Citizens need to look past bias, zealots - Bozeman Chronicle editorial - my commentary

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

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

(The Chronicle has written before about how much it loves compromise, and it is a regular Leftist meme as well. I won't rehash the vapidness of the position in favor of analyzing the below article for its manifest deficiencies in other areas. 

Note that its defense of traditional media sources [like itself] is wholly self-serving.)

----------------------
Space aliens visiting our planet would quickly conclude that the United States is inhabited by two bitterly divided tribes on the verge of splitting the nation asunder.

But they would be wrong.

Actually Americans espouse remarkably similar social and political values — across all political, religious, gender, racial and ethnic differences. An Associated Press story published in the May 12 Chronicle pointed out that recent polling shows significant levels of agreement even on issues considered to be divisive, such as the environment and immigration.

Pollsters have found that large majorities of Americans believe in God, place a premium on higher education, support raising the minimum wage and back term limits for members of Congress. Certainly there are issues on which there is wide disagreement, but the range of issues on which Americans largely agree is remarkable.

So why all the talk about this being the most polarizing era of American politics ever? (Partly because they're wrong due to having a too small historical window.)

Three and four decades ago, Republicans and Democrats in Washington routinely found ways to work together and reach compromise or issues that were important to Americans — even the most divisive ones. (Ok, we now have the size of their historical window. In the next paragraph they will offfer their theories as to what has changed. the get the cause correct, but miss the reasons.) Today, we find the successors of those politicians racing to the nearest microphone and camera to heap vitriol on their opponents. Compromise has become a dirty word.

What changed? What we didn’t have before but have now is an explosion of ideologically driven websites and cable news channels that shamelessly push patently false and wildly distorted information to whip their faithful into a froth over a weekly menu of manufactured outrages. (They view the alternative media as the problem, but in actual fact, the traditional media outlets had an unchallenged monopoly on the information that was made available to the people. Their take on the issues were never challenged, never fact-checked, and never countered with a contrary perspective. With the advent of the alternative media, no there is a option for people, and they began to discover how they were being misled according to the political perspective of the news gathers. This, of course, does not sit well with them.

But notice, the fact that people have found out what is going on is an indicator of their ability to rightly judge things. They are stupid, they are being manipulated, the information is false, their outrages are all manufactured. Do you see how the Chronicle editorial writers are trying to marginalize those people who get their news from "unapproved" sources?) And the politicians respond to this sideshow like trained seals, spouting to any cable TV channel whatever that channel’s audience wants to hear. The splintering of media into mouthpieces for almost any imaginable political perspective has created a funhouse mirror that in no way reflects the reality of Americans’ values. (Whew. I just had to catch my breath after reading this. Cable news is giving people what they want to hear. But this "in no way reflects the reality of Americans' values?" How is it possible to give someone what they want that conflicts with their values? 

But the real question is, what are Americans' values? Is there such a thing? A poll of preferences ["...believe in God, place a premium on higher education, support raising the minimum wage and back term limits for members of Congress] are not values. Values are bedrock perspectives on how an INDIVIDUAL chooses to lead his life. There is no such thing as group values.)

The only antidote for this poison (Hmm. Obtaining information from a variety of sources with a variety of perspectives is poison, you see.)  is for the citizenry to recognize and reject this kind of zealotry. (A pejorative word intended to impugn dissenters.) And there are promising signs. The numbers of voters who call themselves Republican or Democrat has shrunk in recent decades, while the number of those who call themselves independents is growing. Those who call themselves independents may be less than purely independent, but they are at least signaling a willingness to consider issues from all sides and choose a position based on the merits of the arguments. (Independent does not mean flexible, thoughtful, tolerant, nuanced, or anything of the like. It simply means they've chosen to not be a part of the two-party club.)

Let’s hope this trend continues. The polling found one of the things nearly all Americans agree on is that our government is broken. Fixing that mess will begin with a more media-savvy electorate. (Unfortunately for the Chronicle, if Bozemanites restricted their reading to the Chonicle's pages, they would no little or nothing about a lot of issues. In fact, had  there not been an alternative media, the traditional media likely would have never reported anything at all. ABC, for example, has yet to devote any coverage at all to the horrific crimes of Kermit Gosnell, for no discernible reason than he was an abortion provider. 

The fact of the matter is that traditional media have done a sorrowful job in covering any news that does not fit their ideological template. Had it been doing its job, the alternative media would have never arose.)
Get smart. (Which means that you are dumb if you disagree with the editorialists.) Think before nodding in agreement with any of those over-top talking heads infesting politically biased media on either end of the spectrum. Let’s reclaim our ability to think for ourselves. (Again, the Chronicle attempts to marginalize dissenters by characterizing them as non-thinkers, mind-numbed robots, and idiots who are easily manipulated. This is insulting and beneath reasoned discourse. The Chronicle is routinely engaging in its own biased reporting but never seems to get that upset [if they even notice] about their own many failures.)

It’s time to end tax-exempt status - Lane Filler, Newsday - my commentary

Our comments in bold.

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

(This author is mostly right, but mostly for the wrong reasons. I'll explain.)

You are a financial supporter of the Westboro Baptist Church. You know, that posse of full-blown whackdoodles from Kansas that descends on our nation’s most tragic moments, particularly military funerals, waving signs that say “Thank God for dead soldiers.” (Notice how  the author begins with an extreme example, which sets the reader up for future agreement based on a distaste for the extreme example.)

You don’t (please say you don’t) support Westboro by sending cash for their placard ’n’ magic marker budget. What you do pay, infinitesimally, is that church’s taxes, because it, like all houses of worship and so many other institutions, is exempt. You also pay the taxes of its contributors, because the money those folks fork over is tax-deductible. (This is incorrect. Tax-exempt organizations do not deprive the government of tax revenue. Legislators choose how tax law will be written, and carve out exceptions, benefits, and surcharges based on the societal outcomes they're trying to achieve. This is a conscious choice by government. No one is being coerced.

But more to the point, all money is privately possessed before it is taxed by government. Government is not entitled to tax anything and everything, simply because it exists. Therefore, its "failure" to tax something does not mean those who are being taxed have had a tax burden transferred to them.

Unless the author is willing to concede that a well-to-do person who pays a 28% tax rate is being burdened by someone else's 15% tax rate.)

Why is this notable this week? Because the Internal Revenue Service just got caught trying to crash the tea party, punk the patriots and deny conservative groups their 501(C)4 status. Such status exempts groups’ income from taxes. It also allows “nonprofits” to do political activism without disclosing donors, as long as the organizations also promote social welfare. (What is "social welfare?" The IRS uses this term.  It suggests that a tax-exempt organization is legitimate so long as its performing a role that government would do ordinarily.  For the second time in two paragraphs, the author makes an observation from a governo-centric perspective, as if everything and everyone revolved around what government does and doesn't do.)

To a politico, the distinction between “promoting social welfare” and “promoting the ideas and candidates that we believe will improve stuff ” is a line about an atom wide. But that’s an outrage for another day. (It's interesting that the Constitution uses the phrase "promote the general welfare" in its preamble, and the phrase "provide for the common defence and general welfare of the the United States" in the context of 16 powers [section 8]. I suspect that the IRS phrase sounds enough like the Constitution to lend it legitimacy.)

The IRS admits it’s been obstructing and scrutinizing right-leaning applicants for 501(C)4 status. This deployment of the IRS — exclusively against a political movement that opposes President Barack Obama like kids oppose calves liver cupcakes — is seriously nefarious. We should fire everyone involved and highlight their sins on a televised reality show called “So You Think You Can Screw Over Conservatives!”

After that, let’s change the tax code so Americans don’t have to fund movements and religions they don’t agree with. (How about, let's eliminate the tax code, repeal the 16th amendment, and defund the IRS so that they don't have any power? The problem is not the tax exempt status, the problem is the excessive power of the IRS!

Ironically, it is government that removes choices. It takes your money and spends it where its priorities are. You cannot choose. However, charities are voluntary.)

No institution, organization or individual should be exempt from taxes, nor should any donations be tax-deductible. (Agreed. Unions, operas, and environmental organizations included. No organization should be singled out for preferential treatment. The constitution forbids congress from making "any law," including favorable ones, regarding the establishment or free exercise of religion. Congress needs to get out of the faith and values business. In fact, it needs to stop meddling with peoples' lives at all levels.)

Nonprofits, hospitals, colleges, houses of worship and charities are sometimes the richest institutions on the block. (Untrue and irrelevant.) 

