A few more random thoughts on the Sign Code and then...

...I'll shut up.

Under the new sign code, window signs cannot be bigger than 1/3 of the size of the window, according to Cheryl Patton, "in order to let light inside." What if I don't want light inside? What the hell concern is it of City Government how light my business is or what portion of the light comes from outside? If you read my post below about private property, you cannot possibly doubt my assertion that City Government simply does not care about or respect the private property rights of its citizens.

At one point, Randy Gray stated that he's "no visual expert," but that we ought to look at proportionality. What the heck is a "visual expert?" An eye doctor?

It struck me that there were 27 people at this meeting. There were 14 people 'at the table' in a policy-making role. Assuming 55,000 people in Great Falls, that means that we intend to allow less than 3/10ths of 1% of our population infringe on property rights granted to us by our Founding Fathers. Why? Because they apparently think they know what looks better.

The City is creating "billboard-free areas" at all of the entrances to our community, apparently on the assumption that billboards make the approaches less attractive. This from the people who placed the jail 25' off of the interstate on the way into town. And they are going to tell us how to make the entryways more attractive? What gall.

Finally, one last thought. Does anyone reading this have even the slightest doubt what the City Government would do if Red Lobster were to come to town and open a store, but only if allowed a 50' pole sign?

Ok, I'll admit it. I'm obsessed with the Sign Code!

Another thing our City Government did at the meeting yesterday morning is pull up some pictures of some of the "less attractive" signs around town. Then they used the miracle of modern computing to change the signs to appear as they would if they were conforming to the new sign code (Thanks to Cheryl Patton for sharing the photos with me).

Below you can see the 'before' picture of our own Poquito Villa on 10th Ave. So. Note how offensively tall the sign is, and the unconscionable way one is able to see underneath the bottom of the individual signs. Also note how incredibly big and ugly the wall signs are. Then, scroll down a little more, and you can see the computer generated version.

Notice how much more attractive it looks with the slightly smaller wall signs and the 10 foot shorter sign height. NOT!

With all due respect to the Sign Committee, you have got to be kidding me! There are actually people who think they are benefiting this community by hiring a $50,000.00/yr. staffer to go around and bully legitimate businesses into spending their hard earned money to "improve" signage??? Can you understand what I mean by aesthetic judgments? Can you possibly provide me with one objective criterion by which I can independently determine that the 'after' picture is more visually appealing than the 'before?' Even if you do prefer the 'after' picture, you cannot in good conscience tell me that the comparison is so clear cut that it is anything, anything but a matter of personal taste and preference. And we are going to base laws on personal taste and preference? Whose?

This is the "before" picture. Note how 'tall' and 'ugly' the signs are.

Now, this is the 'after' post. Be honest, can you really say this looks better? Do you understand what all the fuss is?

Sign Code, Part 3

At the sign code meeting on Wednesday, March 30, a committee member raised the issue of SB 411. He pointed out that Montana is one of only 3 states that does not have legislation like this. Assistant City Manager, Cheryl Patton, pointed out that "the planning boards and cities are fighting this" legislation.

What is SB411? This bill would allow local government to regulate, relocate, and remove off premise advertising (billboards). So, why would the cities oppose this grant of additional power?

Because SB411 also requires local government to compensate the advertisers and owners of the property for losses they incur as a result of such regulation, relocation, and removal of billboards. In other words, it would require the cities to bear the costs of the whims of their leaders, not private enterprise.

Let's apply this reasoning to our City's new sign code. Lets assume that there are 3,000 nonconforming signs in Great Falls. We'll assume 1/2 choose to buy the City's new grandfather permit for $300.00. The other 1/2 agree to pay to bring their signs into conformance at an average cost of $2,500.00. This would impose a cost of $4,200,000.00 on our community.

Whoa, wait a minute. You mean creating new sign codes will cost money? How will imposing $4.2 million in costs on the private sector "promote a positive economic and business climate?" Well, I'll tell you what. Let's impose the cost of this ordinance on those who create the cost, the City of Great Falls.

I'll bet if it became known that the City had to pay millions as a result of this sign code, the public furor pushing for the adoption of this code would die down.

Wait a minute. There's no public furor pushing for the adoption of this code. In fact, at the public hearing, comments ran approximately 3-1 against the code. I wonder what would happen to that number if the taxpayers also had to pay the costs associated with the aesthetic decisions of their elected leaders.

No wonder the cities are opposed to SB411.

Sign Code, Part 2

At the sign code meeting on March 30, City Government announced it's new plan. Most significant is a new right to grandfather signs.

You see, if you own a sign that does not conform to the new code, you can get a 'grandfather exemption' that will allow you to leave your sign as is for as long as you want to keep it without change. The only catch is that you have to pay a $300.00 fee to do so.

Look, I am opposed to the sign code. But this is leadership? If the City Government truly believes a sign code is necessary, pass one. If the City Government believes, as I do, that there is overwhelming opposition to a sign code, then don't pass one.

But don't set this up as a new tax, because that's all it really is. If I am doing business in a particular fashion, and I want to continue, the City has now decided to tax me $300.00 to do so. I wonder if this 'new idea' has anything to do with the City's need to fund their new sign inspector at an annual cost of $50,000.00.

If a sign code will be good for Great Falls, then the City Commission should pass one. Don't waffle and blow in the breeze. Have you ever heard the phrase "courage of your convictions?" We'll see, won't we?

Sign Code, Part 1

Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.

* * *

Political power, then, I take to be a right of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the regulating and preserving of property.

John Locke, the Second Treatise of Civil Government.

That is extremely powerful stuff. Every man owns his own labor, so when he combines that labor with the stuff of nature, he creates something that is his own, his property. And political power is vested in the government for the purpose of preserving private property.

