 |
|
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
Wednesday, December 19, 2007 Opinion & EditorialGuest CommentTheir town, our town, not so differentby Benjamin Courteau, Stevensville We arrived at our pinkish, family run hotel near dinner time, although the sun would not set for a few more hours. So we, my travel partner and I, decided to take a stroll. We needed to visit an ATM anyway, and we did not relish the thought of remaining in our hot hotel room until dinner. The town was quiet, with bustle reserved for the town's main street. We began walking with no particular destination in mind towards the edge of town. On our way we passed businesses behind quaint storefronts on the main drag, including a coffee shop, drug store, bank (where we got much needed cash), a library, and a barber shop. A few people greeted us as we walked, and we returned the favor. Looking for quiet, I steered us off the main road into the surrounding neighborhoods. We soon came upon a beautiful house of worship. It was at least 100 years old and had been newly renovated. The edifice's shinning, round tower made it nearly the tallest building in town. Passing many old homes we neared the town's edge, but not without incident. A few kids, off school for the summer, were clearly bored. The kids had evidently decided to make us the subject of their next form of entertainment, and began to pretend to panhandle us for money. The kids clearly weren't homeless or poor, and two of the trio had terrible poker faces. I told them to call my university since they had all my money (grad school is expensive). They quickly bored, and the oldest of the three, maybe the elder brother, seemed intent on getting them all home for a dinner time curfew. We stayed out a bit longer to take in the view to the west. The sun was preparing for a spectacular show as reds, pinks and oranges played with the darker silhouettes of the rocky, craggy mountains near town. We walked back to the hotel intent on getting a great home cooked meal from our Arab hosts. This account was of my visit was to a small town called Wadi Musa this summer. It is an Arab, Muslim majority town (there are many Arab Christians in the Middle East) in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Wadi Musa is about 7 hours by bus and taxi from Jerusalem, and is located in the Jordanian Mountains next to the ancient, stone carved city of Petra (of Indiana Jones fame). Returning home to Stevensville I am reminded of how like my hometown this little Arab town was. Sure their old house of worship was a Sunni Mosque rather than a Catholic Mission, Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, Evangelical or Episcopal Church, or Mormon Temple, but their mosque serves as the heart of their small community in the same way. People look out for each other there, as here, and the preferred wheels were spun with diesel power and equipped with tailgates (Toyotas mostly). Their mountains, though smaller, drier and treeless, are the icons of their town. Ultimately, they are like us in every way but name and Word, and even that is close enough. The pinkish family hotel, like the Stevensville Hotel, was built with their blood and sweat, not to get rich but to feed their kids and ensure their guests are happy. Their values were clear to me as I witnessed them helping out their neighbors, friends, and guests out of compassion. Neighbors take care of neighbors, and isn't that what matters after all? |
||||
Letters to the EditorTolerance is a two-way streetDear Editor, In a recent letter to the editor a writer lamented the treatment of Christmas and Christians and the attacks on the holiday and Christian beliefs by secularists. Though I am not a card carrying Christian I think Christmas is great. Personally, I have no issue with nativity scenes even though its historical basis might be open to interpretation. The writer claims that around 85% of American citizens identify themselves as Christian. That was true around 1990 but not today; the "American Religious Identification Survey" by The Graduate Center of the City University of New York concluded that the number had fallen to 77% by 2001. The study also noted that since “Large numbers of American adults are disaffiliating themselves from Christianity . . . “ that percentage is continuing to decline and is estimated to now be around 71%. And we certainly know that there are degrees of “Christianity” and that there are disagreements about the interpretation of many Christian-based principles -- such as the existence of hell. As we know from recent headlines many Christians question the Christianity of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. So to claim that the vast majority of Americans manifest some cohesive Christian dogma that gets to trump all other beliefs is just not true. The real issue that I would like to address is the extent to which Christian beliefs with origins in the Bible are imposed upon others who may not look to the Bible as the authority for morality, beliefs, guidance, behavior, or anything else. The writer cites an incident in which he was confronted by someone who complains about this imposition. The writer gets some satisfaction and expresses his pity for the person who could only cite the Crusades as an example. The writer seems to imply, therefore, that Christians do not impose their religion on others. In fact, he goes on to state that the claim that Christians want to force their religion on everyone is a ridiculous accusation. I beg to differ. It is very real and very intentional. He then goes on to propose that Christians who are confronted by people claiming that Christians impose their beliefs on others should demand examples and implies that those who are challenged will be at a total loss to come up with any. I will take that challenge and with just a few obvious examples where Christian, Bible-based beliefs are being imposed on our society. I’m sure that other readers can come up with many