Yet they generally don’t help pay to sweep that block, or extinguish it if it catches fire, or to fight off another nation’s army or fund school districts. (Sure, and they don't have soup kitchens, clothing drives, volunteer at schools, fund hospitals, build houses for people, or send teams to help when hurricanes hit, either. Yup, that money just disappears down a rat hole, doesn't it?) 

And when their contributors throw them $100 or $1 million, these folks deduct those contributions off their tax liability, too.

Many tax-exempt institutions and organizations do wonderful things. When you identify one, support it with your cash. (Wait, I thought they don't help sweep that block or extinguish if it catches fire... etc.? I thought they were the richest institutions on the block? I thought they weren't paying their fair share?) 

Why, though, should that entitle you to pay less into federal or state coffers, and thus force everyone else, who may hate the college, church or charity you’re contributing to, to pay more? (Hmm. The author apparently doesn't understand the nature of charities. Charities meet needs, and they're very effective and cost efficient. People like helping, and having a choice on where their hard-earned dollars go, as opposed to government extracting it and spending it as it decides, regardless of your preferences. 

See, government does exactly what the author complains charities are doing. People who pay taxes have no voice on where that money goes. And a lot of it goes to supporting values that many find abhorrent. Whether it be illegal invasions of other countries, Planned Parenthood, Piss Christ, or a million other government initiatives, that money it spends was first extracted, with or without permission, from the pockets of private citizens. And the author complains about charities being subsidized by unwilling taxpayers?)

You can argue that a soup kitchen or other charity does work governments can’t afford to handle, thus saving taxpayers money, but it’s a circular argument. The government is broke in the first place because of all the tax exemptions. (At $2.8 trillion in revenue per year, the government is hardly broke. It is broke because it can't control spending. Increasing revenue always results in even more spending. The problem is spending, not revenue.)

What’s more, when a politician wants to fund the Department of Soup For All, I can vote for or against that person based on whether I agree. (A powerless choice, since the person may or may not get elected anyway in contravention of the author's "choice." And even if the author's vote succeeds in obtaining the choice he wants, there is the matter of all the other elected representatives, who may go in a way in opposition to the author's desires. But with charities, the entire transaction is voluntary.) 

But when we set up a tax system to buttress charities and institutions, I have no way to withdraw support if I think everyone should work for their soup, or would rather give all my financial support to education and none to soup kitchens. (Mr. Filler, tell us how well it would go for you if you decided to stop paying taxes? You complain about charities, but the government is the real sucker of wealth from your pocket.)

If a charity or church or college or “social welfare/political campaigning group” must escape taxes to survive, or needs tax-deductibility for its contributors to pull in enough funds to squeak by, it doesn’t have enough voluntary support to exist. It shouldn’t have any involuntary support at all. (Very few organizations are in this situation. But it isn't relevant. Charities aren't charities because of the tax benefits. They do so to meet needs in a very personal and productive way. People want to participate in doing good things. That's why they give to charities. I doubt that their desire to do good things hinges on what the government might do.)

Beneath the political skulduggery of what the IRS did in targeting these conservative groups lies a flawed question: What groups in America deserve tax-exempt status, and tax-deductibility for their patrons? The answer is “none.” (Agreed.)

The best way to avoid arguing over who should be members of the special, privileged classes is to not have any special, privileged categories at all.

Lane Filler is a member of the Newsday editorial board.

What to do? Budget surpluses spur tension in some GOP states - my commentary

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

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

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Turns out that cutting was the easy part. (You know, I think these journalists are lazy, and therefore make lazy assertions like this. Checking this stuff is not that hard, although I will admit that finding concise data is somewhat difficult. According to the State of Missouri website, Missouri's operating budget looks like this:

(These numbers were compiled in 2011. You will note that the totals go up every year except for the 2012 projection. Jumping over to here, we find that the Missouri legislature passed a $23.2 billion budget for 2012, and $24 billion for 2013. Governor Jay Nixon is now outlining plans for a $25.7 budget for 2014. So, do you see any cuts of any kind in these numbers?)  Now Republicans who control a majority of the state capitols in the United States face a far greater philosophical dilemma — what to do with all the money when an improving economy suddenly creates a surplus in revenues. (Isn't this odd? The Republicans demonstrated that by restraining government slightly, without actually cutting budgets to a level that is lower than prior years, will produce increased revenue. And this is a problem for the REPUBLICANS? 

The word "Democrat" doesn't even appear in the article, but it's the Democrats that have the real problem. The fairy tale they've been preaching for the last 50 years has been unveiled as false! They have told us unrelentingly that cutting government spending will cause the economy to plunge. The media have followed right along with this narrative. But it isn't true!

We must also note that the article attributes the revenue bonanza to the improving economy. This is an editorial interpretation that does not belong in a news article. Indeed, the article has it backwards. The fiscal restraint shown by Missouri legislature is what caused the economic uptick.)

Save it? Refund it though tax cuts? Or spend it?

Though they won majorities in more than half the statehouses on principled platforms of making government smaller, some Republicans now are feeling tremendous pressure to spend newfound money on roads, buildings and schools that had been neglected or cut during the recession-induced downturn of recent years. (Um, yeah. Big spending Democrats, who cannot countenance even the thought of spending less money, are certainly the ones supplying the pressure. But more to the point, I am absolutely, positively sure, without even having to research it, that there have been zero cuts in any state anywhere for roads, buildings, and schools.)

“Everybody wants that money,” said North Dakota Senate Majority Leader Rich Wardner, where an oil industry boom has fueled one of the largest per capita budget surpluses in the nation.

Only a few states still face budget difficulties (all Democratically controlled) several years after the Great Recession forced widespread cuts to public education and social services, according to a new report by the National Conference of State Legislatures. (No, no, no! There have been no cuts! None! Nada! This is a total fabrication, but it fits the Leftist narrative.) To the contrary, a growing number anticipate that they will finish the 2013 fiscal year with surpluses, some totaling hundreds of millions of dollars.

That has created new tensions in places such as Michigan, Missouri and Texas, where GOP majorities are wrestling with the morality of spending money. ("Wrestling with the morality of spending money." Whaaa? The GOP is doing no such thing. This is hyperbole and total nonsense. That's what government does, spend money. The fact that they have "extra" money only means that the people have been overtaxed. It's their money. There is no issue regarding the morality of spending money.)

“I like to save money, I like to keep it in the bank, I like to give it back to the taxpayers,” said Missouri House Budget Committee Chairman Rick Stream, a self-described fiscal conservative from suburban St. Louis. “But sometimes, you also have to spend money on big capital improvements to move the state forward.” (Sometimes? How about "all the time?" This has what government has been doing for decades.  Isn't interesting that in the context of showing a surplus that people like this guy simply repeat the same leftist talking points as if nothing has happened? He simply ignores the contradictory information and keeps to his parroted meme.)

Tax revenues that are running more than 11 percent above last year have given Missouri’s largest Republican majority since the Civil War a budget surplus that they estimate at more than $400 million. (Again, note how the presentation skews the perspective. The Republicans were not "given" anything by the economy. They enacted legislation with budget priorities and spending levels that created a surplus.) As recently as a few weeks ago, Stream adamantly opposed spending much of that money. But he now has agreed to use about $120 million to construct an office building in Jefferson City, make repairs to the Capitol and state parks and draw up designs for a new mental hospital. Through such spending now, he said, the state will “save a lot of money down the road.” (It is mismanagement to neglect valuable assets like public buildings and infrastructure. Any prudently run organization puts a line item in their budget for maintenance and repairs. To not do so is willful neglect. These government types purposely allow these things to deteriorate because they know they can use them as crisis opportunities. They want to manipulate taxpayers into ponying up more dough to fix these neglected assets.)

How states choose to handle their surplus revenues will provide a good first test of whether Republicans can make the cuts they enacted during tough times stick during better times, or whether government will return to its pre-recession levels. Those decisions could depend on whether lawmakers view the financial influx as lasting.

A recent Rockefeller Institute of Government report warned that the surge may be blip caused by wealthy taxpayers taking profits in 2012 to avoid getting hit by a federal tax hike in 2013.

The save-verses-spend conflicts are mounting in a number of states.

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder — a Republican who is a former accountant — is pushing to sock away more money in a state savings account that already is at its healthiest level in about a dozen years. But some in the Republican-led Senate have other GOP-friendly uses for the money.

A revenue surge also has stirred turmoil among Texas Republicans, who are especially zealous about small government. After previously cutting $15 billion from the state budget, lawmakers convened in 2013 to learn they had $8.8 billion more in revenues than projected.