John Locke is widely recognized to have influenced the drafters of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, as well as the other Founding Fathers. (While there may be debate about the extent to which Locke's influence is found in the Federalist Papers, there is little doubt that his political philosophy can be recognized in much of what we consider to be American principles of governance.) In Federalist No. 10, our founders wrote: "The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. " In other words, mankind has diverse skills and abilities, and different individuals will use these abilities in different ways to acquire property. Protection of these differences and, thus, the property they create is the "first object of government."

Conversely, in The Principles of Communism, Engels wrote that the laborer "can free himself only by abolishing private property in general."

In other words, our free system of governance relies at its core upon private property, and the first object of government should be to protect private property rights. On the other hand, a communist state can exist only where the government acts to abolish property rights.

Whew, sorry for the history/philosophy/civics review. What the hell does it have to do with the sign code? I would hope that the answer is obvious to anyone who bothers to read this 'blog.

When a small group of citizens comes together to try to regulate what I can and cannot do on my private property based in large part on aesthetics, how can we possibly think that this process does not infringe on my property rights? Come on, think about this. Less then 20 of our fellow citizens are going to tell the remaining 60,000 of us that they will decide what is pretty and what is not, what looks good and what does not, how big is too big, what colors are good and what colors are bad? Can you honestly say that the "first object" of our City Commission is the protection of our private property rights?

I went to the informal meeting this morning between the Sign Committee and the City Commission. As I listened to the speakers talk about what was an "appropriate" sign, what would be an "improvement," what signs are "not so good," I was struck by a very basic question. Do any of these people who purport to govern us ever stop and think about the absolutely incredible seriousness of the steps they take? Do they ever stop and really contemplate that every one of their little sign codes or zoning codes or other ordinances actually shackles their fellow citizens? Do they ever stop and think about the cumulative effect of years and years of City Commissions and bureaucrats and regulation and permitting?

I don't think they do. I don't think they care.

He Said It...

In the March 29, 2005, Tribune, Teachers' Union leader, Eric Feaver, threatened further legal action against the State of Montana (Read: You and Me) if the Legislature does not provide more money for health insurance for teachers and their spouses. He said "I don't want to go back to court...Maybe the state just wants to spend more money not remedying the situation with legal costs."

Well, I can't speak for "the state," but I can tell you that I sure don't want to spend more money not remedying the situation with legal costs. In fact, I would be willing to vote not to spend more money to not remedy...er...to not vote on legal remedies...um... voting on remedying not costs legal...uh...?

Well, there you have it. My public education just wasn't good enough to let me keep up with Feaver's logic.

The article goes on to outline a proposal to provide for the health insurance subsidies once there's enough money to pay for it. In response, Feaver says "that's a little like kissing your sister or something. Somehow or another, it just doesn't make me perk up."

Please, will someone go perk Eric Feaver up for me so we don't get sued again??!!?? And here I thought the idea was to provide a quality education for our kids.

Smoking

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that the anti-smoking zealots ought to be a little more forthright in their views?

In other words, why don't they just start a movement to ban tobacco in Montana, rather than insisting on infringing on our (formerly) constitutionally protected property rights? Why should the state get to tell me whether my customers can engage in a legal activity on the property I own or rent? The state doesn't have any rights in my property. The last time I checked, the state wasn't paying any of my rent.

I get so tired of these stealth agendas where the do-gooders and busybodies know they can't sell their true ideas to the public, so they chip away at the sides by misrepresenting their true views. ("Oh, we support your freedom to smoke, we just want to protect others from second hand smoke." What a load of bunk.)

It's flat dishonest. And the ironic thing is that those who pull this crap invariably invoke the high moral ground.

A Growing Economy...

Wait, this can't be happening. Didn't the Tribune tell them that we have to increase spending on education to get economic growth???

On Tolerance.

One of the watchwords of the political correctness movement is "tolerance," which means "the capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others." Of course, the opposite is "intolerant," which means "unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs."

The word "intolerant" is invariably used by the left to characterize the 'meanness' of those who would dare to oppose the leftist movement du jour. For example, if someone disagrees with the homosexual agenda, that person is "intolerant." The left, of course, lives in a big happy land filled with stuffed animals, bunnies, flowers, and tolerance. (And drug abuse and deviance and teen pregnancies and dead fetuses and...and...) The notion of tolerance really stems from the concept of "nonjudgmentalism" or "moral relativism." Both of these topics are best left for another day.

No, today it's "tolerance" and the "intolerant." And here's my point. The left, the so-called bastions of "tolerance," are actually the most "intolerant" among us. How so, you ask?

Well, use that noggin. The very definitions of "tolerance" and "intolerant" presume something different from what we believe. In other words, the left uses the terms to discuss things they agree with, a place where the term actually has no meaning.

Let's use the gay agenda, discussed below. The left will often claim they are "tolerant" because they support the gay agenda. But that is not tolerating anything at all, because it represents their own views. They don't disagree with the gay agenda, they support it. You don't "tolerate" something you believe in. If I am a smoker, it is completely meaningless to say I "tolerate" those who smoke. I smoke, I don't "tolerate smokers." The definition of the word, the fundamental meaning requires an opposing belief.

Therefore, if the left were truly "tolerant" they would respect and support the right of the anti-gay movement to oppose them. That is where the left will find the differing beliefs. But they do not tolerate those who disagree with them. Instead the left a) mocks those who disagree or b) attempts to change the viewpoints.

Call it what you want, but don't call it tolerance.

They Just Don't Get It...

Ignoring the fact that the State recently supported and anti-gay marriage initiative by a nearly 2-1 margin, the Dems are now pushing SB199, which would add sexual orientation as a protected class under our human rights statutes. This bill and the Tribune article on the subject raises a number of issues.

