John Preston writes a letter to the editor, cell phones and driving

Thank you for writing your letter to the editor. You have done a rare thing. You addressed my editorial point-by-point and actually discussed those points. My hat is off to you. Well done!

Since you asked some questions, please permit me the opportunity to respond. Sorry for its length. I shall quote you and interlace my responses.

Rich makes the bold statement that statistically speaking talking on a cell phone is not dangerous. Rich, I fear it is not a question of if, but instead when we will have a serious injury or death attributed to a driver using a handheld device. Should we wait until then to respond?

Most certainly we will have a serious injury or death attributed to cell phones. That is not being disputed. As I noted in my editorial, Bozeman already has a careless driving law. Therefore distracted driving is already illegal. We have laws against all sorts of other things, like theft and murder. We seem to love it when government passes laws as if doing so has solved a problem. But have those laws eliminated those activities?

I need to make clear, I am not arguing against having laws. What I am saying is, what is the factual basis for the Commission passing this law? Will it really reduce risk? There is always a risk in every activity we do. We continually make decisions, whether conscious or unconscious, as to whether the benefit outweighs those risks. We trust that the brakes will work in our car every time we use them. We take it on faith that the burger we are eating does not contain a razor blade. We assume it to be true that the person driving in the lane next to us is competent to drive.

You are concerned about one death, certainly noble. But Mr. Preston, if you place such a high value on that hypothetical single life, it would seem that you must then be in favor of eliminating all preventable loss of life. Therefore, driving ought to be banned entirely, because it is risky and a lot of people are injured or die from driving. McDonald's should be shut down for killing people with unhealthy food. And skydiving is way too dangerous to allow.

The fact is, we accept a certain amount of potential calamity in exchange for certain benefits. We allow death and injury in order to enjoy convenience, quality of life, and/or liberty. Risk cannot be eliminated. Some risks cannot be reduced without unacceptable tradeoffs. The freedom to travel outweighs the number of highway deaths that result from this freedom. The freedom to choose for ourselves how we live our lives means we can eat McDonalds as much or as little as we want. We walk down the street knowing that someone may rob us.

We mitigate those risks as much as we can, not only by our personal habits and diligence, but also by sensible and effective laws. Traffic lights, for example, are demonstrably effective at mitigating loss and injury, as well as maintaining a degree of order for efficient traffic flow. However, banning cell phones regulates a statistically low risk activity for undemonstrated benefits.

Rich feels that the City Commission, in an act of tyranny, solved a problem that doesn’t exist. Rich, I wish you could have been with me half way across Mendenhall (in the crosswalk) as a woman talking on her phone sped past and never even flicked her eyes in my direction. Ask around, Rich, there are countless examples people can give you.

Please quote me accurately. I wrote the problem doesn’t statistically exist. That is, by objective measure, it is not dangerous.

You example is what I referred to in my editorial as an anecdote. It is a non-statistical, unverified, unquantified account which does not establish the point being made. Further, what this driver did is already illegal. Another law will not change the situation.

I spend a lot of time walking myself. Almost every day I see someone doing something foolish behind the wheel. I would venture to say that much of that foolishness is already illegal. Interestingly, I have never observed someone on a cell phone causing an incident. But I note for the record that this is also anecdotal, which is why making laws based on nothing but anecdotes and emotion is perilous.

Rich is troubled by Commissioner Chris Mehl’s comment about the city having time to “educate people.” I was at the meeting when Chris made that comment and I assumed that he was referring to education pertaining to the newness of the law so drivers would be aware of it and thus avoid the consequences of breaking it. Luckily Rich, using his ability to spot a liberal conspiracy behind every bush, saw that Chris is deviously planning to send us all to some sort of re-education camp for brainwashing. I bet they’ll even use some “enhanced interrogation techniques” in their effort to warp our brains.

What you assume and what I assume matter little. Your conclusion went to one side, mine to the other. At least I had the good taste to admit that I may be overreacting. Nevertheless, after we make our assumptions we still need to ascertain what was actually meant. Neither of us knows, so I would suggest that you not in a position to ridicule me about my assumptions. And because the Commission seems to have a lot of power, why should we not be concerned about potential misuses of that power?

To those driving cell-phone users that fear that this is the end of life as they know it — life will go on. Your phone is not being taken away from you, but instead you are being told that the safety of others is a higher priority to our community than that call of yours that you feel can’t wait until you are not driving.

Well, actually, I would say that what we are being told is that the Commissioners can force us to do whatever they want, without any stated statistical justification as to how much risk there is. It isn’t specifically about cell phones, it is about the appropriate use of government power.

