Merry Christmas and constitutionality - FB post

I sent this question to FB friend B.R.:

Wondering what your opinion is on Happy Holiday vs. Christmas, banning nativity scenes, stuff like that.

B.R.: My brief take on it: there's no requirement for sharing a sentiment with someone. If you know they don't celebrate Christmas, it's polite to use a different phrase. I don't think we need to impose a standard on the nation, though. Most of the changes we see from "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays" or "Seasons Greetings" are marketing attempts to keep their reach as wide and general as possible.

As for nativity scenes, I love them dearly and love to see them on private property, in homes, businesses, and churches. If a nativity scene is set up on public property, and citizens in that area don't appreciate it, they can speak up and the community can decide what to do. If it were my community, I'd rather petition to put up MORE spiritual and religious icons around this holiday time, rather than stripping them all, but that's just me.

B.R.: Also, the idea of there being a "War on Christmas" is pretty silly.

D.G.: I know you didn't ask me :), but my 2c: a lot of countries in Europe have official state religions, but are actually more secular than the US.

While I personally am against the government putting up religious symbols, I think that in most cases it's such a gray area that we would be much better off leaving it up to community discretion rather than making a constitutional issue of it.

Me: D.G., you answer questions I didn't ask you and don't answer ones I did ;)

The government has been putting up religious symbols since the beginning of the country. Since the founders were obviously engaging in unconstitutional activity, should those symbols be purged?

Me: B.R., what's polite is a standard to which civilized people engage. If this were the case, we would never here the F-bomb in public. It seems the standard of politeness only goes one way.

D.G.: I engage when I feel like I have the knowledge, time and energy for a discussion. I do admire the breadth of your areas of interest, and I'm already someone describes myself as a 'professional dilettante.' ;)

Constitutional interpretation is a huge other topic. Like I said above, I /don't/ think we should make a constitutional issue of religious symbols. So it sounds like we agree on that.

B.R.: I don't swear around people I know don't like it. Isn't that polite enough?

Me: Not trying to set any sort of standard for you, Ben. If saying merry christmas violates a standard of politeness (this was your criteria), then there are certainly other things people might say to each other that might violate that standard, don't you think?

Me: Since opponents of religious symbols are claiming constitutional grounds for their objections, I think that pony has already left the corral.

B.R.: There's an important distinction for me: I say "merry Christmas" to my family and friends, and "happy holidays" to strangers.

I think saying "Merry Christmas" is very polite, no matter who's saying it or who they're saying it to. The non-specific alternative phrases are polite too, but they're less presumptuous and more inclusive. It's like using "Ms" with a stranger instead of "Mrs" or "miss". Look, if you're in an area where everyone clearly celebrates Christmas, then say "Merry Christmas". I'm in Seattle, where there's a crazy variety of faiths, traditions, and preferences, so I say "Happy Holidays". Frankly, when I say that, I'm saying it because New Year's Eve happens right after Xmas and I think of this time as "the holiday season". I know zero Kwanzaa celebrators. I know zero Hanukkah celebrators, or at least zero who say anything about it. But it's a time of good will toward men (and women), so when talking to folks I don't know, I use more inclusive language.

Me: Seems like you're walking on eggshells, tailoring your greetings to your perceptions on how they will be received.

I think your approach is flawed, however. I think you ought to base your holiday greetings on your orientation, worldview, and religious persuasion, not on what you think someone else's might be. After all, you are who you are, and screw 'em if they don't like it...

Treasury to sell remaining GM shares - commentary

This article is found here. Reproduced for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments interspersed in bold.

-------------------------
The Treasury Department announced plans on Wednesday to sell the 500 million shares of General Motors it still owns, closing the books on the $51 billion bailout that started four years ago (At one point the government owned 61% of GM, while unions owned 17.5%!).

But even with the $12 billion to $14 billion Treasury will likely recoup from the stock sales, taxpayers will probably lose out on the GM bailout when all is said and done (Yup, we the taxpayer bears the risk of these hairbrained government schemes, and we always seem to lose. At least when I invest in the stock market myself, I get to choose the stocks I buy and how much money I risk, and because it was a voluntary decision, I get the gains or losses myself by my choice.).

Treasury said GM has agreed to repurchase 200 million shares by the end of this year for $27.50 a share, a nearly 8% premium above Tuesday's closing price. Shares of GM jumped more than 7% in early trading Wednesday on the news.

Treasury intends to sell its remaining 300 million shares through various means in an orderly fashion within the next 12-15 months, subject to market conditions. Sales could start as soon as January.

After the repurchase of shares by GM, there will still be $21.6 billion of bailout funds yet to be returned to taxpayers. The average sale price on the remaining 300 million shares would have to be nearly $72 in order for Treasury to break even. That's nearly triple Tuesday's closing price. (We were continually told that this would be a money maker for the treasury, weren't we?)

GM started to receive bailout funds in late 2008, with the bulk of the money being used to fund its operations during its 2009 bankruptcy reorganization (We were also told that the bailout was going to prevent GM from going bankrupt.).

Although GM has returned to profitability since the bailout, the stock has not done as well as hoped. Treasury is getting less than the $33 per share it received at the time of GM's initial public offering in November 2010. GM CEO Dan Akerson has apologized for the automaker's weak stock price despite strong earnings (It certainly helps profitability to not have to pay taxes.).

Still, it is estimated that 1.5 million jobs were saved by keeping General Motors and smaller rival Chrysler afloat through bailouts, according to the Center for Automotive Research. That's why many economists argue that the bailout worked, even if taxpayers are not completely repaid (This is a fallacious argument. It assumes a static equation, which is the same mistake that government regularly makes when it computes the additional revenue of tax increases, revenue which never seems to materialize. The economy is dynamic. Had GM and Chrysler shut down operations {which probably wouldn't have happened without the bailout, since it later went bankrupt anyway}, the demand for automobiles would have shifted to other manufacturers. GM and Chrysler sell millions of cars per year. Those buyers would not simply decide not to buy. They would have bought a Ford or a Toyota. So all the other car makers would have increased sales and hired displaced workers to build their cars. 

Which means that those 1.5 million jobs saved would likely be much smaller, since many of them would have found jobs elsewhere, even outside the automotive industry. But even assuming that this number is correct, we need to note that $51 billion of taxpayer money was put at risk to save those jobs.).

Van Conway, a Michigan restructuring expert, said the overall hit to the economy might have been hundreds of billions of dollars if GM and Chrysler had gone under, due to the loss of businesses across many different sectors (Again, this is based on the assumption that the equation is static. But even if true, an impact of few hundred billion dollars is not that big a deal in an economy measuring $15.7 trillion.).

"If we had not bailed out GM and Chrysler, it would have affected companies that no one ever thought about," said Conway.

GM has bounced back to earn record profits in 2011, as it recaptured its title of the world's leading automaker. It is hiring workers once again (Again, it's a lot easier to obtain record profit one doesn't have to pay taxes, or pay off bondholders with depressed stock, or cap CEO pay. And, we don't know what the current economic situation would be had the bailout never happened.).

"The auto industry rescue helped save more than a million jobs during a severe economic crisis, but TARP was always meant to be a temporary, emergency program (No one can know this for a fact.). The government should not be in the business of owning stakes in private companies for an indefinite period of time," said Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability Timothy Massad (He's only partly right. The government should NEVER own stakes in private companies.).

Despite the success of GM since 2009, the bailout remains controversial. It was a major point of contention during the recent presidential election. Mitt Romney argued government funds should not have been used the bailout. GM has been eager to have Treasury sell its remaining stake due to the opposition of some potential car buyers to the deal, who mockingly referred to the company as "Government Motors." The final sale of stock will also remove limits on executive pay at GM (This a is crucial piece. A significant number of people did not buy GM cars because of the bailout. In fact, there are a lot of car buyers who will never buy a GM product again. We need to note that pundits have not calculated the lost jobs or lost revenue from this.).

"This announcement is an important step in bringing closure to the successful auto industry rescue (The claim to success is doubtful. We can point to Ford as a control subject which did not get a TARP bailout even in the face of its own financial difficulties, and not only survived, but prospered.), it further removes the perception of government ownership of GM among customers, and it demonstrates confidence in GM's progress and our future," Akerson said in a statement Wednesday.

Benefits for gay couples rejected - Matt Gouras - analysis

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

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

Associated Press HELENA — The Montana Supreme Court on Monday rejected an “overly broad” request that gay couples be guaranteed the same benefits as married couples, but left the door open for advocates to modify their case and try again (This is curious. "Gay couples" cannot marry in Montana, so they currently are of different status than married couples. Usually the argument offered is that gay marriage solves the benefit problem, but here the benefits are sought even though marriage isn't possible. That would make the relationship a contractual one, that is, a voluntary agreement between parties to grant rights and obligations as spelled out in the contract. This is a routine activity, done every day in order to define and protect the parties involved. So one might wonder what exactly is being litigated before the Montana supreme court.).