Let me preface the discussion by saying that I do not oppose homosexuals. I do oppose the homosexual agenda. I believe that there is something wrong with a group of adults planning ways to indoctrinate my children into certain beliefs about their sexuality. I do not believe that the advocates of the gay agenda truly want us to accept them; I think they want the heterosexual community to celebrate them. I think the way that our popular culture has twisted things around such that the gays are considered the moral and the Christians the immoral is wrong. I believe that the gay movement fosters an unnatural preoccupation with sex, and that it will lead some non-gay youth to experiment with the gay lifestyle.

Now, the bill. First, there is the issue of religious freedom. While I am not a particularly religious fellow, one must acknowledge that there is a fair reading of the Bible that can lead one to believe that homosexuality is proscribed. If we as a society force an individual with strong religious beliefs to hire a homosexual, we are infringing on the employer's religious rights. (Don't bring up abortion; we do not force anyone to get an abortion...yet.)

Second, the arrogance of some of the Democrat legislators is amazing on this issue. Commenting on the shear number of letters he has received opposing the bill, Rep. Paul Clark (D-Trout Creek) characterizes the letters as "pushiness," and calls the citizens who contact him to express their opinions "bullies," whose contacts on this bill "get old." I don't know, I thought it was still our government, and our involvement was a good thing.

Finally, Sen. Bill Wilson (D-Great Falls), whom I like personally, gave us a glimpse into the 'agenda.' Commenting how he opposed a bill granting gays the right to civil unions, he states that "Montana is just not there yet." [Emphasis Added]

Wonder what he knows that we don't?

Schiavo

I have purposely avoided this topic both because it is beyond the scope of this blog, and because I don't know enough about it.

The Tribune editorial today was right on the money. If you don't want it to happen to you, get a living will. You can't make it any easier than this. Below is the statutory form. Fill it out. Sign it. Have it witnessed by two unrelated adults:

DECLARATION
If I should have an incurable or irreversible condition that, without the administration of life-sustaining treatment, will, in the opinion of my attending physician or attending advanced practice registered nurse, cause my death within a relatively short time and I am no longer able to make decisions regarding my medical treatment, I direct my attending physician or attending advanced practice registered nurse, pursuant to the Montana Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, to withhold or withdraw treatment that only prolongs the process of dying and is not necessary to my comfort or to alleviate pain.
Signed this ____ day of _________, ____.
Signature _____________
City, County, and State of Residence ____________________
The declarant voluntarily signed this document in my presence.
Witness__________________________________
Address__________________________________
Witness__________________________________
Address__________________________________

If you prefer that someone else be allowed to make decisions for you, use this form:

DECLARATION
If I should have an incurable and irreversible condition that, without the administration of life-sustaining treatment, will, in the opinion of my attending physician or attending advanced practice registered nurse, cause my death within a relatively short time and I am no longer able to make decisions regarding my medical treatment, I appoint __________ or, if he or she is not reasonably available or is unwilling to serve, __________, to make decisions on my behalf regarding withholding or withdrawal of treatment that only prolongs the process of dying and is not necessary for my comfort or to alleviate pain, pursuant to the Montana Rights of the Terminally Ill Act.
If the individual I have appointed is not reasonably available or is unwilling to serve, I direct my attending physician or attending advanced practice registered nurse, pursuant to the Montana Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, to withhold or withdraw treatment that only prolongs the process of dying and is not necessary for my comfort or to alleviate pain.
Signed this ____ day of _________, ____.
Signature____________________________
City, County, and State of Residence______________________
The declarant voluntarily signed this document in my presence.
Witness____________________________
Address________________________
Witness________________________
Address________________________
Name and address of designee.
Name__________________________
Address_______________________

Give the form to your doctor, and he or she will make it part of your medical record. If your doctor is unwilling to comply with your directive, he or she is obligated to notify you of that fact.

If you have any questions, please contact your attorney. The foregoing is not legal advice, but is merely a reiteration of Montana Statute.

Tax Revenue Up in Smoke...

Let's see, here. A bunch of people pushed a new cigarette tax in order to reduce smoking. Instead of reducing smoking, it had the effect of forcing smokers to get their cigarettes elsewhere.

First of all, what did you expect? If you impose a punitive tax, people will change their behavior to avoid it. (Hmmm....wonder if this has anything to do with the level of economic activity in this state? Nah...)

Second, the whole point of the tax was to reduce smoking. If smoking is reduced so, therefore, will be the tax revenue. I think we should thank those smokers for buying out of state now. Why?

Think about it. Let's say they just paid the tax. What do you think our government would do with all that newfound revenue? Save it? Yeah, right. Nope, there would be a spending spree. Then, when smoking was reduced (assuming the sponsors of the tax were right and it wasn't just snake oil designed to get more tax revenue), we'd have all these programs in place but no smoking tax revenue to fund them. Can't you just see all those legislators pointing out how we just couldn't pay for these programs anymore and they would have to be eliminated?

Me too.

School Superintendent

Say what you want about our public school system, but Bryan Dunn is a nice guy. I wish him the best in his fight with cancer.

Please keep him in your thoughts and prayers.

Business Health Insurance Plan

The Tribune today carried a piece by Bob Anez about Representative Dave Wanzenried's proposal for a tax credit for some small businesses that provide health insurance for their employees. Once again, our "Pulitzer Prize Winning Newspaper" spends an entire article discussing a particular subject, while all the while omitting a critical piece of information.

You would think, wouldn't you, that if you were going to write an article about a particular bill in the legislature, you might want to include the bill number? Here the Tribune discusses Wanzenried's bill, but never gives the reader a reference to look at the bill. (I think it's HB667, but it might also be HB200.)