Yes, life will go on. This is irrelevant. Life goes on with anyone in any situation, no matter how oppressive the legal environment.

I applaud the commission for joining many other communities and states by taking this step toward making our community safer.

Evidence, please. How much safer? How many injuries will it prevent? These facts have yet to be disclosed, so we don't know if the community is safer now, let alone by how much.

Black dogs and cats: the new bigotry

From the Bozeman Chronicle:

Black Market Pets

Stafford shelter offers discount on adoption of black dogs, cats

Every business seems to be offering special deals to get in on the opening weekend of the holiday shopping season.

Even the animal shelter.

Stafford Animal Shelter in Livingston offered to take 75 percent off the adoption fee of any predominantly black animal this weekend in an attempt to help those less popularly hued cats and dogs find a home.

“We do have some bigotry when it comes to black animals. They go a lot slower,” said shelter director Vicki Blakeman. “I don’t know why.”

The fact that black cats and dogs tend to stay in shelters longer than other-colored animals is a well-known fact throughout the animal shelter industry, she said.

Can you imagine? People who don't choose black dogs and cats are BIGOTS! Racists! Prejudiced!

This is the nonsense that passes as rational thought in some circles. Apparently, people exercising choice for whatever reasons, based on whatever preferences, are nothing more than haters. KKK members. Nazis.

The Left's obsession with color as a measure of diversity and tolerance, while simultaneously disparaging intellectual diversity, has now been extended to our choice of pet color. So now I wonder, what other things might be indicators of bigotry. Would eating chocolate ice cream be an indicator of tolerance? Owning a black car? Wearing a black shirt?

I guess I'm not a bigot, because I own a black dog. Wait a minute. I own it? That's slavery!

Our Identity - Neil Anderson

I have seen some criticism of Neil Anderson, mostly centering around the idea of whether or not we continue to be sinners, even after being saved. We know that the Kingdom of God is our new reality, yet we still live in the world. It is God who tells us who we are, and Scripture is full of identity verses.

The problem is that the Western intellectual discipline tends to be binary, that is, either/or. Much about God and His Kingdom cannot be dealt with on a binary basis, so it is no surprise that there is tension regarding the nature of sin. I suggest that there is no requirement that we reconcile the two natures.

In any event, we have to deal with the truth of these many biblical statements about who we are. Our identity is now in Christ, which makes each of these statements a description of how God sees us. It is for us to agree with God, it is our choice and our obligation:

1) Romans 8:5: "Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires."

2) Colossians 3:1-2: "Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things."

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

Who Am I ?

(Taken from Neil T. Anderson's book, Victory Over the Darkness Pg. 45-47 and 57-69, Regal Books, 1990)

I am the salt of the earth (Matt.5:13)

I am the light of the world (Matt.5:14)

I am a child of God (John 1:12)

I am a part of the true vine, a channel of Christ's life (John 15:1,5)

I am Christ's friend (John 15:15)

I am chosen and appointed by Christ to bear His fruit (John 15:16)

I am a slave to righteousness (Romans 6:18)

I am enslaved to God (Romans 6:22)

I am a son of God; God is spiritually my Father (Romans 8:14,15; Gal. 3:26; 4:6)

I am a joint heir with Christ, sharing His inheritance with Him (Romans 8:17)

I am a temple a dwelling place of God. His Spirit and His life dwells in me (1 Cor. 3:16, 6:19)

I am united to the Lord and am one Spirit with Him (1 Cor.6:17)

I am a member of Christ's Body 1 Cor. 12:27; Eph.5:30)

I am a new creature (2 Cor. 5: 17)

I am reconciled to God and am a minister of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5: 18,19)

I am a son of God and one in Christ ( Gal. 3: 26,28)

I am an heir of God since I am a son of God (Gal. 4: 6,7)

I am a saint ( Eph. 1:1; 1Cor. 1:2; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2)

I am God's workmanship-His handiwork-born anew in Christ to do His work (Eph. 2:10)

I am a fellow citizen with the rest of God's family ( Eph.2:19)

I am a prisoner of Christ (Eph. 3:1; 4:1)

I am righteous and holy (Eph.4:24)

I am a citizen of heaven, seated in heaven right now (Phil. 3:20; Eph. 2:6)

I am hidden with Christ in God (Col. 3:4)

I am an expression of the life of Christ because He is my life (Col.3:4)

I am chosen of God, holy and dearly loved (Col.3:12; 1 Thess.1:4)

I am a son of light and not of darkness (1 Thess. 5:5)