The plaintiffs promised to do so, declaring they are “on the right side of history” and will inevitably win ("On the right side of history" is the latest catch phrase. It's one of those statements that sound profound and noble but really means nothing. If you google it you will find that it proliferates the web, with almost every citation related to gay issues. Gay marriage advocates latched on to the phrase and it didn't take long until every leftist was using it. 

So are they "on the right side of history?" Depends on what part of history one embraces. If we're talking about 6000 years of recorded history, the law, morality, biology, and the perpetuation of the human race, well, the gay rights issue is definitely not on the right side of history. If, however, we link gay rights to the struggle for civil rights by African Americans {a dubious link in my opinion}, then it is not so much history as it is a break from history. That is, blacks have a long history of being persecuted and abused. It is only relatively recently that the trends of history have been broken and African Americans have gained their rightful status. Gays, by this attempted association, want also to break with history, not be on the right side of it.).

The court wrote in Monday’s 4-3 decision that a lower court was within its discretion when it earlier dismissed the request.

In that earlier decision, a Helena district court judge dismissed the six couples’ case last year after state prosecutors argued that spousal benefits are limited by definition to married couples. A voter-approved amendment in 2004 defined marriage as between a man and a woman (So the lower court's ruling was based on the same logic I used above. But as I also mentioned, what is sought by gays is remedied by entering into a contract. Of course, this presently-available remedy does nothing to advance the cause. The cause is not about rights or fair treatment, it's not about toleration or acceptance, and frankly, it's not even about celebration. The real objective is to wipe out religious, traditional morality from the face of the earth. Ultimately, gay marriage is not about love, it is about hate, hate towards those who oppose the gay lifestyle, hate towards those who would have a different opinion, hate towards those who embrace religion and its precepts.).

District Judge Jeffrey Sherlock based his ruling in part on the state’s marriage amendment, and said that an order to force state lawmakers to write new laws would violate the separation of powers The majority justices upheld that decision. The court wrote that the gay couples want the court to intervene “without identifying a specific statute or statutes that impose the discrimination they allege.” (This is a rare event. The justices are concerned about separation of powers. This is laudable. The justices recognize the limits of their authority. But I am surprised that the plaintiffs didn't bother to take the time to identify the egregious laws. That would seem to be a basic step.)

But the high court also said the legal complaint can be changed and re-filed with the lower court if it specifically cites state laws that are unconstitutional.

“It is this Court’s opinion that plaintiffs should be given the opportunity, if they choose to take it, to amend the complaint and to refine and specify the general constitutional challenges they have proffered,” Montana Supreme Court chief justice Mike McGrath wrote for the majority. The advocates argue the legal rights they seek would not be barred by the voter-approved definition of marriage since they are not seeking specifically the right to marry.

One dissenting justice, however, noted the state is citing the marriage amendment in its legal arguments.

And Justice James Nelson, in a lengthy 109-page dissent, wrote that he thinks the marriage amendment itself unconstitutionally conflicts with fundamental rights. He said the marriage amendment was a religious based attack meant to demean homosexuals (His complaint has nothing to do with the law and how it should be applied. The Constitution of Montana, in Article XIII, Section 7, reads, "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state." So, Judge Nelson, where specifically in this short statement is religion and the demeaning of homosexuals?).

“But future generations — indeed, most young people today — will not fear, much less honor, the sexual-orientation taboo,” Nelson wrote. “Indeed, a not-too-distant generation of Montanans will consign today’s decision, the marriage amendment, and the underlying intolerance to the dustbin of history and to the status of a meaningless, shameful , artifact.” (Do you notice the demeaning statements, the attempt to disenfranchise and marginalize the people of Montana the majority of whom voted for this amendment? His statements reek of moral indignation, which leads us to wonder why he thinks his morality should be adopted over anyone else's. Indeed, he is one of a very select few people in Montana who possesses the power to impose his morality. Amazingly, he even thinks that the court has the right to judge the constitutionality of a constitutional amendment!)  Among the rights (I think this term "rights" is being misused. These are privileges that are being sought. Rights can only be safeguarded or violated, not established or created) the couples are asking for in the lawsuit filed in 2010:

1) Inheritance rights, and the ability to make burial decisions and receive workers compensation death benefits. 

2) The right to file joint tax returns, claim spousal tax exemptions or take property tax benefits. 

3) The right to make health care decisions for a spouse when that person cannot.

4) Legal protection in cases of separation and divorce, including children’s custody and support. (As mentioned above, all of these things can already be achieved by entering into a legal contract.)

Social conservatives who oppose granting those rights (Again, these are not constitutional rights we are talking about, they are privileges, they are contractual rights facilitated by law and established by mutual agreement of parties), and who supported the marriage amendment, lauded the high court for rejecting the request.

“The people of Montana believed in traditional marriage when they passed the Montana marriage amendment, and they’re not willing to consider any laws that will weaken marriage,” said Jeff Laszloffy, president of the Montana Family Foundation and author of the marriage amendment (This may be true, but the problem isn't really that traditional marriage is under attack {although it is}, it is that government has involved itself in marriage at all. Marriage is a religious institution which has been co-opted over time by the government. If one searches the word "marriage" in the Montana Code Annotated, one will find 182 results. These laws regarding marriage simply means that the state has made marriage a matter of legislation, not religion. The ideal solution is to get the state out of marriage altogether. Let the churches marry those whom they deem eligible, and restrict the state to its proper venue: law. If additional laws are needed regarding contracts, then pass them. But those things should not come to bear on marriage).

The Montana attorney general’s office argued throughout the case that the plaintiffs need to cite specific laws they believe are unconstitutional.

“The majority opinion recognized that orderly resolution of the plaintiff ’s claims would require consideration of specific statutes, as is the typical manner in which constitutional challenges to statues are resolved,” assistant attorney general Michael Black said in a statement.

The Montana ACLU, involved in the case from the start, said the Supreme Court decisions leaves open a path to victory for the advocates. Plaintiffs in the case expressed optimism.

“We’re encouraged by the decision because the justices said that we could pursue the protections we are seeking,” (Wow, that is optimism. They lost the case, but are so happy.) said Mary Leslie, who was unable to apply for death benefits after a partner was killed (Unfortunately, we don't know what sort of death benefits are being referred to. Life insurance names beneficiaries according to the owner's preferences, so that isn't it. Private pension systems generally also allow the owner to name whomever. Frankly, I can't think of a "death benefit" situation where an account owner cannot name his or her beneficiary of choice.). “Legal protection is essential, not just for our families, but for all same-sex couples. We won’t stop until every loving couple (Should non-loving couples not be treated fairly?) is treated fairly." (I would surmise that most of the problem is not due to the law, but to the negligence of parties involved who didn't take the time to protect their interests by implementing a contract. Or even, it is possible that they deliberately chose not to do so in order to create an issue and a subsequent lawsuit. Maybe I'm too cynical, but since we see people faking hate crimes, it wouldn't surprise me at all it some gay couple somewhere decided to "take one for the team" in order to gin up sympathy.)

Teachers carrying assault rifles - FB conversaton

FB friend R.W. posted this:

A.G.: Everyone in Israel serves in the military, so has military training with these weapons. To suggest giving our school teachers assault rifles to go with their teaching credential is unfortunately ludacris.

B.W.: I could see this if we were at war with Canada............

R.W.: First of all. I'm not sure this is an "ASSAULT Rifle" Second, there are many in the teaching profession that have fire arm training, either through Military service or law enforcement, and to say there should be NO protection for our children is ludacris, evidenced by the number of defenseless children gunned down in the past couple decades.

Me: Ludicrous, by the way. Which it's not at all. What's ludicrous is the idea that a armed, disturbed person can enter a gun-free zone with impunity and murder people, with no one to stop him.

A.G.: Of course the kids need protecting. But to even compare Israel to the US is ridiculis. ;) We need different solutions here. This photo poorly attempts to simplify a very complicated problem, which is an insult to our intelligence and turns a blind eye to an array of other critical factors.

Me: Why is the comparison ridiculous? And why do you expect a single picture to adequately express the nuances of the issue?

A.G.: Israel is a country in a constant state of war, surrounded by hostiles, with it's entire citizenry enlisted in mandatory military service. To show this photo and say "See? We should be like Israel and have all our teachers pack assault rifles!" is like showing a a photo of swiss cheese and saying "See? The Swiss don't have school shootings - it must be the cheese!". I don't expect a single picture to adequately represent the nuances of the issue - unless it posted with that intention. Otherwise, why post it. There are too many ways our culture and Israel's differ to even bother listing here. They completely eradicate any possible veracity of this photo's intended message.

Me: The picture shows someone carrying a firearm, for the purpose of... protecting school children in a potentially dangerous environment. The picture makes a correlation with our situation, which is that a teacher carrying a firearm might be able to... protect school children in a potentially dangerous environment. Mentioning swiss cheese and the Swiss is like comparing driving a car with sleeping.