With the state at its constitutional spending limit, the Texas Senate wants to ask voters to approve using $2 billion to develop more water resources, $2.9 billion for roads and bridges and $800 million for public schools. But tea party conservatives, along with Gov. Rick Perry, are calling for tax cuts. Perry says the state already spends plenty on education, even after it cut $5.4 billion from the schools’ budget in 2011.

“We have challenges when we don’t have money in this legislative body, and we have even bigger challenges when we do,” said Texas Rep. Brandon Creighton, a Republican from Conroe.

Recession dragged down birth rates for less-educated - By Emily Alpert - Los Angeles Times - my commentary

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

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

Poorly educated women is a euphemism for the poor. This article is not about education, it is about reducing unwanted pregnancies. The Left has been trumpeting free birth control as a right, claiming it is a means to reduce unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions. I posted a FB conversation about the muddled thinking regarding this issue. 

Though they would never admit it, the Left has this disturbing tendency to lean toward eugenics. They are always careful to couch their advocacy in terms of civil rights or compassion, but it still amounts to reducing the fertility of undesirables.  

So here we have the real solution for lowering birth rates for undesirables: Economic insecurity. The Left hates it when undesirables have babies, so obviously the recession has actually been a good thing. 

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

 LOS ANGELES — Birthrates were dramatically reduced during the recession among women who did not finish high school, a development that far outpaced the drop among women with higher levels of education, according to a new study by the Pew Research Center.

Between 2008 and 2011, birthrates fell 13 percent among women who hadn’t finished high school — nearly twice as much as for women who had earned bachelor’s degrees or more, Pew found. The overall drop continued a trend among U.S. women for the past five decades.

“When people feel that their economic foundations are insecure, they’re often reluctant to have a child,” said Bradford Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, which wasn’t involved in the Pew study. “We’ve seen this for many years in places like Spain and Italy and Greece — a real problem of unemployment that is linked to low levels of fertility.”

Declining birthrates among women without high school diplomas, combined with increased education for American women, has helped push the percentage of new mothers with at least some college education to its highest point ever, Pew found.

Census data reveal that between 1960 and 2011, the share of new mothers with at least some college education leaped from 18 percent to 66 percent.

Higher education levels among mothers can translate to benefits for their children, researchers have found. More highly educated mothers tend to have healthier babies who do better in school later, researchers have
found. It is unclear, however, whether education is the reason, or whether educated mothers are different in other ways that help their children, such as being better off economically, Pew wrote.

A shift toward more educated mothers could also affect what motherhood looks like: Less educated mothers are more likely to be unmarried and have their children at younger ages.

Almost half of new mothers without high school diplomas were younger than 25, and only 3 percent of new mothers with bachelor’s degrees were as young, Pew found.

Balyeat’s rant just wrongheaded - letter by Swep Davis - my commentary

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes.

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

First Joe Balyeat's column:

“Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.” – P.J. O’Rourke

The dust hasn’t totally settled on the legislative session. We don’t yet have the final fiscal results of governor vetoes. But the picture’s beginning to take shape, and for those who believe in limited government and slower bureaucracy growth, that picture isn’t pretty. Starting with almost half a billion surplus, a coalition of Democrats and swing-vote, squishy Republicans blew through that surplus plus another $9.5 billion in Montana tax dollars and federal funny money. The $10 billion total budget works out to be $115 million ($115,000,000) for every single day the Legislature was in session. That old adage needs re-vamping: “Another day ... another 100 million dollars.”

Here’s a clearer picture – with only 1 million people in Montana, the biannual $10.042 billion budget spends almost exactly $40,000 per every average family of four in the entire state! This doesn’t include direct federal spending nor city/county government spending – $40,000 state government spending in a state where the average private sector worker makes only about $35,000 per year! The burden of government on the backs of Montana’s private sector workers is heavy indeed.

Like O’Rourke’s drunken teens, Montana’s big spending politicians need to pull to the curb long enough to burp and ask themselves the crucial question: Over the long term, can a small private sector economy like Montana’s ($35,000/year per worker) support this much government? The $10 billion budget is a 13.35 percent increase from the last budget ... while inflation has only been about 2 percent per year. Can state government continue to grow at this unsustainable pace without seriously damaging Montana’s economic prospects for our children? Answer: no.

National economic studies (such as “Government Spending and Economic Growth – a 50 State Analysis”) prove conclusively that state government overspending results in slower economies and stagnant wage growth. But Helena’s big-spending binge continues with little thought given to the economic hangover which will be inflicted on Montana’s private sector.

A minority of conservative legislators attempted to act responsibly ... like teen friends trying to take away the car keys after the kegger. They blocked the multi-billion dollar, irresponsible Medicaid expansion; and on the final day made one last ditch effort to stop the governor’s demand for millions more in spending. But Democrat leaders and Bullock were indignant that anyone would challenge their spending sobriety, so squishy swing votes handed them back the spending car keys and the last bottle of “Jim Beam” by voting through every last “Bullock binge” dollar before hastily adjourning.

And the reward to those who tried to act responsibly was excoriation in the media and scorn from their big-spending colleagues. The squishy, swing-vote big spenders were labeled “responsible,” while those who maintained spending sobriety were labeled “irresponsible.” This makes as much sense as starting an organization called “Mothers Against Sober Drivers.”

The most glaring example of this topsy-turvy “responsibility” mislabeling is the Medicaid debate. Those who blocked Medicaid expansion were armed with research showing the program is a wasteful boondoggle – that Medicaid recipients have even worse medical outcomes than patients with no insurance whatsoever. Yet, daily we see news editorials excoriating conservatives for “irresponsible” rejection of Medicaid expansion ... even while the latest Medicaid medical studies prove the conservative point conclusively.

On May 1, researchers released results of an enormous, multi-year Oregon scientific study of more than 10,000 random patients. Conclusion: Medicaid enrollment “generated no significant improvement in measured physical health outcomes.” There was no significant health outcome difference between the 5,000+ patients in Medicaid versus the 5,000+ non-insured patients. In fact, the only significant difference between the two huge samples is that the Medicaid enrollees were happier because taxpayers were footing the bill for their substantially increased use of medical facilities. Fact: We’d be better off just handing folks money to spend as they wish ... that’d make them even “happier” than enrollment in an inferior health program.

Yet conservative Montana legislators who blocked this boondoggle spending program are called “irresponsible,” while those who joined with Democrats to take the car and the “Jim Beam” on a $10 billion binge are “responsible Republicans.” I think I need a drink.

Former state Sen. Joe Balyeat is now the state director of Americans For Prosperity.

---------------------
Now For Mr. Davis' response:

On Wednesday, the Chronicle granted a guest column to former state Sen. Joe Balyeat for a rambling rant ("Rant: to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently; talk in a wild or vehement way." You decide who is doing the ranting.) 

about government spending that was so filled with half-baked logic that it would take a couple of pages to respond. To pick just one example in the space allowed here, Balyeat argues that people on Medicaid are no more healthy that those without insurance. (no, Mr. Davis. Mr. Balyeat cited a study that came to the conclusion that "there was no significant health outcome difference." If you're going to "debunk" someone, Mr. Davis, at least get the facts straight.) 

He seems to think the only purpose of insurance (Seems to think? If you don't know what he thinks about it, then what is the purpose of your statement other than to impugn his integrity?)

is to make people more healthy, and while it might do that in some cases, that is not the main reason for insurance. (Um, yeah. Mr. Balyeat did not claim it was the "main reason for insurance." He did make any claim other than to cite a study that dealt with one aspect of medicaid. 

Mr. Davis, have you heard of something called preventative care, and how medicaid is supposed to improve outcomes because of preventative benefits? Do you know that one of the justifications promulgated by supporters of the expansion was because of preventative care and how it would lower medical expenses by keeping people healthier? Despite your hysterical protestations, obtaining better outcomes via preventative care IS one of the issues, one that Mr. Balyeat is quite properly addressing.)

The point of Medicaid, among other things, is to enable people to get the care they need without going bankrupt. (Among other things, like preventative care, perhaps?) 

Balyeat’s logic would argue that people with car insurance are just as likely to have accidents as people without it, thus no one should carry car insurance. (A spectacularly bad analogy. No part of car insurance pays for "preventative care" like brake jobs, tire replacement, or new windshield wipers in order to lower the chance of accidents and therefore claims.) 

He doesn’t address some obvious questions such as (1) are some people going without insurance because they are healthier to start with, (2) does his study account for people without insurance who go to the emergency room when they are sick, costing the system (and the taxpayers ) far more than basic health care under Medicaid and (3) does the study take into account a myriad of other differences between Medicaid patients and the uninsured that might easily account for the health differences between the two groups? (What the study says is up to Mr. Davis to determine. He can read it and see if these points are addressed, and then he can save himself some typing time by not having to ask questions. The purpose of his questions, however, are not to obtain information. They are designed to neuter Mr. Balyeat without ever having to address the main points of his column. Which of course Mr. Davis never gets around to.)