Of course, maybe Mr. Anez doesn't want the readers to know what bill it is. Maybe if he tells the readers what bill it is, they might go online for themselves and read it. Then they might find out that the bill is about an awful lot more than just tax credits for small businesses that provide health insurance. They might find that the bill is also about the State of Montana forming a whole new bureaucratic entity to provide the health insurance that will be funded with the tax credits.

Oh well, I bet leaving out the part about a whole new government agency, complete with a board of directors and staff, was just an oversight on Mr. Anez's part. I'm sure he wasn't trying to protect our newly elected Democrat Governor from charges that he is starting down the road to "Hillarycare."

Let's Get a Little Esoteric...

I was enjoying an email 'conversation' with a friend recently when a thought came to me. This is a little esoteric, so if it's not your thing please skip this post.

There is a computer scientist, who is also a science fiction writer. His name is Verner Vinge. He has written fairly extensively on what he has termed "The Singularity." The singularity is the rapid acceleration of technological advance to the point that there will be superhuman intelligence. Once that point is reached, or exceeded, it will be the end of the human era as we know it. Old models or modes of existence will be discarded, and a new reality will emerge.

Imagine a graph with time depicted on the horizontal axis and the sum of human knowledge on the vertical. Assume a gradual climb from left to right as knowledge increases with the passage of time. At some point in the future, according to Vinge, the line will begin to curve ever more sharply upward to the vertical as human awareness begins to grow geometrically, or exponentially. As the growth accelerates, it in turn spurs ever more rapid understanding until finally the technological human knowledge wreaks a change on our entire existence. Wow, heady stuff, huh?

But get this. One of the things Vinge postulates as a potential catalyst for the Singularity is that "large computer networks (and their associated users) may "wake up" as a superhumanly intelligent entity." (Don't worry, I'm getting to my point.)

Now, consider Kathleen Parker's September 15, 2004, piece about the 'blogosphere.' She writes:

All of which brings me to my premise that the blogosphere isn't just a challenge to journalism in its currently stagnant state, but a potential boon to problem-solving of a higher order. The beauty of the blogosphere is that it is self-igniting, self-propelling and self-selecting, a sort of intellectual ecosystem wherein the best specimens from various disciplines descend from the ethers, converge on an issue and apply their unique talents.

Though virtually newborn, the blogosphere has blossomed exponentially in a matter of Earth-time seconds, from a few random voices to a mighty and diverse chorus of sometimes spectacular talent. Bloggers are the Big Bang of the Information Age.

It seems, therefore, not unreasonable to hope that as this new galaxy expands - with the best and brightest emerging as natural evolution commands - bloggers might apply their immense energy and collective intellect to solving an array of human problems.

In other words, something as pedestrian as the Dan Rather scandal offers the first glimpse into what could be the beginning of a collective consciousness. Each computer on the network, each blogger, is a cell with the network acting as a series of synapses, each entry, or thought, building on the other to create an instant, and greater, knowing.

Wow. Now don't you guys want to start a blog? If you do, let me know and I'll be glad to help you out.

And we now return to our regularly scheduled programming...

School Funding

I haven't yet read the Supreme Court's opinion on school funding and a quality education. I hope to read it soon, and provide some thoughts.

In the meantime, the whole notion to me seems incompatible with our system of government. First, we have funding directives from 7 Justices in a state of nearly a million people. Second, I just can't stand the idea of a government entity using tax dollars to fund a lawsuit against taxpayers to demand more tax dollars.

You know, by the people, of the people, and all that...

A Change of Pace...a joke!

This was given to me by a good friend:

Four men were bragging about how smart their cats are. The first man was an Engineer, the second man was an Accountant, the third man was a Chemist, the fourth was a Government Employee.

To show off, the Engineer called to his cat, "T-square, do your stuff." T-square pranced over to a desk, took out some paper and a pen and promptly drew a circle, a square, and a triangle. Everyone agreed that was pretty smart.

But the Accountant said his cat could do better. He called his cat and said, "Spreadsheet, do your stuff." Spreadsheet went out into the kitchen and returned with a dozen cookies. He divided them into 4 equal piles of 3 cookies each. Everyone agreed that was good.

But the Chemist said his cat could do better. He called his cat and said, Measure, do your stuff." Measure got up, walked over to the fridge, took out a quart of milk, got a 10 ounce glass from the cupboard and poured exactly 8 ounces without spilling a drop. Everyone agreed that was good.

Then the three men turned to the Government Employee and said, "What can your cat do?". The Government Worker called to his cat and said, "CoffeeBreak, do your stuff." Coffee Break jumped to his feet, ate the cookies, drank the milk, shit on the paper, screwed the other three cats, claimed he injured his back while doing so, filed a grievance report for unsafe working conditions, put in for Workers Compensation and went home for the rest of the day on sick leave.

Well, That's Unusual...

A local woman had two men force their way into her Great Falls home and hold her at gunpoint while they ransacked the house for an hour. At the end of the story, a local police officer said the "whole incident is really unusual."

Call me an alarmist, but if I had been held captive at gunpoint in my home for an hour (or if I lived close to the woman who did...which I do), I would hope to see a little bit more urgency in the voices of those charged with catching the bad guys. "Scary as hell," maybe. "Frightening," for sure. "Every person's nightmare" is a safe bet. But "unusual?"

My but those folks in New York had an odd bit of luck on 9/11, eh?

Editorials by the Numbers

I'm starting to wonder if we couldn't create a template for our local daily's editorials on the legislature. Urge an action. Throw in a few facts that may or may not be relevant, or that may or may not tell the whole story. Blame the problem on the Republicans. Then, with either a knowing or snide tone, urge the action again.