So there's a plethora of unstated reasons? Could you state one or two?

A.G.: Rich - c'mon...you strike me as an intelligent fellow. I don't believe you didn't follow the swiss cheese analogy. Second, I already gave you three examples of how one can't compare Israel and the US when it comes to this issue. You can address those (incredibly significant ones) first before I call in the plethora.

Me: Your response is puzzling. You invented an irrelevant analogy, which supplied us with no insight and said nothing at all about the matter at hand. I did note your examples, but again they do not come to bear on the issue.

The choices made by a government as far as military service or the way it responds to its enemies or what its state of war are not relevant. America is constantly at war, it is surrounded by enemies, it has a standing army, navy, air force, and marines. Much of our citizenry served, and many citizens carry arms. None of this matters. The issue is not war or government, it is the fact that a disturbed individual murdered people and what things might have averted the tragedy.

Now you will note that I respond directly to your points, and I expect the same courtesy.

Let’s value life over profits - Analysis of Bruce Gourley's letter

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

---------

During this season of giving, America continues to have a problem with the greatest gift of all: “life ... abundantly” (Jesus’ mission, according to the Gospel of John). (Usually when a Leftist quotes Scripture it is to bolster their agenda. And usually it's a display of ignorance.

That's certain true of Mr. Gourley's letter. He takes a true statement of Scripture, elevates it out of context, and applies it so as to condemn others who he views as not measuring up. This is an easy way to tell if someone is accurately handling the Scriptures, if the objective is to attack one's opponents.

Let's quote the passage in full so that we get the context. John 10:7-11: 

"Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." 

Note that Jesus is making several claims here. He is the door, anyone who comes to him is saved, everyone else are thieves and robbers, and then the central claim, He came that we might have life, and have it more abundantly. 

We see from this passage that Jesus came to give life to people who are already physically alive ["I am come that they might have life..."], so the life Jesus gives, the abundant life, is the life beyond the physical. John confirms this a few verses later in verse 28: "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish..."So clearly, the greatest gift is not just a generic physical, healthy existence. 

So let's compare Mr. Gourley's version of abundant life with Jesus'. We see later in his letter that Mr. Gourley equates life with government healthcare, and contrasts this life with evil corporate profits, i.e., capitalism. But Jesus is talking about salvation (new life, i.e. born again) and living in the spiritual blessings that come from finding pasture with the Good Shepherd, not about government healthcare or economic theory.) 

Corporate America too often tells consumers that materialism is the abundant life, while paying workers as little as possible in order to increase lucrative CEO salaries, and hiding corporate profits overseas to avoid paying federal taxes. For their part, ordinary American citizens too often confuse true abundance with materialism and sail through life on the winds of selfishness. (A Leftist litany of talking points. Ordinarily I would address these accusations one by one, but when someone like Mr. Gourley simply pukes up a bunch of slogans, what's the use? I mean, really. These are tossed out unthinkingly, probably because he read them on some leftist website. They have no meaning, context, or references.

Mr. Gourley is blaming capitalism and advocating for marxism. Interestingly, in the rather long letter he never actually says what he thinks we should do or what changes need to be made. He carefully hides his agenda, alluding to this or that, but never coming out and saying what he is truly advocating. This is classic agitprop, the language of tyrants and oppressors the world over.)

Judge extends temporary block on new medical pot rules - Analysis

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes.

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

Several years ago, Montana voters approved a medical marijuana ballot measure, which led to a proliferation of MM providers. Sometime later the Feds came in and raided these providers and prosecuted them, So, the Montana legislature passed a law which rolled back parts of the ballot measure. This rollback was subsequently put to ballot, and passed by a significant margin. So the same voters who approved of MM also approved of the legislature's actions to limit it.

District Judge Reynolds had blocked the legislature's restrictions. This ruling was appealed to the state supreme court, which overruled Reynolds. Now Reynolds is forced to revise his ruling, but rather than do so, he is extending his block while he considers the arguments.

So, both the legislature and the people approved of these restrictions, and the state supreme court told this district judge he is wrong. His response? He's going to do whatever the hell he wants. 

If this isn't tyranny, I don't know what is.

The article concludes with some sob stories, which is the very strategy that was used when the issue of MM was first brought before the people. Apparently it is these sorts of emotional appeals that carry a lot of weight with Reynolds, law be damned.

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

 HELENA (AP) — A judge on Thursday extended his temporary block of restrictions on medical marijuana providers while he considers whether the state can eliminate access to the drug for some of the most seriously ill patients in the interest of curbing abuse.

District Judge James Reynolds did not immediately rule on whether to grant a preliminary injunction that would indefinitely block the state from implementing a ban on compensation for medical marijuana providers or limiting them to distributing marijuana to three people. Instead, he left in place a temporary restraining order while he considered the arguments from the two-hour hearing.

The state Supreme Court this fall overruled Reynolds in the case and said there is no constitutional right to access medical marijuana. The justices sent the case back to Reynolds, telling the judge to review the restrictions in the 2011 law by determining whether they are rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

Reynolds acknowledged that he was struggling with the high court’s order, particularly on how the state law allowing some use of medical marijuana can be reconciled with the federal ban of the Schedule I drug.

But while Reynolds did not issue a ruling, he said he believes the state’s restrictions on medical marijuana providers to be “logistically and rationally unreasonable.” Other provisions of the 2011 law that have gone into effect squeezed out other medical marijuana users except for the most ill patients, Reynolds said. The parts of the law now being challenged would require those patients to grow their own marijuana if they are unable to find a provider to do it for free, and many of them are physically unable to do.

“I think that’s irrational,” Reynolds said.

Assistant Attorney General Stuart Segrest said the state has met the Supreme Court’s requirement that it prove the law is rationally related to a state interest. It is within the state’s rights to implement the restrictions because they allow authorities to curb abuse, and the restrictions do not cut off patients’ marijuana access, he said.

Segrest added that a voter referendum last month that upheld the law takes away the argument that the Legislature acted against the will of the people by passing the law.

Montana Cannabis Industry Association James Goetz said the restrictions are irrational because they only cut off access to those who need medical marijuana the most. He said a July memo that purportedly came from U.S. Attorney Mike Cotter — but which Cotter would not confirm as his — shows that federal prosecutors don’t plan to go after smallvolume providers or users of medical marijuana.

An Associated Press request for the memo under the Freedom of Information Act has been pending for more than two months.

Goetz presented three medical marijuana users — two cancer patients and a woman with numerous illnesses including leukemia and scoliosis — who testified they would not know where to find the drug if their providers went out of business and they could not physically grow their own.

“At 65, how do I find somebody underground to do it? I don’t know what to do,” said Melva Stewart.

Two medical marijuana providers testified they would likely close down if the provisions banning compensation and limiting patients were enacted, and said it would be difficult and expensive for patients to grow their own.

School privatization reduces choice; public schools ensure innovation, local control - analysis

This opinion piece appeared in today's Bozeman Chronicle. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My commentary interspersed in bold.

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

(Before I get started, does the title of this opinion piece seem Orwellian? If there are other schools to chose from, how does that reduce choice? And how do private schools reduce innovation? And why would they have impact on local control? Let's see if these questions get answered by the authors.)

By DENISE ULBERG, ERIC FEAVER, DAVE PUYEAR, LANCE MELTON, MARK LAMBRECHT AND KIRK MILLER 

Guest columnists In recent public policy discussions regarding the use of public funds to pay for private education in Montana, there are critical facts that are lost in the details (Well, there is no such thing as "public funds." Government has no money of its own. It must take private money from private individuals before it has any money at all. So the authors believe there are critical facts missing from the debate? Let's see if there are "critical facts," or even if there are "facts" at all.).

Using public funds for private education essentially makes “private” education now “public,” (Actually, allowing taxpayers to keep their own money to spend as they see fit is not making "private" education "public". The only way this can be viewed this way is if a person's money does not belong to them, that is, all money belongs to the government.) 

only without the accountability, rights and choices made available to the public when interacting with their existing public schools. (Their perspective seems to be that private activities like private schools ought to function as an arm of government and fulfill government's objectives. But private entities are private for a reason. They have their own objectives. The fact that private schools have different objectives than public school goals is the precise reason why they exist!) Each of the following rights or choices under current law would be notably absent if public funds were used to support private schools:

1. Your choice of which trustees to vote for and elect to represent the community and oversee how the school district spends taxpayer funds (Do private schools not have boards? Of course they do, and they are invariably selected by the parents of students. If anything, the choice is better, since parents chose according to their world view).

2. Your choice of whether to support requests for funding and other voted matters required to be placed before the voters by public schools (What? Private schools are funded by tuition paid by the parents, as well as by charitable gifts and other fund raising. Parents "choose" request for funding by selecting the private school and paying the tuition.).