Mr. Balyeat’s rant either is based on ignorance, the more flattering explanation, or is typical of the malicious and wrongheaded thinking of many ultra conservatives who think the poor would be better off if we’d just cut the safety nets and make them get off their lazy back ends and go to work. (Name 5 prominent "ultra conservatives" that believe this. Quotes please.) If only all our social problems could be solved so easily.

Swep Davis Bozeman

City to consider hiring real estate agent to sell North Park - By Amanda Ricker - my commentary

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

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

Three private parties have expressed interest in buying the city-owned North Park property, formerly Mandeville Farm, and developing the land. The Bozeman City Commission on Monday will consider hiring a real estate agent to facilitate a sale. (The purpose of a real estate agent is to represent the property so as to attract sellers. If there are three potential buyers, why does the city need a real estate agent?)

“The property has a lot of potential,” said Brit Fontenot, director of economic development and community relations for the city of Bozeman. “(The city doesn’t) have the resources to sort of kick start it, and the private sector does.” (The city apparently has enough resources to sink into the Story mansion, a new community pool, economic studies, greenhouse gas plans, master plans, downtown revitalization, and a dozen other bone-headed expenditures. Now suddenly they are lookiing at their finances and deciding they don't have the money? 

But actually, what authority does the city possess to "kickstart" anything? Why does it think that it can pick and choose which projects deserve its favor? The city took the property away from any potential kickstarting in 2003, and the property has languished there ever since. Now that the economy has failed the city is realizing belatedly that it simply cannot spend money on every hair-brained project that comes down the pipeline. But it still retains the idea that it can "kickstart" things if only it had the resources. I guess they've learned nothing.)

The city owns 85 acres of vacant farmland west of North Seventh Avenue between Interstate 90 and the railroad. Mandeville Creek flows through the property.

The city bought the property for $3 million in 2003 to use as a garbage transfer station, but that plan never came to fruition. The city is now paying a $2 million court settlement to its insurer for undermining a local
developer’s plan to buy the land. (The city paid $3 million for this property, plus $2 million in a court settlement. Plus, the developer  that the city screwed would have been a taxpayer selling the developed property to taxpayers, so the city also has hundreds of thousands of dollars of lost tax revenue. This is familiar ground for the city. It has been sued numerous times, it has wasted taxpayer money on every conceivable feel-good project. And yet the people of Bozeman keep reelecting these clowns.) 

In January, the City Commission adopted a 95-page master plan aimed at establishing an industrial park at the site. (Another $25,000.) The goal of the plan is to create a place where area businesses with high growth potential — such as the bioscience, photonics and outdoor recreation industries — can manufacture products, resulting in the creation of new jobs and a more diverse Bozeman economy. (Wee, we have a plan! It's a cool plan. We are so smart for creating this plan. We don't just want any businesses, we want businesses with a high growth potential. It's all spelled out in the plan. Because it's in the plan, these high growth businesses will magically appear and pay lots of taxes and hire lots of people. That's what the plan says. 

This is how government creates jobs! Yes, this plan means all this prosperity will result which means we can tax it! The plan says so. We don't care that businesses make products because there is a market for them. We don't care about the risks or hard work of the business owner. No, none of that is important. The plan is proof enough of how good an idea this is.)

Fontenot said Thursday the plan has added value to the property. The plan includes a market analysis and outlines industries the Bozeman market, and North Park specifically, could support over the next 20 to 30 years.

The plan was created in coordination with the state Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, which owns 190 acres of school trust land adjacent to the city’s land. The plan was paid for with a matching
grant, and the city and state each paid $12,500. Since the plan was released, Fontenot said three parties — both local and from outside the southwest Montana region — have expressed interest in buying North Park and carrying out some version of the plan. Still, if the city sells its property, there’s no guarantee that the plan would be realized. (Way to go, Chronicle. Throw cold water on the genius of the central planners.)

Fontenot said he could not release any more information about the potential buyers.

“They’re still just looking around,” he said. “The property is not for sale at the moment.” (Whaaa? The property is not for sale? Then why is there a master plan for developing the property, and why are they considering obtaining a realtor? Why would three purchasers be looking at purchasing a property if it's not for sale?)

Developing North Park, according to the plan, would require an estimated $5 million in the first phase to install water lines, sewer lines, roads and other infrastructure. Fontenot said the city doesn’t have that money.
City officials have applied for grant money to help cover the cost, but he said the chances of securing those funds are slim. (Grant money, as in federal funds. So that makes it free! Unfortunately, government is no longer handing out money to just any old entity like it used to. Well, maybe they're trying to make it seem that way in order to punish us for the sequester. But there's still plenty of debt-backed cash floating around out there. And gosh, $5 million is such a small amount of money for such a worthy cause.)

City Manager Chris Kukulski said selling the land could be a good opportunity for the city. And, the city’s seven-member, citizen Economic Development Council has endorsed the idea. (They bought is 10 years ago, but that all fell through. So making a silk purse out a sow's ear, all the money they wasted is suddenly a "good opportunity." Hmm.  And the Council is a volunteer committee of the City government! Well, if THEY think it's a good idea...)

“The economy seems to be picking back up, and really frankly, we feel that the private sector is in a better position to develop it to its highest best use,” Kukulski said.

The City Commission will discuss whether to prepare a request for proposals for real estate services for North Park during its regular meeting Monday night.

Amanda Ricker can be reached at aricker@dailychronicle.com or 582-2628. 

Former evangelist becomes agnostic - FB conversation

I posted this:

I found this story to be intriguing. An evangelist decides Christinaity is not for him, but late in life regrets the loss of his closeness to Jesus. B.R., I thought this might interest you.

Charles Templeton: Missing Jesus thegospelcoalition.org
B.F.: Thanks, I'll check it out.

B.F.: That's a sweet story. I don't really see where the regret comes in, though. It sounds from the article like he took a different spiritual path than Billy Graham, and that in this late-life interview, he talked about how much he loved Jesus. Now, I can see the inherent conflict in loving Jesus but not following a particular church or Christian leader. That's my conflict, too.

Me: It seems to me that he didn't take a different spiritual path, he rejected spirituality entirely. He separated himself from the Jesus he loved and ended up missing the relationship.

Your last statement is precisely correct and profound, and it is exactly the same for me. But to me there is no inherent conflict, because Jesus as a person is not related to church or Christian leaders or movements or denominations. That's why I always make the distinction between religion (the man-made system of beliefs and practices) and faith (the personal expression).

The way I see it is that Jesus provides the way to connect to the divine. He tells us this quite specifically. He doesn't say to give up cussing or do nice things for people or give 10% to the church or wear a tie. He says we cannot change ourselves so as to connect to him. He says that connecting to him is how we become changed.

The real conflict that I see is giving up myself for the sake of that relationship. I don't see how I can do that.

B.F.: Deep stuff. I don't think we're meant to give up ourselves for the sake of a relationship with Jesus. I feel my relationship with him when I'm answering my callings, helping others, improving relationships and interpersonal communication, exploring my passions, being selfless, connecting with nature, and generally acting in my own definition of good and righteous. When I go against those instincts, I feel the guilt and shame that most people refer to as sinning. I could never escape Jesus, but I can ignore the sway he has on my conscience, and then I would feel less connected to him. It seems if anything, that's the real regret from Charles Templeton; he stopped accepting and cultivating his personal relationship with Jesus, and though he still probably had a good life, he saw in the end that there were opportunities he missed.

Me: Jesus sets the terms for the connection to the divine. I don't think that you or I get to decide what he requires. Which means we are really on a jouney of discovery to find out what that is, and where our preferences don't coincide with his are the places we give up ourselves.

B.F.: Now I see what you mean by that. I feel similarly, but I'd replace "ourselves" with "our egos" or "the way we're attached to thinking about our lives". Whatever we do, we are ourselves. The distinction is whether we choose the turn in the path that Jesus is showing us, or the turn in the path that serves ourselves. An example: I'm a filmmaker, and have had many opportunities to make shallow art, pull focus onto myself and thus achieve my egoic desires. However, the older I get, the more often I opt for the alternative opportunities, which involve helping other filmmakers, making art that serves a deeper humanist purpose, and letting go of my attachment to the normal definitions of success and fame. Make sense?