more. • Anti-abortion campaigns are based on the Biblical notion of life beginning at the time of conception. Certainly, anyone can take a stand against abortion for any reason but the predominant “pro-life” position is based on Christian religious beliefs with the strongly stated intent of imposing a total ban on making a personal choice about abortion equating that choice to murder. That imposition is now being forwarded through a number of legal referendums which would define the beginning of life to be at the time of conception thereby defining any attempt to terminate a pregnancy as murder. That position is supported by the Biblical reference to God knowing us all in the womb. See the DVD “Jesus Camp”. • Restrictions on full access to family planning/birth control information, services, and medicine. Restrictions on ready access to the morning after pill are based on Christian religious beliefs which prohibit birth control and abortion. This restriction to access to birth control resources (and HIV/AIDS prevention resources) is also based on the Biblical notion of the desirability of abstinence. • Vociferous attempts to interject the concept of “intelligent design” in school curricula as a way to impose the Christian belief in a Creator and dilute solid scientific thinking with a totally unprovable religious concept. • Resistance to environmental protection and disdain for the concept of global warming based on some Biblical notion that says that humans have the right, even the obligation, to exploit the planet. • Denial of equal rights to a segment of our population based on sexual orientation based on the Biblical position that such orientation is an abomination. (Of course, the Bible cites a number of other things that are an abomination but those positions have been altered and softened over time through modernization and revelations.) • The requirement that many official functions be preceded by swearing on a stack of Bibles to give credence to the truthfulness and integrity of the participants. (And a not so subtle reminder that to lie after swearing on the Bible will condemn the liar to eternal hell and damnation – one of the more popular Christian concepts.) . . . and, yes, there were those Crusades. I’m sure that many Christians have problems with the above impositions as well. The writer should be honest enough to acknowledge that a very vocal and dedicated segment of the Christian community has every intention of imposing many of those beliefs on the rest of society through law. So let’s not play all innocent but acknowledge reality.
Gary Knapp |
|||||
Big Sky Coalition looking toward futureDear Editor, Big Sky Coalition believes it is time to move beyond the past and focus on developing public support for state and federal legislation to address the most critical forest management issues in the Bitterroot National Forest and surrounding areas. Our first public meeting provided over 650 concerned Montana citizens with an excellent overview of the successes, failures and history of western forest management practices in the 20th century. The group of expert panelists and their presentations put into vivid context our belief that no single group (i.e., Congress, Forest Service, environmental groups) or single issue (legislation, litigation, low timber prices) is solely to blame for the mess our national forests are in today. The meeting was a success by any objective measure. In fact, over half of the 650 people attending signed up as new members, and more concerned Montanans have joined each week since. Based on the large turnout and overwhelmingly positive response, we believe a majority of citizens in western Montana and beyond want real forest management solutions, not more rhetoric from organizational stakeholders. Since the meeting, members of the Big Sky Coalition executive committee have met with a number of local and national environmental groups to better understand their respective positions and visions for a comprehensive forest management plan that is, in the words of Matthew Koehler, executive director of the WildWest Institute, "bracketed by reality." We have recently had discussions with representatives of the National Wildlife Federation, Montana Wilderness Association, Friends of the Bitterroot, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Bitterroot Forest Service, Beaverhead-Deer Lodge partnership, Montana Forest Restoration Working Group, Wilderness Society and WildWest Institute, just to name a few. We have been encouraged by the number of environmental groups that believe as we do: That moving forward with a large-scale forest restoration program, using best practices and a combination of environmentally responsible applications to thin the forest and remove the slash, not only makes forests and buffer areas healthier, but much more resistant to catastrophic fires. Yes, there are environmental groups who remind us that global warming is here to stay and we cannot do anything about it. Some have expressed the belief that we could lose up to 70 to 80% of our Bitterroot Forest to drought, fire and disease in the coming decades, and that large-scale thinning in the forest will not work. Yet many of these same environmental groups support thinning trees 400 feet around homes and structures in the forest interface, but not beyond this point. This tactical approach is not a long-term solution. It is, at best, a band-aid. It is difficult to understand why environmental organizations such as Friends of the Bitterroot do not advocate thinning the forests because they believe thinning on a large scale will do more harm than good to the forest ecosystem. Yet these same groups cite alarming studies that claim if we do nothing our forests will face catastrophic destruction by wildfires in coming years, which could lead to a devastating chain of events ecologically and economically in the Bitterroot Valley. We seek a long-term fuel reduction solution in our forests that addresses key environmental concerns