3. Your right to observe, participate in and challenge the deliberations and decisions of public schools through open meeting laws (The puzzlers stack up. Private schools have board meetings according to their bylaws. Their meetings are as they choose to have them. Public school boards have closed meetings regularly. What are the authors talking about?).

4. Your right to know and assess how well the schools you are supporting with your taxes are performing on various standardized measures of student performance. Private schools are exempt assessing and disclosing their performance to the public (Parents will not allow their student to attend any school for very long if they think their child is not being adequately educated. Most certainly these parents know how their schools are performing! As far as the public's right to know, it doesn't exist when it comes to what private individuals and organizations are doing. The public has no right to know what takes place at a private school. If they want to find out, well, they probably know how a phone works. I'm quite sure that most private schools would be happy to answer their questions).

5. Your right to enroll your child in a school. Unlike public schools, which are required to serve all resident school-aged children, private schools have the right to deny admission for a variety of reasons that would be unlawful if used as a basis for denial of admission in a public school (Enrolling your child in a private school is a mutually voluntary agreement, with an exchange of value. The parents pay the school, and the school educates their children. It is quite proper that there is no right to enroll, because a private organization serves its own interests. 

The authors seem to be complaining that the obligations and burdens public schools labor under as imposed by a myriad of laws and regulations ought to be imposed on the private sector as well; that is, because it's bad for them, it ought to be bad for private schools too.

However, private entities are not government entities. They do not serve anyone else's purposes but their own. They do not advance the societal goals of government. They have no obligation to kowtow to the latest pop culture initiative. That's exactly why parents choose them.).

Innovation and an ever-expanding range of options and choices within our public schools:

Montana’s public schools have innovated throughout the state to meet the needs of children in each community (This is irrelevant. What public schools do or not do does not come to bear on a parent choosing a private school. And on what basis do the authors claim that public schools are unique in this regard? These "innovations," are they automatically beneficial? I remember my public school experience at a progressive public high school. Innovative? Sure. Effective? No. 

A fine-sounding yet empty claim. In what way do they innovate? How specifically are these innovations different or better than private schools? Does the result of these innovations actually meet the needs of children in each community? How? And why should this override a parent's decision to put them in a private school?).

Montana’s school districts are eager to engage their communities in meaningful and thoughtful discussions regarding how to best serve Montana’s school-aged population (Good for them. Again, irrelevant, because parents choose privates schools according to what they value, not what the authors value.

And just try to disagree with public schools staff. Heaven help you if you contest an inappropriate book or want to keep your child out of questionable classroom activities. You'll find out very quickly how they value discussion.

If you do manage to engage a discussion, you'll likely experience a variation of the Delphi Technique, which is a way of conducting meetings that manipulate decision-making, discourage dissent, shame dissenters, and achieve pre-determined outcomes while simultaneously making it seem like the decision was reached by consensus. You can be sure that if you showed up at a public school board meeting that your dissent would not be tolerated.).

These discussions have resulted in choices that flourish throughout the state. (How can choices flourish? Does this mean as a result of choices, certain things are flourishing? Or that there are many choices now? Choices don't flourish.)

Open enrollment with no tuition for out-of-district students in a large majority of our public schools; four-day school week programming; online learning options available through the Montana Digital Academy; courses taken for concurrent high school and college credit; Montessori schools; International Baccalaureate programs; parttime enrollment for home school students; and even religious instruction release time are just a few of the innovations available in Montana’s public schools (Isn't amazing what can be done with oodles of taxpayer money? And did you notice the "release time" for religious instruction? This "innovation" has been around for decades, but fell out of favor for a while because of "church-state" issues. So apparently it is innovative to eliminate inflexibilities. In other words, "we were not doing this well, so we fixed it, and then we call it innovation.").

The bedrock principles that promote innovation and choice in Montana’s public schools include:

1. Collaboration with parents and taxpayers (This "collaboration" yields unnamed benefits.).

2. Accountability to voters through their rights to elect trustees; approve or disapprove discretionary levies; and demand transparency through access to information regarding school performance and expenditures (Making the same points again, as if private schools do not do these things).

3. The engagement of classroom teachers and other educators as the sources of both ideas for innovation and delivery of instruction, (Sounds like the authors are starting to scrape bottom in search of bullet points.) and

4. The assurance that all such offerings are provided on a nondiscriminatory basis in pursuit of the full development of the educational potential of each student as required under the Montana Constitution. (Which is one of the many reasons parents choose private schools, I'm sure.)

With all of the choices available within our accountable statewide system of public schools, why would we sacrifice any, much less all of the benefits for children above by using public funds to pay for private education in any form that lacks the accountability, transparency and voter control present in our public schools? The short answer is that we should not accept anything less and should in fact be pursuing an increased presence of the voice and role that the public currently enjoys in influencing the decisions of our public schools as they work to serve the children of this state.

Denise Ulberg is executive director of the Montana Association of School Business Officials; Eric Feaver is MEA-MFT president; Dave Puyear is executive director of Montana Rural Education Association; Lance Melton is executive director of Montana School Boards Association; Mark Lambrecht is executive director of the Montana Quality Education Coalition; and Kirk Miller is executive director of the School Administrators of Montana.

(After reading their point-by-point elucidation of the superior nature of public schools, are you left feeling like this is pretty thin stuff? It seems like the best they can say is that "private schools aren't like us," yet these grand differences are overblown, being primarily in terminology and presentation rather than substance. Private schools are not public entities seems to be their chief complaint, yet it is very thing that prompts parents to choose private schools. 

And given the manifold flaws of government-run enterprises, it's a wonder there are any students at all attending them. Granted, Montana fares better than a lot of places, but remember that the authors are supporting public schools as a concept, not necessarily Montana schools specifically.)   

Pursuing equality is the same as seeking liberty - letter -my analysis

A letter by Patrick Hessman appeared in today's Bozeman Chronicle. You will find my commentary interspersed in bold in Mr. Hessman's letter. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes.
-----------------

First, Mr. Levitt's letter:

The United States of America was designed to be different from all other nations. It accepted that an individual’s fate was to be determined, not by class distinction and hereditary status, but, by one’s own freely chosen pursuit of ambition.

This fostered our “exceptionalism.”

In all other nations, the rights enjoyed by their citizens were conferred by human agencies: kings and princes and parliaments. They were privileges that could be revoked by the same human agencies. In America, the citizen’s rights were declared to have come from God and to be “inalienable” – immune to legitimate revocation. Thus was fashioned a country in which more liberty and prosperity is more widely shared than among other people in history.

Politicians, not concerned about liberty, pursue class warfare policies seeking economic equality, rather than opportunity, reflected in the phrase “spread the wealth.”

They ignore the observations by a socialist that those nations which put liberty ahead of equality have ended up doing better by equality.

Within America today a split has developed, with one side in favor of liberty and the other in favor of redistribution.

Those seeking redistribution assume that the financial gap between citizen groups self-evidently amounts to a violation of social justice, which rules out the role played by talent, character, ambition, initiative, risk, work and spirit in producing unequal outcomes.

This wiping away of the causes of American exceptionalism, by employing class warfare, is turning this country into a facsimile of social-democratic regimes of Western Europe. America can continue to be “exceptional” only if we the people demand our God given rights, not privileges to be parceled out by politicians, and if we understand that, while we are all created equal, we should remain free to pursue our own fate, even though economic results are unequal.

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

Now Mr. Hessman's reply:

This letter is a response to Jack R. Levitt’s Dec. 6 letter regarding his thoughts on American exceptionalism. One of his main points was that any attempts at social justice violate the idea that our nation was founded on the ideas of equality of all people (Take a moment and read Mr. Levitt's letter again. This is not what he said. Mr. Levitt said that spreading the wealth violates liberty.) 

and that an insidious  group of Americans seek to eliminate this principle (Insidious is not a word used by Mr. Levitt. In fact, he doesn't even imply that there is some sort of stealth movement. He does specifically name politicians, who implement policy in government. Those laws are published and are not hidden at all. 

In fact, it seems that these kinds of people have been emboldened to the point where they freely admit their objectives. Insidious is a word that conveys a conspiracy, which of course pushes Mr. Levitt into kook-land, according to people like Mr. Hessman).

I am one of the people whom he accuses of putting equality before liberty, but the point he misses is that seeking equality is seeking liberty for all. To abandon social justice would be an abandoning the idea of freedom. To give free reign to those who hold wealth only results in class division being further increased. (This is a standard line of thinking for the Left, the envy of the rich. This dividing people into classes is a marxist concept. Supposedly it is wealth disparity between classes that needs to be remedied by the uprising of the proletariat against the bourgeois. 

This concept is held dear by the Left, even though it has been rendered obsolete by the success of western society for all classes. Western society is predicated on the idea of individualism, property rights and self sufficiency, and this has yielded unprecedented prosperity and opportunity. The American ideal celebrated by Mr. Levitt has rendered marxist arguments moot. 