B.F.: There's a word we haven't mentioned but I think we'd both agree is a strong element: ACCOUNTABILITY. Like a recovering addict is accountable to his sponsor and support system to keep himself on track with sobriety, so am I accountable to Jesus for my actions and choices.

Me: "Fascinating. I want my story to show that aggressive, protective element of Jesus, but it's tricky territory without a clear understanding of the Biblical context." It would be interesting to couple what we've been discussing here with with the warrior/king element of Jesus we discussed previously, and see how that might impact the idea of accountability.

B.R.: Oooh love it. How do we start? Maybe I need some reading assignments?

Me: I need to confess my inadequacy at this point. I am much more confident of my political theories than my spiritual ones. I have thought about the nature of divinity quite a bit over the years, and the more I discover the more I find I don't know.

Jesus is the quintessential paradox. Friend/judge, peacemaker/warrior, demanding/gentle, exalted/accessible, harsh/forgiving, holy/intimate. I don't know where to begin.

Judge rules for cheerleaders in Bible banner lawsuit - my commentary

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

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

(Of course this is good news for religious liberty, but some of the things reported here are very troubling.

The first thing we need to note is that these cheerleaders are not government entities, they are individuals expressing their religious proclivities. The manner, place, or time at which they exercise their religious liberty is not a matter for government to decide. "Congress shall make no law..." is unambiguous.

The second thing is the judge's statement that  no law "prohibits cheerleaders from using religious-themed banners at school sporting events.” This is irrelevant and bone-headed. Had there been such a law, it would be unconstitutional. The judge was ruling on the constitutionality of religious expression in the public schools, so whether it was a school policy or a law did not matter. 

The third thing is the judge's statement that "the establishment clause does not prohibit the use of such religious themed banners..." The restrictions of establishment clause is applies to government activities. It tells government what it can't do. It does not tell cheerleaders or any other person what they can't do.

The fourth thing is the statement made by the school's attorney that "the district can permit the banners under the establishment clause but is not required to do so." If the judge truly ruled this way it was another bone-headed move. The school has no choice as to whether or not it "permits" people to exercise their rights. One more time. The first amendment does not empower government in any way. It only limits government and tells government what it cannot do.)  

HOUSTON (AP) — A judge ruled Wednesday that cheerleaders at a Southeast Texas high school can display banners emblazoned with Bible verses at football games.

But the ruling might not have settled the issue of whether the banners are protected free speech, according to an attorney for the cheerleaders’ school district.

State District Judge Steven Thomas determined the Kountze High School cheerleaders’ banners are constitutionally permissible. In the ruling, Thomas determined that no law “prohibits cheerleaders from using religious-themed banners at school sporting events.”

The Kountze school district had initially said the banners could not be displayed after receiving a complaint about them in September from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The foundation argued the banners
violated the so called First Amendment Establishment Clause that bars government — or publicly funded school districts in this case — from establishing or endorsing a religion.

Thomas ruled that the establishment clause does not prohibit the use of such religious themed banners at school sporting events.

“This is a great victory for the cheerleaders and now they’re going to be able to have their banners,” said Hiram Sasser, a lead attorney for the Liberty Institute, a Plano, Texas-based nonprofit law firm that represented the cheerleaders.

But Thomas Brandt, the school district’s attorney, argued that Judge Thomas also granted a school district motion in his ruling that says the district can permit the banners under the establishment clause but is not required to do so.

A deficit shift the GOP may struggle to explain - Rachel Maddow - FB discussion

FB friend B.R. posted this:

I know you probably take Rachel Maddow with a pound of salt, but other than the leftist slant of the article, don't these numbers debunk the claim that the deficit is growing? Or are there certain distinctions or metrics that you think they're missing which negate their optimism?

A deficit shift the GOP may struggle to explain maddowblog.msnbc.com
For deficit hawks, all of the news is good news.

Me: It's interesting that you ask me these questions. You know my predilections. How do you know I won't just feed you a bunch of right wing talking points?

B.R.: I don't. I'm relying on your intelligence and integrity to tell me, in your opinion. which details are true signs of deficit reduction and which elements are leftist spin. If you simply said, "this is all BS, the deficit is going up", and nothing else, then I'd be a little let down. Other than that, I'm open to hearing whatever you have to say.

Me: I don't know who might be claiming what about the deficit, but for me the national debt is the relevant number. The deficit is the shortfall from year to year, and the debt is the accumulation of those deficits. The national debt has increased every year since 1957. https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

Here's the national debt for that last dozen fiscal years.
4/30/2013 16,828,845,878,546.72 (1.31 trillion added to the debt, annualized)

09/30/2012 16,066,241,407,385.89 (1.27 trillion added)
09/30/2011 14,790,340,328,557.13 (1.23)
09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79 (1.65)
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75 (1.89)
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49 (.798)
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48 (.501)
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23 (.574)
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50 (.553)
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

It's going to be a long time before we get back to bush-era deficits, let alone start paying off the national debt.

B.R.: Alright, so we're agreed that the debt is increasing, and will continue to do so until there IS NO DEFICIT, but instead a surplus, in the annual budget. Don't you think it's at least encouraging, though, that the deficit is decreasing, and that we're getting closer to a surplus?

Me: Sorry, I accidently hit "enter" and was editing. As you can see by the 2013 deficit figures, at the end of Aapril we are on track for a 1.31 trillion deficit. I don't think Maddow's projects are accurate. I am not encouraged yet, until I see some longer term trends that show a commitment to fiscal restraint. Like I said, it will be a long time before we're actually paying off the debt.

B.R.: Ok...they got their numbers from the CBO - do you think the CBO isn't accurate? And while I would also like to see longer term trends, we are seeing "the fastest deficit reduction Americans have seen since World War II". It's okay if you're not encouraged (yet), but I assume we can agree this is the right direction in which to head.

Me: The CBO is a congressional organization. My figures are from the actual Treasury website.

I don't mean to contend with you, and I don't take your points lightly. The statement "the fastest deficit reduction Americans have seen since World War II" can't be demonstrated, because we don't know the criteria being judged. If you like, you can go to the link I provided and calculate the raw change, the percentage change, and the proportional change of the national debt from year to year for every year since WWII. It's more work than I want to do.

But even still, remember what we are dealing with here. The deficit exploded to incredible levels over the last 5 years. Any reduction in a huge number is going to be a huge raw number. But I don't think we can give props for them exploding the debt and then reducing it by a large number. All that means is we've been on a spending binge for the last few years, and if it's really being reeled in, it still leaves us with huge deficit and debt numbers.

B.R.: Awesome, those are like the exact thoughts I was hoping for. Now I have a balanced perspective on the unbalanced budget. Thanks Rich!

Militia-minded rhetoric trumped by civil solutions - letter by Richard Benert - my commentary

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-------------
(Richard Benert recently wrote a letter to the editor in response to Bob Chase's letter. Mr. Chase's letter first, followed by Mr. Benert's response.)
---------------
Bob Chase: When it comes to gun control I support the Second Amendment – “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” There is a growing number of Americans who believe there should be stronger state militias because our nation’s leaders are irresponsible and irresponsive to the public's concerns about the economy, health care etc., but most of all liberty and freedom. Most Americans, myself included, recognize reforms are needed but the solutions coming out of Congress are influenced by corporate greed and our representatives putting their job security before good legislation.

In context of foreign invasion, someone once said, “there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass,” making invasion unlikely. But distrust of the federal government continues to plague our elected officials; it is a natural evolution for them to want more control and to use isolated events to leverage more gun control. This method of legislation is disgraceful and an unwise assault on Americans.

Maybe there could be a compromise. NACTRIM is a National Criminal Locator Database (there are many databases) that searches over 500 million criminal records from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and U.S. territories. That’s more criminal records than there are American citizens. So when it comes to gun purchases is there something wrong if the gun retailer checks a purchasers name against a criminal database? If the purchasers name is not in the database then let the purchaser get his gun and go on his merry way. Maybe I am missing something, but it looks to me like the federal government wants a database on law-abiding citizens. Why?

Bob Chase
------------------
Richard Benert: In a recent letter (“Law-abiding citizens shouldn’t be tracked”) there occurs one of the most frightening statements I’ve ever seen on this page. According to Mr. Chase, “There is a growing number of Americans who believe there should be stronger state militias because our nation’s leaders are irresponsible and irresponsive to the publics (sic) concerns about the economy, health care etc., but most of all liberty and freedom.”