I am a holy partaker of a heavenly calling (Heb.3:1)

I am a partaker of Christ; I share in His life (Heb. 3:14)

I am one of God's living stones, being built up in Christ as s spiritual house (1 Peter 2:5)

I am a member of a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of God's own possession (1Peter 2:9,10)

I am an alien and stranger to this world in which I temporarily live (1 Peter 2:11)

I am a enemy of the devil (1 Peter 5:8)

I am a child of God and I will resemble Christ when He returns (1 John 3: 1,2)

I am born of God, and the evil one - the devil - cannot touch me (1 John 5:18)

I am not the Great I AM, (Exodus 3:14; John 8:24,28,58) But by the grace of God I am what I am (1 Cor.15:10)

I have been justified- completely forgiven and made righteous (Romans 5:1)

I died with Christ and died to the power of sin’s rule over my life (Romans 6:1-6)

I am free forever from condemnation (Romans 8:1)

I have been placed into Christ by God’s doing (1 Corinthians 1:30)

I have received the Spirit of God into my life that I might know the things freely given to me by God (! Corinthians 2:12)

I have been given the mind of Christ (! Corinthians 2:16)

I have bought with a price; I am not my own; I belong to God (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)

I have been established, anointed and sealed by God in Christ, and I have been given the Holy

Spirit as a pledge guaranteeing our inheritance to come (II Corinthians 1:21, Ephesians 1:13-14)

Since I have died, I no longer live for myself, but for Christ (II Corinthians 5:14-15)

I have been made righteous (II Corinthians 5:21)

I have been crucified with Christ and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. The life I am now living is Christ’s life (Galatians 2:20)

I have been blessed with every spiritual blessing (Ephesians 1:3)

I was chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and am without blame before him (Ephesians 1:4)

I was predestined - determined by God - to be adopted as God’s son (Ephesians 1:5)

I have been redeemed, forgiven, and I am a recipient of His lavish grace. I have been made alive together with Christ (Ephesians 2:5)

I have been raised up and seated with Christ in heaven (Ephesians 2:6)

I have direct access through the Spirit (Ephesians 2:18)

I may approach God with boldness, freedom and confidence (Ephesians 3:12)

I have been rescued from the domain of Satan’s rule and transferred to the kingdom of Christ (Colossians 1:13)

I have been redeemed and forgiven of all my sins. The debt against me has been canceled (Colossians 1:14)

Christ Himself is in me (Colossians 1:27)

I am firmly rooted in Christ and am now being built in Him (Colossians 2:7)

I have been spiritually circumcised. My old, unregenerate nature has been removed. (Colossians 2:11)

I have been made complete in Christ (Colossians 2:10)

I have been buried, raised and made alive with Christ (Colossians 2:12-13)

I died with Christ and I have been raised up with Christ. My life is now hidden with Christ in God. Christ is now my life (Colossians 3:1-4)

I have been given a spirit of power, love and self-discipline (II Timothy 1:7)

I have been saved and set apart according to God’s doing (II Timothy 1:9, Titus 3:5)

Because I am sanctified and am one with the sanctifier, He is not ashamed to call me brother (Hebrews 2:11)

I have the right to come boldly before the throne of God to find mercy and grace in time of need (Hebrews 4:16)

I have been given exceedingly great and precious promises by God by which I am a partaker of God’s divine nature (II Peter 1:4)

Government workers' taxes paid by private sector - FB Conversation

I posted this tidbit: "$15T Federal Debt Equals $160,545 for Each Full-Time Private-Sector American."

S.B.: last time I looked, I, along with my fellow public sector employees, paid income taxes, federal excise taxes, state taxes, etc -- just like those private sector folks! So what does the pro-rationing to "per private sector American" accomplish?

Me: Because the private sector wage earners supply the funding for everything else, including the money that the government takes back from you after they pay you.

S.B.: but the debt is just as much mine, or your local cop, firefighter, or teacher (or insert your other favorite public sector leach on society here) as it is any of those people's. And we contribute equally to paying it down.

Me: I would take issue with the assertion that it is anyone's direct responsibility. But granting you that, it still remains that every single dollar a public sector employee receives in wages and benefits came from the private sector. If we follow the money trail, the taxes you pay were sourced from someone else, placed in government coffers, and then issued to you only to be taken back by the government.

S.B.: and I don't get your point, Rich, if there is one. Clearly we have government for a purpose. Most would argue that government is merely ONE way that we collectively organize to do things that we cannot do individually -- whether that be a space program, fire protection, national defense, etc.