But they persist, clinging to an archaic framework, albeit in a modified form. Traditional marxists would identify the wealthy factory owner, aided by a government consisting of a privileged class, as the oppressor which needs to be overthrown, violently if needed. 

However, rather than overthrow the wealthy power structure, modern day quasi-marxists have embraced the government power structure as a means of change, and now use it to coerce people to part with their wealth via taxation. Now they can achieve their vision simply by passing laws that take money from one person and gives it to another person who did not earn it. 

This vision of "justice" is what Mr. Levitt objects to.)   

Conservatives argue government should get out of the way to allow for equal opportunity, but the idea of equal opportunity is a complete sham in the corporate-driven world. (Here's confirmation of my previous paragraph. Mr. Hessman identifies his bogeyman and claims that corporatism is the reason there is poverty. So, since equal opportunity is a sham, the government, which happily embraces corporate cronyism by the way, should intervene) 

Students from poor families being unable to continue their education because of insane college costs (It sometimes surprises me what bubbles to the surface when quasi-marxists rant. Mr. Hessman equates high tuition costs with lack of liberty, but few institutions of higher learning are run by corporations. Most are government-run!) 

while trust fund babies sail through expensive educations is not liberty (Do you see? People who have money are at an advantage, and that is not liberty. Mr. Hessman seems to think that the RESULT of liberty is proof of lack of liberty! 

But we know that if the results are always equal, no matter the intelligence, resources, effort, creativity, and initiative invloved, then definitionally merit becomes irrelevant, or even, undesirable  So, in this odd scenario, people should get what they don't deserve, while others don't get what they do deserve. This is not liberty, it is tyranny.).

A family facing financial ruin because they had the poor judgment to get sick is not liberty (This is a not-too-clever way of saying that healthcare equals fairness. One might take that further and suggest that everyone not eating steak is unfair, people who are forced to drive an old car is not fair, not being able to afford box seats at the football game is not fair, and not being able to breathe clean air is not fair. Leftists, like little kids, are obsessed with fairness. 

However, fairness is a base concept, a fiction in real life. Nothing is fair, and frankly, nothing can be made fair. The complete lack of fairness ought to be self-evident. A storm destroys one home while leaving another untouched. A murderer kills one person, but leaves another alone. Someone eats a bad clam and dies from food poisoning, while another eats a bad clam and doesn't even get sick. 

Fairness is a fairy tale, it's what junior-high level intellects want.).

Liberty can only exist when people are not only free to choose their own path in life, but able to pursue their dreams. (This is quite true. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.)

This ability becomes more and more diminished as social programs are cut in a heat of tax-cutting fervor (Now we have Mr. Hessman equating social programs with liberty. Aside from the fact that they have not been diminished at all, we need to note that social programs have not succeeded. Poverty is still hovering at 12-14%, and has for decades. Senior citizens still have to choose between dog food and medicine, despite Social Security, Medicare, and all sorts of other senior benefits. 

Even corporate welfare has not prevented Chevrolet, Chrysler, Solyndra, and a host of other crony corporations from going bankrupt. If anything, the evidence is overwhelming that fairness has failed. The redistributionist model is an unmitigated disaster).

If America does indeed wish to remain exceptional, pursuing equality is key. Neither liberty nor equality can exist while distant plutocrats build their empires on the backs of the rest of the population (Plutocracy is defined as government by the wealthy. The irony of this is that government, by growing huge and intervening in society at every level, has precipitated the very situation bemoaned by Mr. Hessman. Government is obscenely powerful, spending untold trillions on every conceivable fairness program. Government controls huge sums of money, which of course is directed by government officials. And people are corruptible. We see it every day. Bribery, influence-buying, cronyism of every kind, are all commonplace. 

People like Mr. Hessman want government spreading money around, they want redistribution, they want high taxes on the wealthy. And then they are surprised  when interested parties try to influence where that money goes. Quasi-marxists are responsible for the very problems they decry! 

If liberty was truly the goal, then we would deprive government of power. If they didn't have the ability to control huge sums of money, then their inevitable corruption would not manifest, because they could do anything with their corruption. Take the money away, and corruption is contained.).

Feeling lucky: Bozeman students learn value of human rights - By GAIL SCHONTZLER

This article appeared in the Bozeman Chronicle. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes.

My comments in bold.

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

American kids take it for granted they can go to school and get an education, but a Pakistani girl was shot in the head for speaking out in favor of a girl’s right to an education, Bozeman students learned Monday during a Human Rights Day Celebration.

The shooting of 15-yearold Malala Yousafzai, who was nearly killed by terrorists two months ago, is just one example of human rights under attack, (I was waiting to see how long it took for the first howler. With articles like these, you can be assured that some misrepresentation, misunderstanding, or outright lie will crop up somewhere. 

I will not assume malicious intent, but certainly our children are being subject to maleducation. So what's wrong with the above statement? It should be quite easy to see. The girl was shot by terrorists, not by police or military. Therefore, she was assaulted. The crime is attempted murder. The terrorists didn't violate her rights, they tried to kill her. Government violates rights, people commit crimes) 

64 years after the United Nations ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on Dec. 10, 1948. (Can you imagine? These terrorists ignored the United Nations! Didn't they know that what they did was outlawed by the UN 64 years ago? By simple fact of ratification, the problem was supposed to be solved, right?) 

Six speakers were invited Monday to talk on the anniversary to Chief Joseph Middle School students. Emma Bowen, 13, said she came away from the event feeling “how lucky we are.” (Although we don't know why this youngster feels lucky, at least she understands that we live in a country that is established on the principles of liberty and rights.)

Fellow eighth-grader Malia Bertelsen said she was surprised that it wasn’t until after the murder of millions of people in World War II – including Jews, homosexuals, disabled people and gypsies (I wonder how much emphasis the guest speaker put on these small numbers of ancillary persecutions. Not that they aren't worthy of note - any horror perpetrated against people is lamentable - but frequently the objective is to enable people to obtain "me too" status, blowing up their importance out of perspective. 

ays, for example,  while part of the persecution, amounted to a very small proportion: "The actual number of victims is not known. Estimates range from about 7000 to tens of thousands." I think it is safe to assume that tens of thousands represents an exaggeration. But even assuming that, say, 30,000 gays were killed, that amounts to only .5% of the 6 million Jews killed)  

— that a document listing worldwide human rights was ratified. “That’s crazy,” she said (Yeah, crazy. Um, they're TERRORISTS. A UN treaty probably doesn't mean too much to them. Kids are always quick to call out violations of the rules. Immature minds are consumed with fairness. Just like liberals, it seems). 

Holly Fretwell, an adjunct faculty member in economics at Montana State University and research fellow at PERC, the Property and Environmental Research Center, talked about the Pakistani girl’s story and the right to liberty and self determination.

“The freedom to do what you want to do without hurting somebody else, is the ultimate human right,” Fretwell said. (This may be the first time these kids have ever heard the conservative/libertarian perspective on this. Kudos to the school for including someone of this perspective)

Fretwell also talked about the importance of property rights, and the danger to the clean water, fisheries and the environment when there are no property rights. “If nobody owns it, who’s going to take care of it?” she asked. (Private property rights are anathema to the left. I hope that Ms. Fretwell was allowed to speak at length about this. Especially to balance the predominately leftward tilt of the rest of the speakers)

Billy Smith, an MSU history professor, talked about slaves who tried to escape in early America because they had no human rights (I'm relying on the the author of the article to accurately relate what was said. If Mr. Smith said this, he's wrong. Human rights are unalienable. They cannot be taken away or bestowed. They can only be violated or made safe, as far as governments go. The slaves had rights, but those rights were being violated).

“All men are created equal,” written by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, is “one of the most important phrases in American history and world history,” Smith said.

But in Jefferson’s day, many didn’t believe the idea applied to slaves, or to women, Smith said (This appears to be a backhanded attempt to impugn the founders. However, it was the founders who created and signed the Declaration and Constitution. It was the founders who fought for way to move the country to liberty. 

Of course some people opposed this. Apparently Mr. Smith wants to apply contemporary sensibilities to a fledgling nation as if by our standards they were evil men).

He displayed a 1769 newspaper ad Jefferson published offering a reward for the return of his escaped mulatto slave Sandy.

If you had no rights, Smith asked students, what would you do? Some slaves started to run away after Northern states banned slavery. Harriet Tubman, an escaped slave, was a “conductor” on the Underground Railroad and helped about 250 slaves escape to the North. Frederick Douglass, an escaped slave, advocated abolition to Abraham Lincoln.

Slavery still happens today around the world and even sometimes in the United States in the “underground” economy, Smith said.

The speakers were introduced by Bozeman disc jockey Missy O’Malley, who told students that human rights “hit home with me, personally.” Without freedom of speech and expression, O’Malley said, she wouldn’t have a job, and everyone would have to wear the same clothes.

“We are very lucky,” she said.