Leaving aside the question of what is meant by “liberty and freedom,” since, if it (they?) truly were under attack, I might agree with the writer. (Um, yeah. Except he did agree at one point.) The amazing thing here is the calmness with which he (and gun-loonies in general) would employ military force to resolve public policy issues. (Note the dismissive characterization: "Loonies." Note also the false equation. This is not a case of employing military force to resolve public policy issues. The military is an arm of government, and these are not public policy issues. Mr. Chase describes the way government has dealt with certain issues, then expands his focus to the larger issue of liberty. This is a case of resisting the abuse of the people by a tyrannical government. The founders threw off the British government mostly because of taxes, no representation, and injustice! They dealt with their grievances on a "public policy" level for years, then asserted that because the Crown was unresponsive, indeed, it doubled down on the tyranny, that the people were not only justified, but duty bound, to revolt. 

How could they say that it is the right and duty of the people "to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security?" How abusive does a government have to get in order to justify the embrace of the founders' words? The founders, then. must be "gun loonies.". 

As a matter of fact, the Left has long complained about the abuses of government. The Left has a long history of fighting against the Man, sometimes employing violence. Have they already forgotten the plight of the black man? Do they now support the Patriot Act? What about warrantless wiretapping? Are all these abuses of freedom now inconsequential? Why does Mr Benert overlook the long train of abuses which the Left revolted against?) 

Mr. Benert appears to simply intend to impugn Mr. Chase as an outlier, an extremist, a lone voice. However, Mr. Chase appears to be in good company.)  Mr. Chase, please be notified that the U.S. Constitution, which you good militiamen supposedly adore, was painstakingly devised precisely to deal with these issues — without bloodshed. (Um, no it wasn't. The Constitution was written to create, define, and limit government. The government largely ignores the provisions that limit it, which has led to the aforementioned abuses.) 

Also, look carefully at article 1, section 8, of this document. It gives Congress the power to organize, arm, and discipline the militias. State-appointed officers could train them “according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.” It’s hard to reconcile this with the idea that the Second Amendment gives state militias the right to wage war on Congress, let alone that it places our freedom in the hands of rag-tag gangs of insurrectionists. (So we we have a Leftist, while mocking Mr. Chase's love of the Constitution, citing a provision of a document he himself disdains. It seems that Leftists only cite the constitution when it bolsters their cause, then mock it as an ancient document that couldn't anticipate our modern era. 

Anyway, state militias as originally conceived were made up of every able bodied man, and the states were sovereign entities responsible for their own security. The Declaration demonstrates this: "That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do." 

Notice the plural tense. The Declaration treated the states as individual entities, and the constitution honored that understanding. The Constitution takes these state militias and draws them together for times when the common defense needs to be executed on behalf of the several states.)

Mr. Chase does recognize the damaging influence of “corporate greed” over congressional “solutions.” Right on, Mr. Chase. But you would wage war on the only public structure we have that’s big enough to control these corporations? What would you put in its place? (Why is it ridiculous for Mr. Chase but not the founders? If the government is oppressive and tyrannical, why should it be retained? Further, if the main recommending feature of government is to restrain corporations [which is hardly true anyway], then how good of a job is government doing right now? After, all, if you get Leftists talking about corporations, it will take maybe ten seconds for them to start complaining about their greed and how eeeevil they are. It seems that whenever the Left talks about issues, they always seem to think that nothing has been done up til now, so we need laws to reel in these greedy CEO because apparently there are no laws now.

Anyway, if the principle is true that the people have a right to throw off tyrannical government, then it's not relevant to that right. It doesn't matter what would replace it. However, those who would overthrow a tyrannical government get to install the new government, and since tyranny was the reason, it is doubtful that another flavor of tyranny would be acceptable.) Very likely the military dictatorship you create would quickly be absorbed by these corporations, putting us in a fine fascistic fix. (Interesting that Mr. Benert looks for the very worst that could happen. But more interestingly, he describes a replacement government which is by and large exactly what we have now: a fascistic government controlled by corporations. And we need to note with irony that he argued for more government/corporate partnerships here.) Why not give the Constitution a chance? (Irony is often lost on the ironic. He, like most Leftists, have little regard for constitution. It is an impediment. It's prevents government from doing good things, It places too much trust in the people to govern themselves. The constitution is hated by the Left.) You know, things like public campaign financing, congressional reform, ending Washington’s revolving door, etc.? You know, civil solutions befitting civilized people. (Sigh. His list of things to be solved has nothing to do with honoring the constitution. In fact, the constitution would have to be amended in order to implement some of these things.)

Richard Benert

County air quality receives ‘C’ grade - By Laura Lundquist - my commentary

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

----------
(Laura Lundquist is quickly establishing herself as an advocacy writer pretending to be a reporter. I've commented on her writing here, here, and here. It's hard to miss the regurgitation of press release talking points in this article.

The American Lung Association provided the air quality grades we are reading about here. The Gallatin valley has had THREE bad air days in four years, and received a "C" grade. But Looking at the ALA's rankings, we can see that there are cities that have chronic air quality problems. As you look through these lists, you will note that California dominates the poor air quality rankings. This is the same California that has the most stringent air pollution controls in the country. Apparently they aren't working that well. 

Absent from the writer's report is that Gallatin County improved from a D to a C. But what's really interesting is the ALA's chart of Montana counties. There's little or no data for almost all of Montana. Which makes me wonder, the "C" grade... what is it compared to? What is the data set? Is Montana really an at risk place for people to live? I spent a lot of time on the ALA website and could find precious little on state-to-state rankings. So can we ask, is the ALA simply trying to spread fear and get people on board with its big government agenda? Do we really need to ask?)

Chronicle Staff Writer
For the past few years, sooty air has occasionally blurred some of the Big Sky and posed health threats for Montanans, according to an American Lung Association report.

In its “State of the Air” national report released Wednesday, the American Lung Association graded nine Montana counties, and only three received high marks for overall air quality. That’s troubling news for
those with respiratory problems like asthma or emphysema.

Gallatin County received a “C” grade due to three days where the air quality reached unhealthy levels between 2009 and 2011, according to Department of Environmental quality records.

Flathead, Richland and Sanders counties sailed through those three years with no unhealthy air quality while Silver Bow, Lewis and Clark, and Ravalli counties flunked for the amount of pollution in their air. Silver
Bow County led with 19 days where air quality stayed unhealthy over a 24-hour period.

The nine counties are the only ones in Montana with air-quality sensors sensitive enough to measure soot particles as small as 2.5 micrometers, one thirtieth the width of a human hair. That may seem too small to cause problems, but tiny particles can get deeper into the lungs of people with respiratory problems and irritate lung passageways. Sneezing can expel larger particles, but micro particles can sneak by the body’s defenses and even migrate into the blood stream.

Studies continue to document how small-particle pollution can trigger illness, hospitalization and occasionally premature death.

So when the level of particle pollution is categorized as “unhealthy,” children and people with respiratory illnesses should limit prolonged outdoor exertion.

In Gallatin County, the worst year was 2009 when West Yellowstone had two of the three days where airborne soot exceeded the allowable limit.

In 2010, a sensor in Belgrade registered the one other unhealthy day, while a second day was just a notch below unhealthy. Last year, the DEQ moved the Belgrade sensor to Bozeman High School to better monitor the valley’s population center.

The cause of these three air quality events was not evident in the report. But Eric Merchant, DEQ air quality policy and planning supervisor, said in Montana, poor air quality is often caused by extended inversions,
where warmer air aloft keeps cold air locked in mountain valleys and air particles can accumulate for hours or days.

“Gallatin County, and most of eastern Montana, has pretty good air quality, but it can get elevated levels of particulates from wood stoves and car exhaust in the winter,” Merchant said.

This report did not include measurements from 2012, when the valley was cloaked in wildfire smoke and had at least a dozen summer days with unhealthy air quality.

Merchant said wildfires are one of the main reasons for maintaining the air quality sensors, although DEQ also uses them to demonstrate the state’s compliance with Clean Air Act standards.

The Environmental Protection Agency has provided funding for monitoring, but that may be lost or diminished now that the EPA budget has been cut in the sequester. The EPA is implementing mandatory furlough days for its employees in an effort to save money for important programs.

But Merchant said Montana is invested in the air-quality monitoring program.

“We have a very established program that is a department priority,” Merchant said. “These are important tools, particularly with Montana’s wildfires, to let people know when the air is unhealthy.”

Door to door in Boston - Is a warrant needed?

Wow. The police are going door-to-door. Hmm. Did they obtain a search warrant for each house?

R.W.: If a gun man was holding my family hostage in a back bedroom, I'm not sure I would want the cops to go file 1000 search warrant petitions and wait for a judge to sign them all. I would assume there is something in the law which covers an active pursuit.

Me: Probable cause, Rick. They can enter without a warrant with probable cause. Beyond that, being secure in our persons and property is inviolable.