If your implication is that somehow, none of this provides any societal value, then I would say that there's really nothing to argue about -- I wouldn't be working for the gov't if I believed that -- just as I found it hard working for private sector companies that had no higher purpose than providing a return on investment to their shareholders. A position, incidentally, which I don't expect you to embrace.

I am proud of being on the government payroll; what I do has value and I make no apologies for it. I am a productive member of society and if you are implying that I am anything less because I chose a career of doing science in the public interest, then I don't know what to tell you.

Me: You seem to assume I'm making some sort of value judgment, either about you, or about federal workers in general. However, I have pointedly and specifically dealt with a particular economic reality of who pays for what.

I note that you have yet to address that single point, instead making an emotional appeal. It makes me wonder, do you have a rebuttal?

May I also point out that I have not brought up anything about the value of government. Nor have I discussed anything regarding the societal value of government work. Indeed, I have no intention of making a defense of things I did not write about.

So, if you want to actually discuss the crippling nature of the national debt, that would be refreshingly on topic.

Cell phone follies - making distraction illegal but changing nothing - editorial

The Chronicle reports that the Bozeman Commissioners passed an ordinance prohibiting the use of cell phones while driving. Commissioner Carson Taylor was quoted, saying. "Using a cell phone when you're driving is dangerous." We do not know if he provided evidence for his statement, but my guess is that he did not.

Probably because there isn’t any. Statistically speaking, it is not dangerous. The article says that “…5,474 people died and another 448,000 were hurt in crashes involving all forms of distracted driving in 2009.” After a brief search I found that 18% were attributed to hand-held devices. That would be 985 deaths and 80,640 injuries nationwide.

From this we can calculate per capita deaths and injuries in Bozeman caused by drivers distracted by cell phones. The number of deaths per year is basically zero, and injuries, less than 10. In other words, the Commissioners solved a problem that statistically doesn’t exist.

Lacking actual danger to the populace, the Commission legislated against what might happen as a result of engaging in an activity that could be dangerous and might cause injury. Therefore, the law is predicated on the consequence of two, maybe three antecedents. This is akin to outlawing television because there is a boiling pot of food on the stove that could start a fire and kill everyone in the house.

But what is really unfortunate is that the Bozeman Municipal Code already covers the issue: “A person operating or driving a vehicle of any character on the ways of the city open to the public shall drive it in a careful and prudent manner...” (Section 36.03.260)

What, then, is the reason for the law? First, we can safely conclude that this is the pop culture issue de jour. Lacking statistical justification, the law is based on little more than emotion and anecdotes. Kinda like setting tax policy by what Warren Buffet says about his secretary. Second, the city will receive thousands of dollars of additional revenue.

So why the focus on cell phones? Why not some laws to prohibit having sex while driving, playing with your chimpanzee while driving, or listening to an Obama speech while driving? It is unknown why the Commission did not address these clearly dangerous activities.

The Commissioners, attentive to nothing more than feel-good politics, are nevertheless perfectly comfortable giving a pass to drivers breezing through stoplights and bicyclists going the wrong way down one way streets. Having spectacularly solved the Story Mansion situation, the transfer station problem, the parking crisis, the traffic camera question, and the impact fee issue, the Commission can carve yet another notch on the bedpost of nanny government. Well, maybe we’re not getting screwed, but it sure feels like it.

But it gets worse. Consider this troubling quote from the article: “Commissioner Chris Mehl stipulated that the law not go into effect any earlier than Jan. 17, so city officials have time to educate people.” Is anyone else bothered by the idea that we the people must be “educated” in order to ensure conformity? Who, exactly, is charged with taking us aside and educating us? And what does this education consist of?

Yeah, yeah, I know. I’m making too big a deal out of this; it’s just a little thing. But liberty requires eternal vigilance. We must notice when politicians, enamored of their ability to force people to do things, start passing behavior modification laws and then insist that people be indoctrinated to unblinkingly obey them.

Tyrants frequently think big and start small, and tyranny can manifest in degrees. A singular powerful dictator or overtly egregious actions are not necessary prerequisites. A bunch of small town commissioners legislating a small issue still qualifies, and still must be opposed.

These guys have too much power, and apparently, too much time on their hands.
---------------

Text of the article, posted here for fair use and discussion purposes:

Bozeman City Commission approves ban on hand-held cell phones while driving Story

The Bozeman City Commission voted 4-1 Monday night to adopt an ordinance banning the use of hand-held devices such as cell phones, laptop computers and GPS navigations systems while driving or bicycling.

"Using a cell phone when you're driving is dangerous," Commissioner Carson Taylor said.