For example, today's editorial urges the Montana House to pass the pending budget bill. They go on to argue that the House has worked hard to get the budget "within hailing distance" of the spending cap. (It's still illegal, but so what, it's close!) And they cut some off of the budget, gosh.

They refer to the cap as "arcane," which means "known or understood by only a few." Geez, anyone who reads the Tribune must know about the cap, so that's at least several thousand. I guess they mean only a few understand it. I'm hoping everyone in the legislature understands it (they sure talk like they do). So, maybe they just called the budget cap "arcane" thinking the word arcane itself is arcane and it would sound good and no one would understand it. Hmmmm.

Back to the budget. It is within $4,000,000.00 of being legal, they say, so it should be passed. And it should be passed in a smiling room filled with daisies, like the Dems and GOP were talking on Friday.

But then on Saturday, the Republicans were "mean-spirited." (Daddy, he's bein' meeeean!) What does that really mean, to say that comments are "mean-spirited?" Does it mean we didn't disagree nicely enough? This whole "mean" thing these days is so lame. Have you seen the bumper sticker that high school kids put on their cars: "Mean People Suck?" Does our local editorial board think like adolescent girls? And how about the Tribune's "The Edge" column. Isn't that pretty "mean-spirited?"

So, back to the budget. It's illegal, but the parties worked hard on it. The Republicans are mean. So pass it.

Well, I'm convinced. I'm calling my Republican Representative, and I'm telling him to PASS THIS BUDGET BILL...but nicely.

This Just Ticks Me Off...

This sick SOB killed a 9 year old girl. But get this, surprise, surprise, he had a record:

Couey has an extensive criminal record that includes 24 burglary arrests, carrying a concealed weapon and indecent exposure. In 1991, he was arrested in Kissimmee on a charge of fondling a child under age 16. Records don't show how the case was resolved.

Is our society ever going to develop the political and moral will to kill these bastards? Or at least keep them in jail???

Spending

So, they're going to increase spending by 3/4 of a billion dollars over the next two years. That's billion, with a "B." Hey, guys? Gals? Where's that money coming from? Seriously, we don't have a million people in this state. And I thought 12 years of Republican government was hard on our economy! The Dems will make us look great!

Wow.

Wow.

I must have touched a nerve...

...because I have had more people approach me on the school/education/teacher issue than any other. This issue obviously interests many, but I think the edu-bureaucracy would be fooling themselves to ignore at least a significant minority who believe our system is heading the wrong direction.

A very common theme I have heard is a...not fear, per se, but an unwillingness to speak out on the issue. One woman told me she didn't want to rock the boat because her "kids are still in school." One fella said that he "still has to do business in this town." I mention these thoughts not to suggest that anyone involved in education would do anything improper, but merely to point out that the organization of those in the system probably operates to limit, if not stifle, a portion of what might otherwise be open debate on the topic.

Another gentleman raised a very interesting analogy. He said that public education right now is a bit like "Detroit at the beginning of the invasion of the Japanese imports." He said those involved in the system don't even see "it" coming. "It," I suppose, is what this man believes will be the inevitable revolution against the status quo in the education system. I should note that he is in good company; even Bill Gates says our high school system is obsolete.

The bottom line, I think, is that very few people are happy with the present system. The teachers no doubt feel they are underpaid and under siege. I am sure the administrators grow weary of approaching the governing boards, year after year, hats in hand, looking for more money. The consumers of the system are not happy because they see the rest of the world passing our students by. What's the answer?

More money?

Raises for teachers and health insurance for their spouses?

How about accountability? Not just accountability in students' test scores such as required by No Child Left Behind, but also accountability in reform. In other words, how about giving the establishment whatever it wants for 5 years. If they can meet high benchmark goals, fine. If not, throw the doors open. Charter Schools, vouchers, home schooling, you name it.

Some will argue those in control of the system have already had enough time and the time for change is now. I don't know if that's true, but there have to be more solutions than "more money."

I Answered My Own Question

Well, what do you know. A little web surfing, and I answered my own question (Below: Capital Punishment) Here is a partial transcript of his comments from a recent talk at the Woodrow Wilson Center:

You hear, you know, in the discourse on this subject, people talking about moderate, you want moderate judges. What is a moderate interpretation of a text? You're halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean? There's no such thing as a moderate interpretation of a text. Would you ask a lawyer to draw me a moderate contract? The only way the word has any meaning is if you are looking for somebody to write a law, to write a Constitution, rather than to interpret one. The moderate judge is the one who will devise the new Constitution that most people would approve of. So, for example, we had a suicide case some terms ago, and the court refused to hold that there is a constitutional right to assisted suicide. We said we're not yet ready to say that, you know, stay tuned in a few years, the time may come, but we're not yet ready. And that was a moderate decision because I think most people would not want to -- if we had gone, leaped into that and created a national right to assisted suicide, that would have been an immoderate and extremist decision.

It's time our elected officials stop focusing on their own power, and start focusing on the limits of that power contained in our State and Federal Constitutions. Scalia for President!

Capital Punishment

As everyone knows, the Supreme Court recently decided that people who become homicidal maniacs before their 18th birthday cannot be executed. The case was Roper v. Simmons. (Justice Scalia's dissent should be required reading for anyone who wants to understand what the relationship between the U.S. Constitution and the Supreme Court should be.)

The merits of the decision have been much discussed. One point that was disturbing to me, though, was the Court's willingness to rely on the laws of other countries as a basis for policy in the U.S.

There is a growing trend for our courts to rely on international law, philosophical articles, etc., as a basis for our law. I thought trial courts were supposed to rely on evidence, and appellate courts were supposed to rely on law.