while providing a viable long-term, large-scale source for small diameter timber and slash materials that can in turn create opportunities for new and established wood products businesses in our communities. To advance our organization's mission, we are studying new and emerging techniques for large-scale thinning and harvesting, such as "cut-to-length" technology, as well as very low-impact slash removal and chipping processes. We are also researching new ways to use the millions of tons of renewable resources our forests could easily produce, such as small diameter timber and slash. We are having discussions with companies that are already using these new technologies, ranging from creation of composite lumber and decking materials to biofuel production using "plasma conversion" technology that not only burns slash and other solid waste without emitting pollutants, but which also provides a synthetic gas that can generate electricity and even power our automobiles. Our country's surging demand for affordable, dependable and responsible energy is fueling an exciting wave of development focused on biofuels. However, until Congress provides adequate national legislation and the United States Forest Service (USFS) commits to long-term contracts to supply enough biomass to companies considering investments in these new technologies, it will not happen because the investment community will not get on board until this commitment is made. Companies considering these capital-intensive investments will move to communities where this commitment can be realized. A long-term commitment by the USFS is therefore crucial in the success of these negotiations. But the USFS can't commit until our communities and elected officials come together to pass legislation to reduce the threat of protracted litigation in the common interest of developing a better way of managing forest overgrowth. Montana is where the environmental movement began (In 1952, Montana State University Professor Charles Crane Bradley made a movie about the Yampa River/Echo Park Canyon area of Colorado and showed the film in the Bozeman area to gain support for his position. Historians mark the Echo Park debate [in the 1950's] as the birth of the modern environmental movement in the United States) in the 1950s and 60s. The Big Sky Coalition believes we must strive to return our great state to the forefront of sound conservation practices and environmental leadership with new forest management priorities, policies and technologies. It is in this spirit that the Big Sky Coalition will pursue its mission to bring Montana citizens and our elected officials together to work for common sense solutions to today's most pressing forest management issues. We invite your participation and support in advancing this worthy cause. For more information, please visit http://www.bigskycoalition.org.
Tom Robak, Founder |
|||||
Smoke problem not so badDear Editor, The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) thinks that there is too much smoke in Ravalli County. The Department is concerned because the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has lowered the allowable amount of small particulate matter in the air from 65 to 35 micrograms per cubic meter of air. There have been few days that have exceeded the new EPA standard, outside of the forest fire season, in any recent year. On the one hand the DEQ did not test every day and if they had, they would have found more days over the EPA limit. On the other hand they picked the location to test in a county 90 miles long and many miles wide where they were most likely to find an excessive reading. We suspect that the DEQ is a regulator looking for a problem, excluding the fire season the number of days over the 35 micron limit are as follows: 2000 - 1 day 2001 - 1 day 2002 - 0 days 2003 - 0 days 2004 - 4 days 2005 - 3 days 2006 - 0 days The DEQ tries to test 10 days a month and the monthly mean is always below 35 micrograms. Wood smoke from stoves does create the offending particulate matter. However, if the wood is not burned in a stove it will burn, or decay, in the forest in a more polluting fashion. There is much concern over global warming and the belief that it is caused by "green house gases," most commonly CO2. However, decaying wood also produces methane gas, which is 25 times as effective in retaining heat in the atmosphere as CO2. If relatively cheap wood heat is not available, energy for heating our homes must come from more expensive fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas, propane, and coal. Electricity is also an option, some of which is produced by pollution free water power. However, most electricity in this state is produced by burning coal. No more water power will ever be developed, and the wind does not blow at all times. Solar panels also have obvious limitations. The bottom line is that the less wood that is burned in stoves, the more coal and other fossil fuels that will be burned in power plants. All fossil fuels pollute, but coal is the biggest offender and the source likely to provide much of the heat that is needed to replace wood. With coal you not only get CO2, but mercury, sulfur, and particulate matter. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has supported "solutions" to environmental problems that have created a bigger problem than the one addressed by the solution; for example, requiring MTBE to oxygenate gasoline. MTBE has polluted ground water all over the county and its use has been prohibited. We suspect that the DEQ and firewood may be similar to the EPA and MTBE. In summation, the wood will burn sometime, or decay, both of which have worse consequences for the environment than burning the wood in a stove. To make matters worse, the relatively benign burning of wood will be replaced with fossil fuel combustion which is more expensive and worse for the environment. Heating with wood should be encouraged, not discouraged, for environmental reasons.