"We're going to have to change the way that we do our business and the way that we communicate with others," Deputy Mayor Sean Becker said.

The commission will consider a second, final passage of the ordinance on Nov. 28. Commissioner Chris Mehl stipulated that the law not go into effect any earlier than Jan. 17, so city officials have time to educate people.

Mayor Jeff Krauss cast the lone vote "no."

"I'm voting ‘no' for the same reason I vote ‘yes' on things like individual rights," Krauss said.

Under the ordinance, if you're caught texting or talking on a hand-held cell phone while behind the wheel, you could be pulled over and fined $100. Using a hands-free communications device such as Bluetooth, however, is allowed.

Commissioners on Monday night changed language in the ordinance to exempt drivers on Interstate 90, who may not even realize they're in the city of Bozeman. Plus, highway patrol officers monitoring highways don't enforce each individual city's laws.

Commissioners also edited a section to allow hands-free users to touch their Bluetooth, or other device, so they can answer calls without violating the law.

Bozeman's ordinance is similar to laws in Butte-Silver Bow, Billings, Whitefish and Helena. Missoula has a ban on texting while driving.

Nine states, Washington D.C. and the Virgin Islands prohibit drivers from using hand-held cell phones, according to the Governors Highway Safety Association. No state bans hands-free cell phone use for the general public. Some states ban all cell phone use by novice and school bus drivers.

Sixteen people spoke during the public comment portion of Monday night's commission meeting.

Ann Justin opposed the law.

"I find being with my daughter in the car more distracting than talking on my phone - we're arguing about something," Justin said. "How about if you've got two 5-year-olds in the backseat? ... How about political discussions? ... How about eating a hamburger? There are many things that are more distracting, I think, than talking on the phone. I'm capable of doing that."

Gary Vodehnal, vice chairman of the city's Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee, said he recently witnessed a woman crash into another car while talking on her cell phone. She got out of her car, but stayed on the call until Vodehnal, who was bicycling behind her, approached her and suggested she call police.

"She finally said into her phone, ‘Mom, I'm going to have to call you back. I need to take care of something,'" Vodehnal said.

Passing a "distracted-driving" ordinance "will improve safety for pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers in our community," he said.

In an email to commissioners Monday, Bozeman resident Kent Madin criticized commissioners for allowing hands-free devices and not banning cell phone use entirely. He said the issue isn't whether both the driver's hands are on the wheel, he said.

"If it was, one-armed people couldn't get driver's licenses, nor could people with arms in slings, etc.," Madin said. "All cell phone use should be banned because of the amount of attention bandwidth the call consumes."

According to the federal Department of Transportation, 5,474 people died and another 448,000 were hurt in crashes involving all forms of distracted driving in 2009.

Using electronic devices while driving is distracting, but it's difficult to track how often using such devices causes crashes.

Sixty-three percent of drivers under age 30 acknowledge using a hand-held phone while behind the wheel, according to the DOT. Thirty percent said they've sent text messages while driving.

Amanda Ricker can be reached at aricker@dailychronicle.com

"God does not use angels to accomplish His purposes." An analysis

A FB friend posted this quote, attributed to David Wilkerson: "God uses people. God uses people to perform His work. He does not send angels. Angels weep over it, but God does not use angels to accomplish His purposes. He uses burdened broken-hearted weeping men and women."

I don't accept things as easily as I used to. This quote, while seemingly insightful, struck me as odd. The person who posted it was, I believe, using it to encourage believers to serve God. That is noble and good. There is no doubt that God's people are prone to inaction and antipathy.

But there is something wrong as we continue reading past the first sentence. wilkerson appears to be suggesting that God will only use His people, and then only His people who are weeping and brokenhearted. I certainly accept that God has a unique and powerful calling to His Church to be His body, to do the things He has called us to, and to make a difference in this world. He has anointed His people, He dwells within them, He speaks to them and through them. Quite right.

However, we also know that God uses the ungodly, He uses animals, He uses weather and nature, and He even uses dark forces to accomplish His will. He brings calamity and pours out blessing. All things are in His hand, and every knee will bow. God is not a victim of happenstance. He is certainly not powerless outside the realm of His people.

And yes, God uses His angels. They're all over the Bible, doing battle, functioning as messengers, ministering to God's people. They're quite specifically being used by God to accomplish His purpose. There are dozens of mentions of angels doing all sorts of things. The Bible even refers to heavenly hosts. The term "hosts" translates as "armies." This begs the question, why would God have armies of angels, if they don't execute His purposes?