K.M.: So were warrantless wiretaps. Slippery slope!!

S.H.:  It is called "hot pursuit." If I recall my old Criminal Procedure correctly, hot pursuit is an exception. If the police searched a homeowner's house, finding the bomber, the bomber had no right to privacy in that house, because he did not own it. On the other hand, if the cops found a bunch of illegal drugs belonging to the real homeowner, then there could be complications for charges against the true homeowner.

Me: I defer to you, my friend. Does a door to door search qualify as hot pursuit? It seem to me they are not following a suspect into private property, they are searching to find someone whose location is not known. A property owner shouldn't have to forfeit his rights in that situation?

R.K.: Unbelievable, people had there legs blown off and your worried about someone on private property. I haven't seen all of the news did someone ask for a warrant?

Me: Do you think that a terrible tragedy should mean the police gets to barge in and search your house without probable cause? What other excuses should the government have to declare that they can throw out the constitution?

Me: If the government come to my door, they're going to have to respect my rights, "emergency" or not.

R.K.: I think that anyone that questions this at such a tragic time is STUPID! and yes I think they can and should barge in, it could protect the innocent property owner or save his life. Your way out line on this one.

R.K.: I hope your house doesn't catch on fire. It's the government that puts the fire out you know.

Me: Yup, I'm stupid to question the police searching my home without probable cause. They should just barge in and tear it apart. They should also be able to round up Japanese people and inter them in a camp, legalize slavery of blacks, and...

O.C.: They aren't searching to incriminate you, dumbass... You think SWAT guys give a shit about your grow op or the hooker? (well ok, they might call you on the hooker...)

Probable cause doesn't even come into play here because the search has nothing to do with the home owner (other than assuring their safety). If charges were brought against a home owner due to observations during these searches, they would be cut down in court.

'Searches' while under martial law (which they basically were) and profiling/internment/slavery are completely separate unrelated issues.

Please take this the wrong way... But I'm starting to think your brain is just one big pile of mush with no boundaries on any ideas. Everything seems to be interrelated with you, to the point where every topic is the same topic, thus it is impossible to have a meaningful conversation with you that doesn't just spiral into meaningless bullshit.

I bet you get that alot tho, huh?

Gay marriage vs. other relationships - FB discussion

I posted this:

And why not? Seems perfectly logical to me.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2303908/Jeremy-Irons-claims-gay-weddings-used-inheritance-tax-dodge.html

Oscar-winning actor Jeremy Irons has added an unusual dimension to the same-sex marriage debate, by saying it could lead to fathers marrying their sons because laws do not cover incest between men.


Me: When two people love each other they should be able to marry. Are a man and his son somehow not included? Or a mother and her daughter? Grandfather and grandson? Once it is decided that marriage could not longer be limited by gender combinations, obviously neither it can be by other variables.

B.R.: I just made the same noise at you that your profile photo is making at the world.

Me: I had hope for a thoughtful, logical response, but instead all you offer is an insult.

B.R.: I would say the same about your post. You've joined forces with Scar The Evil Lion to conveniently suspend the rules of reason. You're simply throwing up another dust cloud into this crystal clear issue.

"Once it is decided that marriage could not longer be limited by gender combinations, obviously neither it can be by other variables." Really? This is simply illogical. The legal system does, in fact, have ways of changing SPECIFIC policy details without allowing ALL variables in the door. Face palm...

Currently, marriage is allowed for non-related heterosexual adult couples. The next step is for marriage to be allowed for non-related adult couples, regardless of heterosexual or homosexual orientation.

Incest is NOT ON THE TABLE. Pedophilia is NOT ON THE TABLE. Beastiality is NOT ON THE TABLE. Necrofilia is NOT ON THE TABLE. Group marriages are NOT ON THE TABLE. Polygamy is NOT ON THE TABLE.

Jeremy Irons' vapid statements, which you are bafflingly associating yourself with, present no reliable argument against gay marriage. They are stale air and poppycock. Jeremy Irons is being a troll.

When you offer up one tangible reason that gays and lesbians should not be allowed equal rights and access to marriage, then we can have a thoughtful, logical conversation. So far, in this effort, you have repeatedly failed.

Me: May I respectfully point out the egregious flaws in your reasoning?

Workplace discrimination against gays - FB conversation

FB friend B.R. posted this:

Be aware.

For those who think we don't need federal legal protection for LGBTs, this map shows where you can still be FIRED simply for being gay. And it happens daily. We have much work to do.

Me:  Incorrect.

B.R.: Source?

Me: You first.

P.N.: Partly true:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/firedforbeinggay.asp

B.R.: Rich - thank you for asking me to provide the sources, I like practicing accountability in these matters, and it helped me learn a lot. Here's a good start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LGBT_employment_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States.svg

B.R.: Oh cool! Hey Rich, here's another source to back it up. http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Employment_Laws_and_Policies.pdf

Me:  The issue is being characterized incorrectly, or may I suggest, deceptively. "States where you can be fired for being gay" is as meaningful as saying "States were you can be fired for wearing red shoes." The correct characterization is "States that do not have specific employment laws protecting gays."

My state, Montana, does not. Its anti-discrimination statute reads, " It is an unlawful discriminatory practice for... an employer to refuse employment to a person, to bar a person from employment, or to discriminate against a person in compensation or in a term, condition, or privilege of employment because of race, creed, religion, color, or national origin or because of age, physical or mental disability, marital status, or sex..." 49-2-303

However, Montana is not an "at will" state. (http://employeeissues.com/at_will_states.htm). After satisfying a probationary period, an employee can be fired only for cause.

You'll note in the link I supplied that there is quite a variation amongst states regarding employment law, so to suggest that people can be summarily fired is simply inaccurate.

And we can't overlook other factors that govern employment, like union membership, contract employment, temporary employees, the self-employed, and individuals who work for politically progressive private employers. Taken together, the picture you posted is at best factually incorrect, and at worst, intentionally hyperbolic.

B.R.: Great, thanks for even more detail. If I concede to all your references and points, will you agree that LGBT workers deserve legal protection equal to non-LGBT workers?

Me: No bargain is necessary. The issues are what they are.

I happen to think that all anti-discrimination laws ought to be repealed. These are voluntary associations amongst private parties, and the government has no business intervening in our right to freely associate.

K.S.:  "States that do not have specific employment laws protecting gays" translates to me, "States where you can lawfully be fired for being gay." The issue stretches beyond political technicalities and into the fabric of our society so deeply that sure enough, homophobic people within said states will (and have) take advantage of the lack of any laws protecting gay employees; thus, firing them unfairly with no other reason other than the fact that they are gay. Certainly, this may be masked under some other lame guise but it still doesn't give the gay community any safeguards against discrimination in the workforce; a blazing issue because other minorities do have such laws protecting them from discrimination.

B.R.: Does the government have any business protecting any citizens from harm? Your scenario is terrifying when viewed from the perspective of any minority in America. I respect and have learned greatly from your perspective on personal freedom, but your dismissal of LGBT civil rights and your preference for the freedom to discriminate both reek of unconsciousness and unexamined privilege.

K.S.: Moreover, all states are "at will" states. Meaning they can all get fired but the states listed above fall into loopholes that prevent them from getting sued.

Me: K.S., perhaps you should read the link. All states are not "at will."

B.R.: You mean the part that says, "Virtually all states are employment at will states, meaning that all states uphold the Doctrine to some degree. To what degree states uphold the Doctrine regarding employers' rights to discharge employees varies by state." ?

Me: I mean the part that says, "Montana is unique in the degree at this writing, in that it upholds employment at will only when new-hires are working during a probationary period (defaults to six months from hire date under Montana law). Outside of that, employers in Montana must have good cause to discharge employees."

K.S.: I read your link but per the definition of federal law, all states are "at will" states. Meaning, people hire at will and similarly, a worker can quit at will. Where it differs is when public-policy exceptions come into play. This is what allows said states to circumvent discriminatory laws and openly discriminate upon employees because they do not have the exception. Implied Contract Exceptions convolute the issue even further, placing the burden of truth of unlawful firing solely on the employee. This is what I meant when I said that the issue stems far beyond the notion of "at will." What is disturbing is that the states wherein you can be fired for being gay, have buffers in place to protect *them* from egalitarianism. Egalitarianism, by definition, is democracy; something that the US proudly purports to be. This is an interesting and alarming concept to ponder because these states use the notion of democracy to practice open discrimination because egalitarianism means equality. In other words, they are equal and have the "right" to NOT practice equality. Messed up, isn't it??