Think this is just some obscure Washington DC issue? Think again. Our own Supreme Court, in Armstrong v. State, (the case that struck down our law prohibiting a physician assistant-certified from performing abortions), relied extensively on a 'scholarly' brief by one Ronald Dworkin. Dworkin is a left-wing NYU law professor who advocates assisted suicide.

Now, you might feel that assisted suicide is a good thing. But if our Court is relying on the opinion of some philosophers from back east, are they really "interpreting" our Montana Constitution, or are they making policy. You tell me. I wonder what Justice Scalia would say?

No Child Left Behind, Part II

The tests required by No Child Left Behind (NCLB) are again approaching in Great Falls. Of course, the spin by the Tribune is negative. For example, the headline claims the tests are "looming." Disaster looms; birthday parties don't loom.

It is extremely hard, though, to read the substance of the article and still believe NCLB is a bad thing. Reporter Johnson notes that "failing to meet 'adequate yearly progress,' or AYP can tarnish a school's image and bring federal sanctions after repeated failures, such as allowing parents to transfer students to a better performing school at district expense." Well, if a school consistently fails to teach students, the students should be allowed a choice, shouldn't they?

Now, due to NCLB, "teachers 'teach from bell to bell,' reduce fun lessons not directly tied to main reading and math focus areas and even run regular practice tests for students." Well, I hope they teach "bell to bell." I work "bell to bell," don't you? If students are not achieving at grade level, then hard work and regular drills sound like just the ticket, don't they?

Lonnie Yingst, Assistant superintendent, points out that now there are accelerated courses that require "higher skill levels at earlier ages," that many kindergarteners can read by the end of that year, and that second graders are now learning multiplication, something that used to wait until third grade. Again, how can these things be portrayed as negative?

Well, it's because for teachers there is "no lessening of the pressure. They still much teach from bell to bell all year," leaving them "feeling challenged and stressed." Teachers are professionals. Professions are, almost by definition, challenging and stressful positions. That is why they are compensated at levels far above median wages. Accountability is stressful, and accountability defines professionalism.

Then they describe the story of Matt, a local fifth grader. His mom complains that there is "no down time to teach fun activities not directly tied to reading and math lessons." Matt is afraid that if he and his buddies don't do well on the tests, his teacher "might get in trouble." (Hmm, wonder where he got that idea?) Then, the article notes, Matt had to give up some of his "free-wheeling, creative gifted class" in order to learn math. So, that means that before NCLB students were giving up learning time to do fun activities?

Hey, I'm a parent too. And I hope my kids can enjoy school. But grade inflation and "free-wheeling" fun activities don't exist in real life. They will be required to perform. So my kids need to learn.

Next, the article also points out how well Great Falls schools do compared to other schools in the state and nation. It reminds me of the old saying, "If it ain't broke, ..."

The bottom line is that it seems to be about priorities. NCLB has forced the schools to refocus their priorities on the basics, presently reading and math. We can argue on whether those are the correct priorities; I believe they are. If one were to assume that these are the correct priorities, then what the schools are doing is absolutely correct. Focus on the basics, and only after you have achieved proficiency in those, do we wander off to "free-wheeling" and "fun" activities.

Base Boosters Boogie

The Base Boosters Boogie raised $25,000.00 to help retain Malmstrom Air Force Base during the Base Realignment And Closure process. I wonder who sponsored this event? Our "Pulitzer Prize Winning Newspaper" failed to include that fact in the story. Hmmm.

It was the Cascade County Tavern Association.

Now that's quality journalism.

3/15/05 Correction/update: The Tribune Editorial Board published the name of the sponsor here.

The Glass is Half Empty

Gosh, whines the Tribune, one in five Montanans lacks health insurance.

In other words, four out of every five (that's 80% to you and me) Montanans do have health insurance. Considering that some of the 20% without insurance are in that situation voluntarily, that hardly sounds like the stuff of crisis.

But the left just can't wait for government to control health care. (Of course, if it's an abject failure don't expect the liberals to take any blame.) When's the last time you read an article in the Tribune, or any paper for that matter, that did not approach the issue of health insurance as though it is a god given right?

No Child Left Behind

Ok, one more thing. One of the great myths about President Bush's No Child Left Behind is that he 'didn't fund it.' That's not logical.

I have confirmed with several educators that the required proficiencies are appropriate. In other words, the 4th grade test actually tests what a 4th grader ought to know.

Well, given that fact, what is unfunded about No Child Left Behind? If there is no funding of our school system to make sure that 4th graders can pass a test on materials that 4th graders should know, what in the hell are we paying for? I thought that was exactly what we were funding.

More School Funding

Let me start out by saying that I like teachers. My kids are in the public schools, and the teachers I know do a good job. I am an education consumer. I am pro-education.

The argument is often made that we need to raise the salaries of teachers in order to improve education. I think there are a number of problems with this argument.

First, is it true? I have not seen any evidence that a higher paid teacher is a better teacher. Are we saying that the teachers we have now at our present pay scale are sub-par?

Because, obviously, money is a scarce resource. There is not an unlimited supply. Therefore, we should not spend one additional dollar on education unless that dollar will somehow increase the educational experience given to our children. In other words, teachers are in a market just like the rest of us; they are competing for our dollars. The money we spend on education is spent for one, and only one, purpose: to educate the students. It might sound cold, but the school system doesn't exist to ensure there are jobs for teachers. Or that teachers have health insurance. Or retirement. It exists solely to educate students.

Say you have a terminal condition and need an operation. You find a doctor who can perform the surgery for $100.00, and it will be successful every time. You wouldn't pay $125.00 for that surgery. And if you could get the surgery for $100.00, another doctor's pleas to earn a better living so he could have a new car or take a vacation would fall on deaf ears. You wouldn't pay any more than it took to get the proper surgery. Why should we pay more than what it costs for our children to get a good education?