We now see that this is a bit more complicated. So what is Wilkerson really talking about? I searched around to find the context of the quote. Happily, I found the entire sermon posted here. The topic of Wilkerson's sermon is the backslidden Church, the Church that has compromised, that tolerates sin in its midst and accepts false teaching. Specifically, Wilkerson names the prosperity doctrine. Wilkerson's sermon has nothing at all to do with Christian service! It has everything to do with those who will take up the call to stand for Truth and Righteousness, those who will not tolerate false teaching, those who will weep over the sins of the Church and intercede for it.

And now we understand what Wilkerson is speaking about. He is not saying that only God's people are used by Him. Wilkerson is calling the Church to do its specific job. Only the people of God can deal with the problems in the Church. They are called to do this. The angels aren't.

I respond to some comments

These comments appeared on the Bozeman Chronicle website in answer to my recent column. I do want to dissect them a bit because of their astonishing fecklessness.

First, magicdragon: "I want him to post his tax forms so we all can see how much he writes off. When I was self employed, I was able to write off thousands that a man working for someone else could not. Does Rich pay a higher percent than his receptionist?"

This is the classic progressive mindset. This writer seems to think he is entitled to see my private financial records, apparently to determine if I pay enough taxes. So I'll make him a deal. If magicdragon would publish all the details of his sex life so that we can determine the appropriateness of his behavior and then penalize him for any, shall we say, inadequacies, I then would be happy to publish my tax records. In other words, it's none of his damn business.

If magicdragon was able to pay lower taxes as a result of being self-employed, he was guilty of tax evasion. A business owner pays both the employer and employee portions of Social Security on himself, rent, phone, postage, utilities, employee salaries and benefits, buys equipment, and of course, pays a plethora of taxes. If there is any money left, then the owner gets a paycheck.

Next, Sonechka: "According to manta.com: '[Rich's company] is a private company which is listed under insurance. Current estimates show this company has an annual revenue of $500,000 to $1 million and employs a staff of 1 to 4.' You can afford your taxes, Rich."

So this means, I assume, that the only relevant factor regarding taxes is affordability? This would mean that taxes can never be too high, unfair, illegal, or punitive if the target has the ability to pay them. It also suggests that government ought to have to power to determine who has too much money and take it from them.

Implicit in this is the idea that your wealth belongs to the government, who "kindly" allows you to keep some for yourself. However, the principle of private property is a founding concept of our country, an idea which separates us from the monarchy, where the people are subjects or serfs, and the King owns all property. The Constitution notes that we have the right to be secure in our persons and property.

My response to Christine Montano

The thing I noticed first about Christine's letter to the editor is the total absence of name-calling. This alone makes it a noteworthy letter, since she makes her points with the substance of her arguments, not on pejorative language. Well done on that level, Christine.

However, the substance of her arguments must be based on the substance of my column. Does she refute things I actually addressed? And does she accurately represent them? Well, no. It seems that these simple criteria would not be unreasonable to expect of an English teacher at Bozeman High School.

Christine writes: "Unlike Rich, I have recently discovered that total self-reliance is impossible in today’s modern world." Unfortunately for her, I made no statement regarding "total self-reliance." The fact of the matter is that I do not believe that total self reliance is desirable, even if it were possible. True, there are some who make an effort to live "off the grid," but even they will rely on others at times. Nevertheless, there is little advantage in discussing a position that is not mine.

Christine continues: "Bill Anderson’s excellent essay titled “The Myth of Self-Reliance” made me question the viability of libertarianism today since, like it or not, we are interconnected as a society." So, Christine did not get the idea of "total self-reliance" from my column, she got it from Bill Anderson: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/the-myth-of-self-reliance/

I note for the record that Mr. Anderson never used the word "libertarian." His article references a magazine article, which he describes as advocating self sufficiency. He quotes a paragraph from it to establish his thesis that total self-reliance is not possible: "Before 1776 we were less than free as a country, but Americans were independent in a personal sense. Most people then built their own homes, grew their own food, made their furniture and clothes, and even bred their own horses for transportation. True, life was much harder than now. But the support systems were within reach of almost everyone, and were subject to individual control. People ‘paid’ for much of what they used with their own effort. Almost all the raw materials were renewable. Our material culture was sustainable, and America could be cut off from the rest of the world without the creation of much suffering or hardship... What can be done about our growing dependence in these modern times?"

Maybe I'm not seeing it, but there doesn't appear to be any advocacy of "total self-reliance" contained in the paragraph he quoted. Quite the contrary, this statement, "...but the support systems were within reach of almost everyone..." suggests just the opposite, that people did depend on each other. Hmm, maybe it's just me.