The event was sponsored by CJMS’s Million Ways Club and organized by Spanish teacher Jan Krieger and parent Aida Murga. Student Finn Vaughan Kraska, 14, said the Million Ways Club volunteers at the food bank and takes on other projects. “It’s fun to make a difference,” he said.

At Irving School, the Declaration of the Rights of the Child was read (You can read it here. This declaration consists mostly of feel-good pablum. The people who create these resolutions are largely leftists, and want to mold the world into their image of utopia. They are outraged when their precious dictates are violated by tyrants, dictators, and terrorists, as if the sheer passage of the resolution solves the problem. 

But can you imagine there being a right to recreation? How would this play out? Who would pay for it? It's this kind of stuff that reminds me of the worldview of the Left, where everyone lives in idyllic surroundings with unicorns and rainbows. They make no allowance for the fundamental ugliness of human nature, which no amount of proclamations will change.)

according to parent volunteer Vickie Edelman. Bonnie Satchatello-Sawyer, director of the nonprofit Hopa Mountain (Here's their website),

spoke to students, who made drawings for a large paper quilt to illustrate rights (It  appears that Hopa Mountain is intent on creating little activists and community organizers. It's all pretty vague, filled with nice-sounding goals like getting involved, changing your community, and helping at-risk people. Hopa Mountain also has a blog, which reveals a bit more of the leftist tilt of this organization.).

The article does not tell us what every speaker presented, but the guest list seems quite decidedly leftward in orientation. The reporter seems to be uninterested in the details, instead preferring to communicate platitudes and generalities. One might expect the reporter to ask what this Hopa Mountain thing is all about, or the Million Ways Club, or even FREE. These groups have access to our schools, so what do they stand for? What are they trying to accomplish? Who is behind them?

One gets the distinct impression that these poor little children are simply being indoctrinated. 

US was built without federal income taxes - FB conversation

D.G.: So not only have there always been taxes other than income taxes, but state income taxes long predate Federal ones. cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_income_tax#History. So even if you interpret "kept all of their earnings" to refer only to income tax, the first sentence is still false.

Me: I'm sorry, I really don't get your point.

D.G.: The picture says: "Up until 1913, Americans kept all of their earnings", clearly referring to the 16th Amendment, which allowed for a Federal Income Tax. Since there were state income taxes long before 1913, that statement is false. That's my only point.

Me: There is a large difference between what the feds do and what the states do. The whole of conservative thought has to do with the enumerated powers granted to the federal government by the constitution, since all other powers are left to the states or to the people. Therefore, opposition to the 16th amendment is considered and logical.

D.G.: Didn't say it 's not. :) Just said that the statement is false.

Me: In the context of limited federal powers, it's true.

D.G.: It doesn't say anything about the Federal Government. It just says "all of their earnings."

Me: Again, context. A list of all the things the federal govt is doing follows that sentence. None of them needed an income tax before. This is hardly debatable, so what is it that you're trying to establish?

D.G.: I'm trying to establish that this picture is demagogic and misleading. :)

Me: Make your case.

Me: This post is all about what the nation did before the federal income tax. What the states did is not relevant.

D.G.: So Rich, I can't read your mind. And if I'm taking this thread too far away from what you wanted to discuss, I apologize and I'll depart the thread.

What I can read is the picture you posted. It says that "schools, colleges, roads, vast railroads, streets, subways, the Army, the Navy and the Marine Corps" were built without taking money from Americans' earnings.

In the period mentioned, schools, colleges, roads, streets, and subways were all paid for by the states. (To a large extent they still are, but I don't know the proportions off-hand.) If you want to argue that the full responsibility for those things should revert to the states, then fine. But you can't claim that these things were built without taking from Americans' earnings.

S.W.: Well, to start with, in 1913 our army ranked something like 15th in the world...we didn't have enough trained troops for Cuba and had to take volunteers and our navy, while impressive to the common people, was outdated and of mixed technology, far behind European models...not entirely our fault, as all navies had mixed fleets... but when they finally arrived in England four years later they had a great rate of fire but less than 10% accuracy. Brass pins on watertight doors were polished to the point they did not seal anymore. Officers threw training ammo overboard to keep from blistering the paint. Back home, working conditions were abysmal and the open pollution was incredible. Robber barons were raping the west for natural resources and rural poverty was rampant. Not taking sides here, but it's too easy to smooth over history like cheap frosting : )

Me: *Sigh* I give up.

The UN disability treaty - FB conversation

F. B. friend B.R. posted this:

 Thoughts on the UN disability treaty vote, Rich?

Me: I hadn't heard about it, had to look it up. Looks like it's modeled after our own ADA.

I have two thoughts. First, a treaty is binding: Constitution, Article VI, section 2: "...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land..." This means if we happen to modify or repeal ADA, we are still bound by the provisions of the treaty. Second, a treaty is defined as "a formal agreement between two or more states, as in reference to terms of peace or trade." Is the UN a country?

What are you thinking about it?

B.R.: I'm wondering what the benefit of blocking it is. I don't buy that it's a threat to American sovereignty. I don't buy that Rick Santorum thinks the UN is going to invade his home to make decisions about his children. And I don't think the GOP would walk into such obviously bad PR without some kind of motive. So I guess I'm wondering what that motive is.

Me: That's the thing about this kind of stuff. Whenever the GOP opposes something, it's always represented as extreme, damaging to the poor and elderly, hateful, greedy, etc. Once enough people have accepted the faulty notion that the government is the fount of all things compassionate, the GOP has lost the argument. And that's why they lost the election.

Since the treaty duplicates the ADA, what would be the point of binding us to treaty when our law already covers it?

B.R.: Well, the Democrats rarely take a stand to oppose bills that do damage to the poor and elderly - unless I'm mistaken.

I think the point of the treaty is to encourage other countries to follow our lead, not just for their own disabled citizens, but for our disabled citizens when traveling or on business abroad. I'm used to the GOP's attitude that America is the example of greatness, and that other countries should follow our examples instead of the other way around. So this vote seems like a turnaround from that ideology.

Me: According to Politico, the treaty is "...already signed by 155 nations and ratified by 126 countries...", so I doubt the reason is to be an example.

As far as the Democrats, notice the sweet deal they have. All they have to do is rush in with the government wallet and proclaim how compassionate they are. Issues of affordability, constitutionality, waste, fraud, and abuse are ignored because they require higher cognitive consideration than the emotional context of tossing around govt money.

B.R.: The treaty is modeled after ADA, so it already IS an example, but by ratifying it ourselves, we put our stamp on it. It's still the same purpose as I suggested.

What are the extra costs involved in this treaty?

Me: Then the symbolism is enough reason, in your opinion?

B.R.: No, I'm honestly asking, what are the costs of voting to approve the treaty? What are we spending, risking, losing?

Me: Treaties, historically, have been between nations that intend to cooperate for mutual advantage, or for things like the cessation of hostilities. This treaty, however, is not with a nation, it does not negotiate an issue to establish the rights of parties, it does not deal with war, economic disputes, trade issues, or anything like that. This is a political statement, a tool to bludgeon uncooperative nations, a statement that does absolutely nothing to improve the plight of the disabled. And since we already do what the treaty wants, not only is there no substance, there is no reason.

B.R.: You're correct about everything but this part: "a statement that does absolutely nothing to improve the plight of the disabled". This treaty would improve the likelihood that disabled Americans - including veterans - would have the ease and consideration in their international travels and business that they do in America. I'm not asking you to fight for the cause of this treaty, I simply want to know why it deserved to be voted down. This really seems like a no-brainer, an easy thing we could all agree on. If we can find reasons to vote this down, can't we find reasons to vote anything down?

Me: I sincerely doubt that this would do a single thing to improve anything regarding international travel for the disabled. I doubt that you can find a single UN treaty or resolution that quantifiably improved anyone's life.

I haven't said that it deserved to be voted down. But I can't find any reason at all that it should be passed.

B.R.: Bummer.
------------------
And then this follow up conversation:

The Fiscal Cliff - FB conversation

FB friend L.B. posted this:

Did you ever hear of an abused woman getting the crap beat out of her and then thanking her husband for doing it? I think thats a good description of us, "The useful idiots." The so called "Fiscal cliff is a man made crisis" manufactured by the Obama team to play us for idiots, and him coming out of it like a savior. If you go back a little over a year ago, Obama created the congressional super committee to solve the fiscal cliff of that time. The incentive put in place to encourage them to come up with a solution is what we are now calling the "fiscal cliff". Obama is no idiot and he knows that a tax increase on the rich is only a drop in the bucket of what he wants, his real agenda is to increase taxes on everybody. This way he gets to preside over one of the biggest tax increases in history and look like a hero doing it. Remember this, "Crisis, reaction, solution." That is the formula they used to create this so called "fiscal cliff". So what happens if we go over it; you get the shaft and our military is severely weakened.