Me: Terrified, B.R.? What a strange choice of words. People who have freedom always take a risk, but I value freedom more than I fear risk.

K.S.: Even the "freedom" to discriminate?? But isn't that taking away other people's freedom?

Me: Egalitarianism: "a political doctrine that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights, or as a social philosophy advocating the removal of economic inequalities among people or the decentralization of power." Calling egalitarianism democracy is a category error.

K.S.: Egalitarianism means equality. Democracy sits on the platform of fairness and equality.

B.R.: Terrified is a pretty middle of the road way of describing what I'm talking about and what you're not acknowledging. Ever been fired for something you can't control? Ever been excluded by your peers with no way of confronting them about it? Ever been bullied by people that hate you for no good reason? Ever been cornered and intimidated because of your personal lifestyle? Ever been mocked publicly and screamed at and spit on and urinated on? Ever had your ass groped by a stranger? Ever had your dick grabbed by another man?

Me: We discriminate all the time. I discriminated against every other woman in the world when I proposed to my wife. I chose a hamburger without cheese, thus discriminating against cheeseburgers. I bought my house in a neighborhood that didn't have mobile homes.

Me: Democracy does no such thing. Democracy is a horrible system of governance.

Me: B.R., yes to many of those situations. In no instance did I run to government like a child to demand they punish the perpetrators.

Expanded Medicaid good for Montana - letter by Juliette Vail - analysis

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold. ------------------ (I have already demolished these Medicaid expansion arguments here, here, and here. Given the frequent editorials and AP articles published in the Chronicle, with very few voices of dissent, it would appear that the paper is engaging in advocacy. I will therefore avail myself of every opportunity to counter the propaganda here in my blog.)    I want SB 395 to reach the governor’s desk. This week, Democrats and a few Republicans showed the foresight, intelligence, and commitment to our state that we expect from our elected officials when the Montana Senate passed the Medicaid expansion by a vote of 26-24. Medicaid expansion is one of the most important proposals before our Legislature this session, and as the Legislature is entering its last weeks, I am so thankful that it is on the move!    Simply put, Medicaid expansion would result in 70,000 Montanans with access to affordable health care and 13,000 jobs created in our communities and state. (Please read the above links for a debunking of these fake benefits.) The trickle down benefits (Whoa, did she just advocate trickle down? I thought trickle down was a failed experiment. I thought President Reagan was a buffoon for believing that economic benefits at the top trickle down throughout the economy. And now we have a sadly misinformed letter writer who thinks that trickle down only works if it is government money.) of these populations are incredible and mean healthier families and communities, a boost for our economy, and an improved future for our state. We can’t afford to miss this opportunity, and we need to send SB 395 to the governor’s desk as soon as possible. ========================== (Though I won't comment on the guest editorial below, since it simply regurgitates the same talking points, I did want to publish it in order to note for the record that even accomplished business people have bought in to the inane logic of the Medicaid expansionists. I am pretty sure that I will never again frequent the businesses of these folks.)  -----------------------------

Economy reason enough to support Medicaid expansion
By BILL JOHNSTONE, DEAN FOLKVORD AND RAY KUNTZ

   This week is the deadline for the Montana House and Senate to pass a Medicaid expansion bill from one chamber to the other. As business leaders deeply committed to the health of Montana’s economy and workforce, we strongly support accepting federal funds to expand eligibility for the state’s Medicaid program. While there are several reasons for our support, we want to emphasize one — the substantial, positive and long-term impact on economic growth and job creation that Medicaid expansion will produce in
comparison to the investment required by the state.

   The independent Montana Bureau of Business and Economic Research has produced a thorough, well-supported, and thoughtful economic analysis of the potential economic ramifications of Medicaid expansion in Montana. The essential findings of the analysis are these:

   Over the first eight years, expansion would bring approximately $6 billion of new funds into the state — on average, roughly $750 million per year. Montana would very quickly create and sustain 12,000 to 14,000 new highpaying jobs. To place that in context, that’s 30 percent more than the existing total mining and logging jobs in the state.

   Montana would provide health care insurance, and all the health and societal benefits that come with it, to approximately 60,000 to 70,000 Montanans.

   And what does Montana need to contribute to receive these substantial economic benefits for our people? For the first three years, federal funding would cover 100 percent of the costs, other than relatively small
administrative costs. Over the first eight years, we need to contribute roughly $70 million per year. However, based on the bureau’s analysis, between reduced uncompensated care costs and increased state and local tax revenues from the expanded economic activity, the net present value cost to Montana is roughly ... $0.

   In our businesses, we make investment decisions every day based on cost/benefit analysis and return on investment. As a business decision, the proposed expansion of Medicaid clearly makes sense.

   We also believe there are other business reasons to support expansion. Most Montana businesses incur substantial costs in order to offer health insurance to their employees. Those costs are driven higher for businesses because we all pay part of the price for uncompensated care for the uninsured. In 2011, Montana health care providers were uncompensated for over $400 million worth of health care to the uninsured. That uncompensated care results in cost-shifting to businesses, taxpayers, and individual consumers of private insurance. Expanding eligibility to Medicaid would reduce uncompensated care by approximately $104 million from 2014 to 2021.

The result: lower health care costs for all of us.

   We appreciate that the Affordable Care Act is controversial and was opposed by many. How we pay for and deliver quality health care to our citizens will continue to be one of our greatest challenges and the topic
of considerable discussion and debate. Undoubtedly, the dialogue will continue, and the public and private solutions to our health care needs will evolve. If and when those changes occur, our state and our businesses
will need to respond and adapt.

   However, at present the Affordable Care Act is the law of the land. Our businesses and citizens will pay the incremental taxes and penalties imposed by the Act irrespective of whether Montana opts in to Medicaid
expansion. It would be especially unfair and illogical for Montanans to pay their fair share of these costs, and be denied the benefits we have helped fund.

   Lawmakers on both sides of aisle have often and sincerely pledged that jobs and the economy are their number one priority. We hope they will thoughtfully and objectively consider the unique opportunity before us to substantially increase good paying jobs, meaningfully expand economic activity in the state, cut costs for businesses, and positively impact our citizens and the state we all love. As the head of the state Chamber of
Commerce in another conservative state recently put it, “This is not a political issue; it’s an economic issue.” We hope the Montana Legislature will reach the same conclusion.

   Bill Johnstone is CEO of Davidson Companies in Great Falls, Dean Folkvord is CEO of Wheat Montana Farms and Bakery in Three Forks, and Ray Kuntz is CEO of Watkins & Shepard Trucking in Helena. The above views are not official positions of their companies, but the viewpoints of the individuals. 

Secretary of State Linda McCulloch's latest email

When Montana Secretary of State Linda McCulloch sends out her periodic emails, there is always something in them that gives me pause. Here's a couple screen shots from the latest one:

In this short blurb she tells us several questionable things.

1) Dedicating a month to certain people recognizes "the importance of continuing to ensure equal opportunities for ever race and gender..." Oh, isn't it wonderful? I feel so warm inside knowing that equality has been furthered by these courageous actions! Our Secretary of State is doing so much to create opportunities. But wait. What's her job again? Is this what she is charged to do by the laws of Montana?

2) She has a "personal conviction." She's committed to "protecting your voting rights." *Sigh* I don't even know what to say. Is this personal conviction a duty outlined by the laws of Montana, or is it an agenda of an activist elected official? I suspect she's thinking of HB 30, which would roll back Election Day voter registration , and HB 108, which modifies voter eligibility. You see, but insisting that people identify themselves, that means peoples' rights are being curtailed. Like a typical leftist, she thinks of voting as a sacred act, one that should have absolutely no impediments.

3) She wants us to contact our legislators to tell them how important our right to vote is. Doesn't she mean that she wants us to contact our legislators to tell them to vote right?

Here's the other part of the email:

"A monumental victory for young Americans." Actually, a monumental victory for Democrats, since young people tend to vote for them. This amendment did absolutely nothing for anyone in terms of liberty or civil rights, despite Mike Mansfield's hyperbole. If "youngsters" (that is, those between 18 and 21) were being discriminated against, then what about 17 year olds? Are they being discriminated against?

This is the thing about the misuse of words. They lose meaning. Every law creates two groups, each on opposite sides of it. There are those whom the law favors or gives privilege to, and there are those whom the law is against. Every law is discriminatory, and that's a good thing! Laws against theft discriminate against thieves. Laws  restricting the age of drivers keep young, inexperienced people off the roads. Laws against murder are unfairly weighted against murderers. Exactly as it should be.

We want discrimination. We need it. We need the law to be against things and for other things. That's what it does.