Rep. Ray Hawk, HD 90 |
|||||
Response to Kelly letterDear Editor, I feel a definite need to respond to the letter posted December 12 in the Bitterrroot Star by Claire L. Kelly. Claire, I totally agree with everything you said in your letter until the last paragraph. I don't know where you got your information about Mike Huckabee, but it is absolutely false. I have researched him extensively and in fact read the transcript of the forum where the alleged incident occurred. Huckabee did not question the Christian-ness of Romney, but rather was questioned about the Christian-ness of Romney. That is the main error of your assertion. In fact, Huckabee's response to that question was that it was not up to him to address the validity of Romney's beliefs, and that he admired Romney's commitment to his faith. A far cry from what you insinuate in your letter. You say you are familiar with both of their Christian sects and belong to neither, yet you identify yourself as a Christian and an American. I am somewhat curious about what Christian sect you belong to if you don't understand the fundamental differences between Huckabee's and Romney's so called sects. You assert that "Christ taught that salvation is acquired by loving the Lord and our brothers. Christ then specifically, de facto defined 'brother' as athe person of good heart, who lives kindness and charity without regard for ethnicity or differences in religious practices." However, Paul wrote (Rom 10:9 NASB) "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; (Rom 10:10 NASB) for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." That is quite a different set of rules for salvation from what you espoused. Also, in (John 14:6 NASB) Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." That indicates to me a definite regard for differences in religious practices. I would suggest that you read (Exo 20:16 NASB) "You shall not bear a false witness against your neighbor." I say to you repent, Claire, repent and ask forgiveness. Finally Claire, I quote (John 13:34 NASB) "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. (John 13:35 NASB) "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." I love you Claire, just as God loves you, because He created you. LaRoy L. Williamson |
|||||
A happy Creekside Meadows homeownerDear Editor, After reading several articles concerning Creekside Meadows subdivision, I feel compelled to write this letter. For the past two years my wife and I have lived in Creekside Meadows and greatly enjoyed living in a neighborhood that is friendly, takes pride in home ownership, and where we know the first and last names of most of our neighbors. However, there have been several issues, such as the installation of a water pressure booster pump and R-2 zoning, that have been huge disappointments. Mr. Arlo Ellison, the developer of Creekside Meadows, stated to me on three separate occasions that he would have the water pressure booster pump installed once the proper governmental agencies gave their approval, stating "my word is my bond." On December 10, 2007, I was informed by the city council of Stevensville that all governmental and city agencies had given their approval for the installation of said water booster pump. It is now up to Mr. Ellison to live up to his word. There are conflicting statements on who requested the R-2 zoning; the Stevensville city council states that Mr. Ellison requested it and Mr. Ellison states the Stevensville city council requested it. The Stevensville city council now states that they have no objection to considering a re-zoning request back to R-1. However, it is up to the developer to request a change and Mr. Ellison has replied "no," even after the Creekside Meadows Homeowners Association offered to pay 50% of the approximate cost of $500 for such a change. If Mr. Ellison didn't request the R-2 zoning in the first place, why does he refuse to consider our plea for the zoning change? Creekside Meadows is a deed restricted community, which means there are rules and regulations, all aimed at making it a wonderful place to live. I encourage anyone looking for a new home to drive through Creekside Meadows and view the new homes ready for occupancy. Be certain that you consider the covenants, and if they don't fit your lifestyle, there are numerous other attractive areas to live in the Bitterroot Valley. I for one am extremely happy to call Creekside Meadows my home.