Beyond that, libertarians do not advocate total self-reliance. Perhaps a small few of them do, but it certainly is not a defining tenet of libertarianism. Libertarians do want to bring government down to its constitutional limits, they do want government out of their pockets and personal lives, and they do believe that they are better equipped to make decisions about their own lives. But libertarians are not anarchists or isolationists (except isolation from undue government interference).

Let's continue on to Christine's next point: "What are the long-term effects of “opting out” of local taxes as Rich suggests?" Actually, I did not suggest that we should have the ability to opt out. The point I made is that progressives are in favor of certain targeted taxes, like impact fees, but opposed to the idea of allowing other targeted taxes, based on nothing but political preferences. They like impact fees because these taxes target a villan, and also because they don't have to pay them. Conversely, they like general taxes like property taxes because property taxes support public schools, and they like public schools.

She asks, "What if we chopped down Bozeman’s trees to make more room for 'wonderful creations,' the office buildings Rich celebrates?" Well, people chop down trees all the time for a variety of reasons. But I did not advocate cutting down trees to build condos. All I did was question the tree maintenance tax, which I suppose is sufficent to make me anti-tree.

She continues: "What happens to property values and quality of life in a hardscape town of 'beautiful, useful' office condominiums?" So now I want ALL the trees cut down and office condos built everywhere! Do you see how this is escalating from my simple questioning of a tax? But let's run with the idea. Assume the Gallatin Valley was covered with forests. Eeevil capitalist developers came in and cut down a bunch of trees and built ugly office condos. Did the quality of life change? Yes, upwards. The reason those offices were built is because businesses need a place to operate from, and those businesses sell products and employ people and allow a better quality of life.

Trees, on the other hand, employ no one. They just sit there looking pretty. I would certainly agree that we need pretty things to look at to soften the hardscape, but I would suggest that the two are not mutually exclusive. In any event, since I am not anti-tree or pro-condo, it makes little sense to discuss the point any more.

Christine then pursues another non-sequitur: "What happens to our educated, literate workforce and local businesses when public education quality declines due to lack of funding?" Well, my column made no statement about the level of funding for public schools. We do know, however, that the worst schools in the country (largely located in progressive strongholds like Detroit and D.C.) are among the highest funded. So, there is no real "...correlation among literacy skills, education and criminal activity versus civic responsibility..." with school funding.

Once again, since I questioned a tax, in this case property taxes, it apparently makes me anti-education. This is a typical M.O. of the political left. Opposing or criticizing a tax or a government program is synonymous with opposing the goal of the tax or program. Therefore, suggesting tax reform is the same as being anti-education, hating blacks, tossing the poor out into the streets, starving our seniors, and misogyny.

It seems pretty obvious that she is drawing conclusions based on suppositions that are derived from the progressive template. It's not that I think she's dishonest, I think she's reflexively responding based on where she is immersed. She assumes they're true because she surrounds herself with like-minded people, and as a result generally restricts her exposure to contrary ideas. I believe she has rarely had a sit down with someone who has a different political point of view, or if she has, she doesn't like it when it happens.

I must say, however, I am glad that she wrote. Responding to something other than mindless invective was a pleasure for me. She did demonstrate that it is possible to engage in civil dialogue. I hope a few progressives take the hint.

Christine Montano writes a response to my editorial

I'll write a response later.

On Nov. 2, Rich wrote an editorial denouncing his tax bills for tree and street maintenance and property taxes for public schools. Like Rich, I also pay taxes, oppose our wars and bailouts, have no children and have sometimes been attracted to libertarian ideals (although I’m hesitant to jump on any political bandwagon). Unlike Rich, I have recently discovered that total self-reliance is impossible in today’s modern world.

Bill Anderson’s excellent essay titled “The Myth of Self-Reliance” made me question the viability of libertarianism today since, like it or not, we are interconnected as a society. The self-sufficient feudalist societies of the medieval era, Anderson writes, contained hidden costs of illiteracy, isolation, disease, coercion and threat of war. On the other hand, our modern communities are composed of skilled, specialized workers who must depend on each other for our society’s health and vitality. “The Myth of Self-Reliance,” available online, makes for fascinating reading that challenged my political assumptions.

What are the long-term effects of “opting out” of local taxes as Rich suggests? What if we chopped down Bozeman’s trees to make more room for “wonderful creations,” the office buildings Rich celebrates? What happens to property values and quality of life in a hardscape town of “beautiful, useful” office condominiums? What happens to our educated, literate workforce and local businesses when public education quality declines due to lack of funding? What is the correlation among literacy skills, education and criminal activity versus civic responsibility?