Second, are teachers underpaid? I can tell you that there are teachers in our school system who do not earn much less than my base salary, and I spent seven years in college, I have a doctorate, and have been practicing law for 15 years. And I don't have anyone to provide me with health insurance and retirement, it comes out of my income. And I work 12 months a year.

Let's assume there are two teachers married to each other. One earns $36,000.00, and the other $39,000.00. This family earns $75,000.00 a year, and has health insurance and retirement. The median household income in Great Falls is $31,930.00. So, the two teachers have a household income over twice the median income, and they don't work all year long.

Third, we are constantly told that we have a good school system. Why pay more for the product we are receiving?

Fourth, does anyone really go into the teaching profession with the idea that he or she will someday live in a mansion and drive a Mercedes Benz? If so, I am not so sure that person should be teaching our kids.

I like teachers. I really do. And what they do is important and difficult. But I hear more and more parents complaining that the focus of the teachers seems to be less about the children and more on their perceived slight in the funding process. I am seriously concerned that at some point they will lose the support of the public. And then what?

The Taxpayers Get an Education

The legislature is proposing to spend an additional 35 million dollars on education in each of the next two years, and that is a "nice gesture."

You might recall that our educators banded together recently and sued us claiming that we are so underfunding their system that we are failing in our constitutional obligation to provide a quality education to the children of our State. I'm not exactly sure how they, the educators, escaped scrutiny in the analysis of our education but, apparently, they did.

It was not much of a surprise that the Montana Supreme Court agreed with the education bureaucracy and directed the legislature to change the way schools are funded. So, here we are facing an additional 70 million in spending over the next two years, and our friends in the schools are apparently turning up their noses at it.

The education bureaucracy has had almost exclusive control of our schools during the last 30 years as the test scores of gone down, down, down. And there has been only one solution offered: "More Money." And, despite the posturing from the schools, they have gotten more money. Unfortunately, it hasn't worked.

It should be readily foreseeable to anyone with even a modern education that if those in charge of a failing system offer only one solution that doesn't work, eventually the 'customers' of the system will demand a role in the reform. Maybe it's just perception, but the educators would have a lot more credibility if they offered solutions that didn't always seem geared toward pay increases. Am I wrong, or does it least seem like the increased money for schools is always mentioned in the same sentence as raises for school employees?

Judges

Thomas Sowell has a great piece today (reprinted here) about activist judges. Is the Montana Supreme Court and activist court? The argument could certainly be made.

For example, our Court made law requiring the Montana University system to pay benefits to its employees' same-sex partners within a month or two after Montana voters downed a same-sex marriage initiative by a nearly 2-1 margin.

Now Sowell suggests that it is left-wing or liberal judges who tend to activism. It seems, though, that a more accurate analysis might suggest that it is judges who are simply outside of the mainstream of contemporary thought who find themselves inclined to make law.

This is because the "mainstream" by definition is the prevailing set of mores and beliefs in our society. The prevailing social policies do not require activist courts for their implementation because they are imposed by the majority through the legislature. It is only those whose ideas have not been adopted by the majority who have to resort to the tyranny of black robes. Since much of the mainstream thought since President Reagan has been conservative or moderate, the activist courts have of late tended to the left.

In other words, if there were a public uprising in favor of gay marriage, gays would not depend on small numbers of people in black robes for a determination of their rights; such rights would be granted by the legislatures. The same can be said for abortion, prayer in schools, and a myriad of other issues. While the majority cannot operate in tyranny, they should demand their rights back.

How Much More Room is There?

In an article about the Corrections Department, the Tribune notes that, even after the House Appropriation Committee voted to cut $2,000,000.00 from the Department's funding, there is no need to fear. Bill Slaughter, Director of the Department, said that even with the cut the Department has still "got the money to do the things [they] really want to do."

Hmmmm. Is it just me, or is anyone else wondering why that $2,000,000.00 was even in the budget if its removal would still allow the Department to do the thing it really wants to do? No wonder the average citizen is so jaded about government. It reminds me of the crisis in Great Falls schools leading up to a failed levy vote. Remember how the school administration then 'found' a boatload of money?

No wonder we all cover our wallets when the legislature is in session.

More Power Prices

Ok, help me out. Which is it? Are we supposed to be concerned about power prices, or not?

It seems like the Tribune is concerned about energy costs, except when it isn't. Today they are advocating a bill that would require 15% of the power sold in Montana to come from "eligible renewable resources."

I don't have a problem with wind power. Renewable energy sources are likely the future of energy in the U.S.

I do have a problem with the Tribune's 'analysis.' It seems like the Editorial Board's energy policy is first, slam the legislature that passed deregulation and second, advocate whatever Democrats' current flavor of the week might be.

The Trib points out that there is "growing evidence" that the "projected cost" of wind power will be less than other sources. In other words, some people think it will probably cheaper, ultimately, to use wind power. But no one knows.

Didn't many think power would be cheaper in deregulated markets? I wonder who the Trib will be blaming in 10 years if they turn out to be wrong about wind?

A Short-lived Trend...?

Or a double standard? You decide.

Just a couple days ago I wrote about the Tribune's insistence on pointing out that a woman who wrote a pro-Bush column worked for an institute funded in part by evil pharmaceutical companies. Maybe it was wishful thinking, but I was hoping that the Tribune had turned over a new leaf and would now start providing us with a little background about its guest columnists.

Yup, it was wishful thinking.

Today's Tribune carried an anti-Bush screed, printed here. This column contained the usual slippery numbers and loaded language. But that's not the point.

The point is the bio of the author at the end of the column. Here's what the Tribune says: "Robert S. McIntyre is director of Citizens for Tax Justice, 1311 L Street NW, Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20005; Web site: www.ctj.org. This article originally appeared in the American Prospect." Yawn. No information about funding. Hmmm...who are these guys?