Roger Johnson |
|||||
Bring the troops homeDear Editor, While serving in Baghdad and throughout Iraq, I transported many medical supplies, reserves of blood and other necessities for the wounded. When not preparing for convoys of sustainability, I became familiar with helicopters flying into base, landing, and unloading bodies and pouches of human remains, all to be kept in large refrigerators. This is a glimpse of what I participated in, witnessed and understand as the reality of war. I have a very hard time remaining silent as I listen to Montana's congressional delegation falter over how and when to bring our service men and women home safely from the failed war in Iraq. I am a voice to many veterans and those about to serve, who like me, are fed up with a war that has never had a clear definition. I, like many, are proud to serve and understand the stress and complications that come with a war. The only problem is that this is a war built on faulty and almost cowardly reasons. It is draining our nation's resources, both our financial wealth and our invaluable minds, which could be used to make this country even richer. While U.S. soldiers and Iraqis both fight to stay alive, those about to serve are at odds to build a solid scaffolding, or meaning, for this war. No honorable person wants to die in this bath of confusion and endless controversy that continues to flow from a set of lies born nearly five years ago. Over the last several weeks, each member of our delegation has failed to make a clear, and urgently necessary distinction between supporting Montana's soldiers and supporting a war that dishonors Montana's soldiers. All three members of our delegation have stated that they want our troops to come home as soon as possible. Yet, what our soldiers deserve is not words and symbolic gestures, but courageous action to end this war. Recently, Senator Tester visited Iraq and repeated his support, generally, for the withdrawal of troops. The devil however, is in the details. When asked about war funding, Tester said that he could not foresee a time when he would vote to stop funding the war. Senator Baucus's position is very similar. He talks about ending the war, but he refuses to deny President Bush further funding for a war that has killed 21 Montanans. Representative Rehberg is the furthest afield. Recently, he compared the long-term presence of U.S. military bases in Iraq to the need for long-term bases in Germany following WWII. I find it remarkable that our sole U.S. congressman could make this type of comparison: between a just and global war fought by the Greatest Generation, and an unjust, largely unilateral war that has alienated our closest allies and deepened the threat of terrorism. For four years, Montana citizens have reluctantly, but patiently, observed the war in Iraq. Recent security gains are now being used to request of us further patience, more time, and more and more of our taxes - billions more every week. Thankfully, Montanans are saying that our patience is at an end. The Butte-Silver Bow Council of Commissioners has voted 8-4 to end the war. The City Council of Hamilton has voted 4-1 to end the war. The citizens of Helena and Missoula each voted overwhelmingly, by 61% in each city, for an immediate, orderly, and safe withdrawal from Iraq. Other Montana cities are now moving through similar, and very appropriate, public processes, including the city of Bozeman. But, will Montana's congressional delegation have the courage not only to listen, but to act on what they have heard? It is time that our Senators and our Congressman recognize the essential difference between supporting Montana's soldiers and supporting the war in Iraq. It is time for citizens and soldiers alike to join together and to make the argument that supporting our soldiers actually requires ending a war that compromises their well being at every turn. Congress controls the purse strings of our federal government, and Montanans are calling out for accountability. All manners of supporting the troops – from increased domestic leave to increased mental health services – are merely stop-gap measures. For as long as the war continues, these related problems will only deepen. Supporting the troops means ending the war. Ending the war means telling President Bush that he cannot take any more of Montana's tax dollars to Iraq. Max, Jon, and Denny, you are the only three Montanans who have the power to fully support the troops by ending the war. As a veteran of the Iraq war, I urge you to stop talking about bringing the troops home safely, and to get it done.
Shane Mundt |
|||||
In memory of our homeless neighborsDear Editor, On January 31, 2007, volunteers identified 2,217 homeless Montanans during Montana’s annual Survey of the Homeless. Most had high school educations and many were working. Service providers say that the number represented in the survey is the tip of the iceberg: many of those who are homeless in Montana exist beneath the radar of the programs designed to ensure that they don’t fall through the cracks. They are sleeping on couches, in cars, camps, county jails or hospitals, and fewer than five percent will resort to asking strangers for money. December 21st is National Homeless Persons’ Memorial Day. It is the longest night of the year, and the day we honor those among us who died while homeless during the year. Montanans are remembering our own homeless persons in a number of ceremonies across the state: A candlelight vigil and ceremony was held in Billings earlier this month, Missoula is holding a vigil on Thursday and Helena’s memorial service is scheduled for noon this Friday. More than two dozen people statewide will be commemorated at these ceremonies. These deaths are very difficult to track and the list is probably far from complete, nevertheless, far too many Montanans are dying in hunger and want. The Schweitzer/Bohlinger Administration is committed to the kind of economic development that will provide better-paying jobs, housing and more education for all Montanans. We are committed to ensuring that Montana has an exemplary mental health system that can offer our people hope and recovery. As Co-Chair of the Governor’s Council on Homelessness, I am deeply committed to addressing the issue of homelessness, both at a personal level and as a partner in this administration. “Montana is on the move” but some Montanans are left behind. We must work together to ensure all our citizens are safe, warm and economically secure. If you are able, please attend one of Montana’s Homeless Memorials. Join me in supporting your neighbors and helping where you can.
Lt. Governor John Bohlinger |
|||||
