpeachable positions of Obama and the democrats. Mr. Lourie makes an a priori assumption that democratic policies are correct, and as a result republican opposition must be intrinsically mistaken, evil, obstructionist, etc.) 

of Republicans sworn to destroy his presidency (it's somehow surprising to Mr. Lourie that the opposition party is actually opposing Obama? Really? Of course they want to stop him. The country is teetering on the brink, and someone needs to oppose him.).

I am proud of my president’s record (which of course he is free to do. Just as those who disagree with Obama are free to oppose).

(So, Mr. Lourie hyperbolically accuses Mr. Arnone of grievous prevarication but fails to identify a single one. Considering the severe, hyperbolic language Mr. Lourie employs, one would think that Mr. Arnone is a borderline ax murderer. But as we discovered, Mr. Arnone simply expressed his opinion, which of course may or may not be correct, and for that sin Mr. Lourie deems him worthy of crucifixion. 

But more to the point, I wonder if the reader has noticed a trend in the writers quoted here and elsewhere on my blog. To even the casual reader it would appear that Leftists like Mr. Lourie have difficulty with the logical progression of ideas, and even more difficulty in staying on topic and addressing the matter raised. It is this undercurrent of irrationality which is so difficult to respond to, since it comes in torrents and is pervasive whenever a Leftist enters the discussion. 

I am at loss to explain this phenomena.) 

Opposition to ACA is immoral - Dan Lourie

This letter appeared in today's Bozeman Chronicle. I am posting it because of its breathtaking misrepresentation of a variety of facts. I'll analyze below.

Dan Lourie writes:

"The Affordable Care Act (ACA) and its “mandate,” were developed by a conservative think tank and signed into law by then Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. The mandate was the tool by which “free loaders” (Romney’s words) could no longer have their medical expenses paid by others. The Supreme Court deemed that mandate constitutional.

"Republican candidate Romney promises to overturn the ACA, and Congressional Republicans have voted fruitlessly 33 times to annul it. All of them, it should be noted, have health insurance plans with benefits at least equal to the ACA.

"Which of their fellow Americans do they want denied access to health care? Neighbors’ children with pre-existing conditions? Neighbors’ wives, daughters and sisters who cannot afford pre-natal and other reproductive care? The 45,000 Americans who die annually for lack of access to health care? Republican opposition to the ACA is obscene, rife with ignorance, misunderstanding, lies and an immoral disregard for the health and welfare of others. Their blind allegiance to the know-nothing tea party doctrine should embarrass thinking Republicans. Surely a plan raising the American health care system above its current abysmal world ranking of 27th should be the goal of all Americans."

Here in one letter of less than 300 words is the complete arsenal of leftist talking points. let's take them one by one.

"The Affordable Care Act (ACA) and its “mandate,” were developed by a conservative think tank..." This is the transcription of a lecture delivered by Stuart M. Butler of the Heritage Foundation in 1989, entitled "Assuring Affordable Healthcare for All Americans." At the bottom of the second page is this phrase: "Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation..."

As one reads the transcription, it becomes apparent that this man is not proposing anything like the ACA. But rather than discuss its details, I'll let you follow the link and read it yourself. Inconveniently, Dr. Butler wrote a refutation of those who mischaracterize his lecture from 1989. He specifically refutes the idea that "a conservative think tank" developed the ACA. Indeed, he takes to task those who would take a small phrase from his lecture and make it the major theme.

I will say, though, that just because a "conservative" proposes something doesn't make it conservative. And one "conservative" does not make a movement. Also, proposing a mandate is not the same thing as proposing government controlled healthcare. Regardless, the essay, attributable to a "conservative, is prima facia evidence that unlike the political left, we conservatives welcome the exchange of ideas.

Further, the mere fact that the Left is bringing up supposed conservative support for government healthcare is a tacit admission that it is not a conservative position. THEY know the difference! But I wonder, who is fooled by this kind of rhetoric? Oh, yeah. Mr. Laurie. Doubtless he read something on a leftist website and simply regurgitated it in his letter.

"...and signed into law by then Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney." What might this be about? The ACA is federal legislation passed by congress and signed by President Obama, not Governor Romney. And Romney is hardly conservative, so citing his prior support for government healthcare lends no weight to the argument. Regardless, Romney has made clear that he believes that states can do things that the feds cannot. Mr. Lourie is obviously mixing concepts. His muddled prose definitely detracts from his position.

"The Supreme Court deemed that mandate constitutional." And the Supreme Court said that blacks were property in Dred Scott. Next question.

"...Congressional Republicans have voted fruitlessly 33 times to annul it..." No, the house has voted twice to repeal it, and is passed both times, with the help of some democrats who also voted for repeal.

"Which of their fellow Americans do they want denied access to health care?" This is a pet peeve of mine. Apparently, if one opposes the government "solution" to a problem, then one must somehow be in favor of the problem. This is vapid and anti-intellectual. No one with an IQ above room temperature believes that being in opposition to bad legislation means that they are in favor of the problem.

Say, let's see how he likes his own medicine. Might we also ask Mr. Lourie why he is in favor of 10 million Americans being without healthcare under ACA? The ACA is not univeral healthcare. Is Mr. Laurie in favor of letting people die? Hmm?

"Republican opposition to the ACA is obscene, rife with ignorance, misunderstanding, lies and an immoral disregard for the health and welfare of others." With breathless hyperbole Mr. Lourie characterizes his ideological opponents as monsters and ax murderers. But I don't know why I'm typing these refutations. All I have to do is call Mr. Lourie names. I can make all sorts of claims with the same fidelity for the truth that Mr. Lourie embraces, and like him, neither advance the debate nor engage the ideas.

And this pontification about morality mystifies me. Whose morality is he talking about? Who is he to pass moral judgments about other people? This black-and-white morality needs to be abandoned in favor of more nuanced understanding. He needs to stop imposing his morality on others and stop the hate.

"Surely a plan raising the American health care system above its current abysmal world ranking of 27th should be the goal of all Americans." He can't know that ACA will raise our ranking. He doesn't even know if healthcare will improve, or cost less, or be more efficient. Just because his side has said so does not make it so. Nor is he in a position to dictate what the goal of all Americans should be. There are lots of reasons our health system is ranked poorly, not the least of which is the fact that government has so totally messed it up. What ACA is really about is offering a government fix to the government fixes previously installed.

Mr. Lourie, like all true believers, lives in a world of stark contrasts. If you oppose what he favors, you are not simply wrong, you are evil. If you are not for him, you are against him. He believes that government is the answer to all life's problems, government is where we should look every time we need something or perceive some injustice. It would never occur a person like Mr. Lourie that there are a variety of solutions to the problems of society, solutions that are often quite different than his. But he wants none of it, because he is not only convinced he is right, but that there is no other way to look at things.

A friend recently posted this quote from William F. Buckley, and it's very perceptive: "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."

My response to Mr. Lourie

His letter is here. My original editorial is here.
--------------

Mr. Lourie,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,

Rich

Dan Lourie's criticism of my editorial

This is a letter to the editor from Dan Lourie, responding to my editorial.

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

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

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

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

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

I sent him an email, saying "Accusing someone of lying is a serious matter. Perhaps you could indentify two or three lies I made." No response as of yet. My response is here.