Me: The republicans are wholly complicit in this mess. They think that going over the cliff at 50 mph is better than going over it at 90 mph like the dems want to do . We're still gonna crash...

D.R.: His real agenda is to raise the dept ceiling limit by 1.7 trillion dollars so they can spend more money we dont have.....

M.S.: You cannot have two multi-trillion dollar wars and then refuse to raise taxes. Tell me who is truly "asleep..." And as for the debt ceiling, how much more expensive is debt now that the child-like GOP caused our credit rating to fall? It goes like this: if you have bills to pay, you pay those bills, and you pay them on time. You do not hold off on paying the mortgage to teach your family a lesson. What happened with the debt ceiling is beyond absurd and reckless.

Me: Tax increases have failed to reduce the debt every time they've been tried. Reducing spending has rarely, if ever, been tried. 40% of government spending is borrowed money. Clearly paying the mortgage is not a priority in D.C..

J.L.: I'd rather fall of the fiscal cliff then let Rich Bullies run America! Just because you're rich doesn't give you the right to pay a smaller percentage in taxes then me! No More Breaks Richie Rich! You are not entitled!!!!!- ( one of my old posts, thought it fit as another view point. Not calling any of you rich, because I don't know your finances personally.)

Me: Unfortunately, myths get perpetuated and eventually become "fact." Rarely does anyone go to the source to check these myths. The rich do not pay a smaller income tax rate. Just that simple.

And, it's not an either/or situation. It's not a choice between the fiscal cliff and the rich running America. In fact, we do not have this choice. We picked our idiot leaders and they make the choice, which will lead us over the cliff either way.

M.S.: Rich: A mortgage is "borrowed money" by definition. Debt in and of itself is not evil. It just needs to be kept down to a sustainable level. Raising the top rates AND capping exemptions to some some degree simply must be part of the equation. It is also a myth that entrepreneurs avoid making money because of taxes.
I think everyone agrees that spending and waste need to be reduced. Of course there is disagreement on where exactly that tightening should happen.
As far as our "idiot leaders" go... I cannot imagine the USA would be better off if you, Lockley, or Glenn were in charge. Just saying.

Me: ? The US does not have a "mortgage." A mortgage has real property that secures it, it has an amortation schedule which is followed exactly, and the debt is gradually retired over the term of the loan. The US debt is nothing at all like a mortgage.

I made no assertion about entrepreneurs.

Perhaps you could confine your remarks to the topic at hand. Your snarky insults have no place here.

Lincoln the movie and conservatism -FB discussion

I posted this:

I saw "Lincoln" the other night, and the more I think about it, the less I like it. On one hand it accurately represented the political situation, where Democrats were uniformly opposed to freeing the slaves, while the newly formed Republican party was specifically created as abolitionists.

However, Lincoln was depicted as wondering if he had the constitutional power to do what he was doing, and deciding it didn't matter because the cause was just. The character played by Tommy Lee Jones behaved simlilarly, making choices for the sake of expediency. I don't know if these things were historically accurate depictions, but it seems to me that in real life we want politicians who will follow the law, even if they disagree with them.

Oh, and there were no car crashes or big explosions.

B.R.: Non-rhetorical question: which presidents do you admire for making significant progress on the nation's problems, without ever overstepping their constitutional authority?

Me: I sincerely doubt that there has been a president who has not overstepped his constitutional authority in some way. One of my favorite presidents is probably Calvin Coolidge.

B.R.: Why?

J.L.: Abraham Lincoln's question concerning constitutionality was valid. And thus the movie's portrayal was accurate. From a constitutional standpoint President Lincoln did not have the authority to free the slaves through his emancipation decree. But of course the North wasn't going to call that into question. He did however understand that once the south was brought back into the fold he would have the fight of his life on his hands. That is why in the movie they show President Lincoln almost selling his soul to get the legislation that becomes the 13 amendment ratified in both houses. He knew the war was only days away from being over. The Emancipation Proclamation was wartime tactic in reality and little more. And President Lincoln knew it...

Me: Coolidge cut taxes and revenue exploded. He was the first president that didn't appoint KKK members to his cabinet, which essentially ended the political power of the KKK. He proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that conservative political and economic ideas work. He wan't a showboater or self-promoter. He knew the limits under which exercised his authority. One of the best presidents, and one of the most underrated.

J.L.: You are correct. And in this discussion lies one of my biggest pet peeves. In 1963 the patriarch of the democratic party John Fitzgerald Kennedy started the ball rolling on what would become the Revenue Act of 1964. It was a top down, across the board tax cut. For the express purpose of easing a recession. Otherwise referred to as STIMULUS!!! Have the mathematical properties of addition and subtraction somehow changed since then? No. The democrat leadership and ideology has changed. In my opinion Tip O'Neill would have nothing to do with this current band of fools. Even Bill Clinton wasn't this destructive. I remember in 2008 during the democratic primaries praying for Barack Obama. Just knowing in my heart he would be the lesser of two evils. Other than this last election I can say I have never been so wrong. I firmly believe if people actually turn over in their graves when disgusted or upset, JFK must feel like a pig on a rotisserie...

B.R.: So what's the solution here? Boost the economy through tax cuts?

J.L.: Rich, some friend you are getting me this riled up in the middle of the day...!!

Me:  Jeff, Jeff, Jeff. Calm down, grab an adult beverage. You have to remember that a lot of people weren't around when JFK was president, and hardly anyone was when Coolidge was. Some things are intentionally forgotten, others are misconstrued, and still others are imputed where they didn't exist. That's the nature of political debate these days.

J.L.: Just for the record JFK preceded me by almost ten years. Just wanted that clear and in the official record!!

Me: B.R., I think the issue here for conservatives is the metaphysical certainty that government is too big, too intrusive, and too powerful. Tinkering with the tax code and deeming the results as cuts, targeted tax increases, or tax relief (or whatever fine-sounding moniker is in vogue) is good for little else than political sound bites.

Most of us on the right, as well as some on the left) recognize that fundamental restructuring of government is needed, including wholesale changes in the tax code, as well as the underlying philosophies that have gotten us into this mess. Unfortunately, that's a pipe dream. I am convinced that not only will we have to go over the fiscal cliff, we will ultimately end up in a Thelma and Louise. It require this kind of financial devastation to finally shake people of the notion that government can solve social problems.

The Social Security Trust Fund - FB conversation

FB friend D.G. posted this:

I've generally dismissed the Social Security trust fund as a meaningless accounting identity. Kevin Drum makes a great point: it's not a store of value, it's a distributional contract. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/11/no-social-security-trust-fund-isnt-fiction

Me: True it is fund that facilitates wealth redistribution, but most of the left still represents the trust fund as contain real cash assets. Example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/as-social-security-turns_b_1776451.html

Since the trust fund contains bonds which have to be paid back, it is a liability, not an asset.

B.C.: I gotta say I'm grateful for this trust fund, as I am on Social Security Disability and Medicare due to fibromyalgia.

D.G.: Rich, this may be just a difference of semantics, but I wouldn't say that trust fund is a liability or an asset. The bonds are both a liability and an asset; the two sides cancel each other out. The real liability is the promises that we've made to citizens; i.e. expected future Social Security benefits.

Me: Astute analysis. I would say, though, that although a typical government bond has value, there are two things worth mentioning here. One is that a bond's value comes from the issuing organization's ability to repay the bond. The second is more important: These particular bonds are unique in that only the trust fund can buy them. They are not a marketable instrument, which means they really have no true value.

Ultimately, we are talking about an accounting device by which the government can convert the cash assets of the trust fund into the general fund. It spends that money immediately, while offering only a pile of IOUs to the trust fund. So you are correct. The liability is what will be paid to future recipients, the source of which is supposed to be the trust fund. However, that liability will be paid by the taxpayer, which has already paid once before via the payroll tax.

Me: By the way, once again I must say I appreciate discussing things with you. You are clearly a person who thinks about things.

D.G.: Thank you! Let me play with these concepts a little more and see what you think.

Let's say I choose to save for retirement. I do so by setting money aside, and investing it. Fundamentally, I am taking my share of societal resources, and deciding that instead of consuming those resources, I am going to use them to make the economy grow. If I'm wise or lucky, I then receive back a portion of the increased resources I helped grow in our economy.

Now let's say the government wants to make sure that people save for retirement. There are three major ways it can do that:

1. Incentivize or mandate people to invest in private accounts. We currently incentivize 401(k)s and IRAs.

2. Pool resources, and invest them directly. This is called a Sovereign Wealth Fund. Generally the countries that have those funds are small countries that are unable to impact the world economy. My understanding is that the consensus among economists is that having such a fund in the US would be a bad idea.

3. Shift taxes in a way that promotes economic growth. This is what the Social Security Commission chose to do in the early 80's. By raising the payroll tax and putting the surplus in the general fund, they allowed for the reduction of income and capital gains taxes; in other words, they shifted resources away from consumption and towards investment.