Well, when I looked I couldn't figure out who funded them, pharmaceutical companies or otherwise. I wonder why the Tribune wasn't as helpful identifying the funding sources of Citizens for Tax Justice as it was for identifying the funding sources for the Galen Institute. Was it because Citizens for Tax Justice is clearly a left wing group advocating 'tax the rich, give to the poor' policies? So, they get political cover from our paper but Galen doesn't?

As for the American Prospect, don't you wonder why the Tribune never tells us that they are an "authoritative magazine of liberal ideas, committed to...effective liberal politics." Don't you think it might help to evaluate the credibility of Mr. McIntyre's opinions to know that they were originally printed by an organization who believes that contemporary conservatives want to advance their agenda by "stealth, fear-mongering, and a massive propaganda apparatus." It was originally printed by a group who claims it is their "mission to expose that agenda and the lies that support it." In other words, these are not Joe Lieberman Democrats, they're Deaniacs (at best).

And yet our little small town daily prints their tirades as though their just plain 'ol folk like us. Well, thank god, they don't get any money from the drug companies. Lord knows those bastards have never contributed a thing to our society.

A New Trend?

The Tribune has a guest opinion today entitled "Comparing apples and oranges: Health care is not Social Security." The article is interesting, but what I am interested in is the bio of the writer.

At the end of the column, the Tribune writes this about the author: "Grace-Marie Turner is president of the Galen Institute, a not-for-profit research organization that specializes in health policy; it is funded in part by the pharmaceutical industry. [Editorial Comment: Oooooo bad!] Readers may write to her at Galen, 8 N. Union Street, Alexandria, VA 22320, or email her at galengalen.org [sic]. For information about Galen Institute's funding, please go to http://www.galen.org/join.asp."

When I read this I was hopeful. Perhaps the newspaper that had once described Susan Sontag as merely an "essayist" was turning over a new leaf. (Susan Sontag was quoted as saying that 9/11 was not "a cowardly attack on 'civilization' or 'liberty' or 'humanity' or 'the free world.'" She has also called the white race the "cancer of human history.") Perhaps the Tribune would now opt to fully disclose the backgrounds of all the people who write guest opinions.

But alas, also in today's paper there was a column by Tim Giago, president of the "Native American Journalists Foundation Inc." but Mr. Giago's bio was strangely silent about his organization's funding sources. Guess he's not funded by the drug companies.

Property

I read a great article about the eminent domain case presently in front of the US Supreme Court. This case involves a government's attempt to condemn and take property not for public use, but for private use. We do not have a great eminent domain issue in our community, but that doesn't mean that our property rights are not under siege.

If you stop and think about the proposed Land Use Code, or the proposed Sign Code, or the Smoking Law, all of these represent a significant infringement on our right to do what we please with our property. If I go out into the market place, borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars, and buy a building for my business, shouldn't I be the one to decide what the signs look like? Shouldn't I be the one to decide whether people can smoke in my building?

It might be an oversimplification to say that the existence or non-existence of private property is the real distinction between capitalism and communism. Then again, it might not be. Communism, a bankrupt system that has left tens of millions dead, does not work with free ownership of property.

Call me an alarmist, but every time some group tries to dictate what we can or cannot do with our property, we slip in the wrong direction. How much does your free use of the land need to be controlled by third parties before you feel like you don't really own it anymore?

I think it would be shocking if we conducted a survey asking people whether they ought to have a say in the use of property they do not own simply because they drive past it or live near it. I would venture a guess that a majority of people would respond that they should have such a say in the interest of our 'community's image,' or 'public health and welfare.' How far will it slide?

By the way, we don't need zoning. There are, in fact, interesting cities that have grown up to be big cities without a zoning board trying to tell everyone what they can or cannot do.

Unfair Law

For those of you that missed it, there's a letter to the editor in today's Tribune about the law that requires drivers to carry mandatory liability insurance. (I can't find where the Tribune puts letters online, so I can't link to it). The author calls this "the most unjust law on the books." He then goes on to whine a bit about how he "would be willing to bet" that most of the people who get caught driving without insurance are working at "minimum wage or slightly above."

Ah, but here's the kicker. His solution? The State of Montana should buy the insurance and put "a policy on the license or you do not get one." Plus, "the fee should be affordable for all Montanans and just included in the license fees. That way you can drive all your vehicles with one driver's license." The "insurance companies and legislative lobbyists" need to get out of the picture so we can put "liability insurance back into the hands of the people."

If 'ignorance is bliss,' this guy must think he's on crack. First of all, insuring yourself is part of the cost of driving. What's next? Should the State buy everyone a car? And what's really "unjust," sir, is that we all have to buy uninsured and underinsured motorist insurance to cover ourselves against the scofflaws.

Next, let me make a suggestion. If you're old enough to drive but can't afford the insurance, you might want to focus on making positive choices in your life as far as your career and education so that maybe you can put yourself in the economic position to afford the costs of the activities in which you wish to engage. I would at least prefer that you try that before you come and tap into my bank account to subsidize your choices. You see, I have uses for that money too.

Finally, you've gotta love his populist appeal to "put the liability insurance back into the hands of the people." But wait. When did "the people" ever supply or control the provision of liability insurance? That's right, they didn't. So how do we put the insurance "back" into their hands? Hmmmm....maybe it's a flashback from the crack.

Money Problems

A piece in the Tribune today reminds me of the Montana Department of Revenue's computer fiasco. Remember? The State spent millions of dollars and finally had to abandon the system in complete futility.

Do you remember ever reading about the DOR employees who lost their jobs as a result of this very, very expensive boondoggle? Neither do I...