On the same day that Rich's editorial appeared, a front-page article indicated that 95 percent of Bozeman High School students scored at or above grade level in reading. As a community, we must be doing something right. Rich, none of us is truly self-reliant anymore.

Proud to be a liberal - FB conversation

S.B. posted this:

I've ALWAYS been proud to be a liberal.
REFRAMING THE WORD 'LIBERAL'
SHARE if you too ARE PROUD TO BE A LIBERAL!



Monte Wolverton is one of the world's most widely syndicated editorial cartoonists. His work appears in fine newspapers, periodicals, websites and blogs everywhere. I guess this cartoon allows us to safely state that he is a LIBERAL... check more of his toons: http://www.wolvertoon.com/toons/

Me: Meh. A full half of those things are still societal problems that haven't been solved.

S.B.: well, let's see: Consumer protection? Do you think the industry that brought us exploding Pintos and the Corvair would have increased auto safety at this rate without regulation?

Me: It's wonderful that safety has increased. But we don't know what would have happened without government intervention, nor do we know the cost to society in other ways, nor do we know how many deaths and injuries resulted from these regulations.

S.B.: or lead exposures -- remember all the industry bitching about eliminating lead from gas?

S.B.: I can go on, but it won't change your view on the matter, and those of us who are proud of these accomplishments aren't about to consider them failures.

Me: Yeah, and remember trying to drive a wheezer from circa 1977? And I wonder how much cost is added to a vehicle to comply with these regulations, how much natural resources were used in their manufacture, and what other things might have happened in industry without having to devote those resources to government mandates.

You celebrate the easy-to-discern benefits without regarding the unseen detriment. The equation is much bigger than you are allowing for.

Me: will always have air that is too dirty, which justifies the eternal involvement of government in all phases of our lives.

S.B.: I not only remember, but I grew up in a gas station in those years, so worked on them.

But the industry figured it out, and today my brother's corvette goes 0-60 quicker than anything on the road in 1968 or 1978, yet gets 26mpg when he wants to.

And EVERY signficant increase in vehicle fleet economy has been preceded by regulatory action to force those changes.

K,M.: The bad and the good... we lost the chrome. But we don't have to drive 55 anymore.

Me: Assuming there are some overall benefits from a few of these liberal achievements, then do liberals also take the blame for skyrocketing crime, illegitimacy, illiteracy, and inner city desolation that has ocurred over the last 40 years? Or do liberals get credit for all the "good" stuff resulting from their policies, but the bad stuff is someone else's blame?

R.E.: Lest we forget the Community reinvestment act that lead to Freddy mac and fanny mae and the melt down of the housing market.

R.B.: "Assuming" there are benefits? Brother, you're in denial. And to blame a liberal political philosophy for the ills you iterate Rich, is without demonstrable merit. And R.B., claiming that the Community Reinvestment Act led to the housing bubble is either a deliberate falsehood, or just stupidity. There's nothing wrong with being a conservative, but being a stupid, arrogant conservative sucks.

ME: R.B., for liberals to take credit for good things without assuming blame for bad things is without demonstrable merit.

And by the way, you are stupid and arrogant. Or simply a boor.

V.M.: It's stupid to use Conservative OR Liberal as a negative term. I like this way much

I.S.: More than happy to take the blame for the "bad" we've done. Like letting conservatives run roughshod over the country and the economy for the last thirty years and cleaning up their messes instead of letting them wallow in the consequences of their stupidity and arrogance. The only "skyrocketing" that is factual and actual is the massive redistribution of wealth and destruction of the middle class started by St. Ronnie -- who would never be elected today as he would be classified as "too liberal".

R.E.: Cummunity Reinvestedment Act was the Start and then Clinton wanting to make it easier for people to buy houses accelerated the housing bust thru sub par mortgages. even tho the senate was warned that unless something was done Fanny Mae would collapse. They were warned in 2002 that we were heading for a mortgage crisis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

Me: ‎"Like letting conservatives run roughshod over the country and the economy for the last thirty years..." What? With the exception of 2000-2006, liberals were in charge of at least one branch of government, and sometimes all three during the last 30 years.

The only messes that must be cleaned up are liberals and their republican big government co-conspirators who have spent this country into oblivion.

I.S.: Turn off Fox.

Me: Ms. Suver, don't forget to call me a bigot and a homophobe. Whatever name calling assuages your failure to offer substantive rejoinders.