In the case of personal investment, when I retire, I need to start drawing down my investments. Similarly, as we age as a country, we need to recover returns from our investment. We do that by reversing the investment process: we use money from income and capital gains taxes to supplement the payroll tax.

If Greenspan et al were right, the extra economic growth we had over the last few decades means our economy is now large enough that we can afford the cost of the Boomers' retirements. If that's not true, then we're in the same position as someone who invested their 401(k) in Pets.com.

Me: A couple of corrections: You are not taking a share of societal resources, you are taking a share of your own resources. And you are not using them to make the economy grow, you are using them to make your own portfolio grow. If you are wise or lucky, then your resources grow to your benefit.

There are investments that do not benefit the economy. That's how Soros made his money, by betting against the economy.

Something else before I analyze rest of your post. Government incentives to saving are on the chopping block: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/11/26/401k-groups-try-to-block-tax-law-changes/

Me: 1) I don't think government should incentivize saving. Or buying a house. Or getting married. Or saving energy. Or lowering caloric input. Or giving to church. I don't like the idea the government's preferences ought to be mine.

2) This is similar to the proposals to allow SS money to be invested, that is, "privatization." I think it would be better if we didn't have to give it to government to begin with. But the problem with privatization is that the government would have to acknowedge the reality of the assets it holds on behalf of the people. Right now, SS benefits are not a matter of rights.

3) I'm in favor of shifing taxes in order to encourage economic growth. But I am not in favor of this continual tinkering with the tax code. It creates uncertainty in the economy, and it's not good for any of us if a business owner can't plan for the future because of uncertainty about how the next legislative whim will affect him.

I'm not sure if Greenspan was right. I don't see any way possible that we can afford the boomers.

Congress looks at doing away with the $1 bill - analysis

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

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

By KEVIN FREKING

Associated Press WASHINGTON — American consumers have shown about as much appetite for the $1 coin as kids do their spinach. They may not know what’s best for them either. (Yeah, we don't know what's best for us. Thank Gawd we have such smart people in government who can tell us what we need and keep us from doing something stupid) Congressional auditors say doing away with dollar bills entirely and replacing them with dollar coins could save taxpayers some $4.4 billion over the next 30 years. (Uh, sure. Let's do the math. That's $14.7 million per year of PROMISED savings in a budget of $2.8 trillion. $14.7 million dollars runs the government for about 4 minutes. This is what the media is reduced to talking about for budget savings when we've had 4 straight years of deficits exceeding $1 trillion, a national debt of $17 trillion, and unfunded liabilities estimated at $106 trillion. But by all means, let's try yet again to convince Americans to use a coin they have shown they don't like.)
Vending machine operators have long championed the use of $1 coins because they don’t jam the machines, cutting down on repair costs and lost sales. (I'm sure the decision to make a move to $1 coins has to consider the desires of vending machine operators, hmm?) But most people don’t seem to like carrying them. In the past five years, the U.S. Mint has produced 2.4 billion Presidential $1 coins (Wow, 2.4 billion 1 dollar coins? And thy're just sitting around? This is certainly a good reason to mint yet another dollar coin, given such a successful track record). Most are stored by the Federal Reserve, and production was suspended about a year. The ago latest projection from the Government Accountability Office on the potential savings from switching to dollar coins entirely comes as lawmakers begin exploring new ways for the government to save money by changing the money itself (So lawmakers are just beginning to look for ways to save money? And this is the best they could come up with? Meanwhile the country goes down the tubes as it reels under the weight of financial mismanagement unprecedented in history).

The Mint is preparing a report for Congress showing how changes in the metal content of coins could save money. The last time the government made major metallurgical changes in U.S. coins was nearly 50 years ago when Congress directed the Mint to remove silver from dimes and quarters and to reduce its content in half dollar coins. Now, Congress is looking at new changes in response to rising prices for copper and nickel. (It used to be that coins had intrinsic value because of their precious metal content. Now they are like paper money, in that their value is represented only by what is printed (or stamped) on them. They only have value because people agree to exchange them for goods and services. If and when this confidence fails, this fiat currency will be valueless.)

Contraception and the Pope - FB conversation

I posted this on FB:

“Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men—especially the young, ….. growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.” - Pope Paul VI, 1968

B.R.: Awww that poor Pope doesn't know what he's talking about.

Me: Not sure if you're being sarcastic. Rape statistics are way up since 1968, and partner abuse is as well. Not to mention pornography, out of wedlock births, abortion (particularly among black women)...

Me: "The mass-produced condom and the Pill have freed men from feeling obligation for women as much as they have freed women to regularly and blithely pursue what was historically risky sex with caddish alpha males on the make." http://heartiste.wordpress.com/

B.R.: I'm not being sarcastic. Unless there's a missing section on the benefits of sexual satisfaction, this quote by the Pope displays a sad misunderstanding of both genders' physical desires and needs. Show me just cause for blaming sexual dysfunction on contraception alone - as well as some hard statistics on these supposed rises since 1968 - and I'll take this position seriously. Until then, it's a closed-minded and disrespectful perspective on one of God's greatest gifts to mankind.

Me: Your moral indignation in support for the objectifying of women is unseemly. Generic "sexual satisfaction" is not automatically beneficial.

Indeed, your next statement includes the phrase "sexual dysfunction" admits there is good sexual interaction and bad sexual interaction. Therefore, we only differ on the details.

B.R.: My moral indignation is not on behalf of female objectification, it's on behalf of positive sexuality, population control, sexual education, homosexual health, and women's right to choose when to become pregnant. I completely agree that there is healthy and unhealthy sexual interaction, and obviously there are welcome and unwelcome sexual advances. But I don't think unhealthy sexual interaction nor unwelcome sexual advances can be blamed on the advance of contraception - if you believe contraception is responsible for a supposed rise in both of these negative elements, I'd love to see the facts and reasoning behind that belief.

Me: Every once in a while I express my disappointment in you. This is one of those times. YOur first sentence reads like a bumper sticker on the back of a Volvo.

You continue to use language like "healthy and unhealthy" and "welcome and unwelcome," which are value judgments. I don't see why my value judgments require documentation while yours do not.

Me: Have you looked at the heartiste link? This blog is dedicated to techniques for the pick-up artist. The author himself provided the Pope's quote, and as a player himself he says he has benefited greatly from the contraceptive culture in his quest for casual sex.

B.R.: What's wrong with Volvos? I'm gonna cut this short before we continue misunderstanding one another: this is another conversation in which our disagreement is very basic, but our base message and contextual definitions are in completely different realms. You want to talk about how contraceptives have increased opportunities for sexual predators, and I'm not going to argue with that. I want to talk about how contraceptives have provided benefits and cultural improvements to both genders, and to give that argument justice, I should provide documentation, which I don't have the interest in doing right now, given the aforementioned chasm in our viewpoints. However, my initial point is that the Pope doesn't understand the sex lives of other people, and I'll hold to that.

Me: Actually, our differences are fairly small. I have not denied the benefits of contraceptives, nor am I anti-contraceptive. I have simply asserted that there are a certain amount of bad consequences as a result of contraception. You seem to think that there are no bad consequences, and that these bad things cannot be blamed on contraception.

Nothing wrong with Volvos. That was a suspect attempt at humor, my friend.

B.R.: Ah well, it's hard to swing from "you disappoint me" to humor, but I appreciate the attempt. And c'mon there's not NOTHING wrong with Volvos - they're soooooo boooooring.

I haven't said there are no negative consequences to contraception. However, it's hardly fair to blame sexual predation and dysfunction (e.g. "no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium") on it. When it comes to man's disrespectful treatment of women, I believe parenting and education play a far bigger role than contraception. When it comes to harassment and rape, I believe that parenting, education, alcohol, narcotics, the justice system, and the mental health system play equal or bigger roles than contraception.

Sermon showed compassion for all - Eli Kutsch, 6th grade student

This letter appeared in the Bozeman Chronicle. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes.

I just wanted to note that this young man's priest is doing him a great disservice by preaching falsehoods to him. Mary and Joseph were not illegal aliens, nor were they migrating to Bethlehem. They were responding to official decree that everyone had to return to the town of their birth for a census. So they couldn't get any more legal than to follow the law. And they couldn't be less alien, because they were returning to where they were born.

May I also ask where the parents are in all this, not only for allowing their child to not only listen to a priest who doesn't know the Bible, but for letting their child send in a letter like this?

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

My priest seemed disappointed in his sermon last Sunday that a law passed in the election to stop help from the Montana state government to illegal aliens. I know people in Montana want everyone to follow the law, but they also like to help each other.

I’m glad illegal aliens can still get help from local charity groups. I hope everyone makes donations to these groups during the holidays, because it’s when we remember a very special couple who had to migrate to Bethlehem — Mary and Joseph.

Eli Kutsch 6th grade student at Sacajawea Middle School Bozeman