Volume XX, Number 32

Wednesday, March 9, 2005

By Sen. Rick Laible, Victor

It is very easy for some to criticize legislators on their votes, but I would hope that before writing rather ugly letters the author would at least have had the dignity to ask the legislators why they voted the way they did on a particular bill. Our emails and phone numbers are readily available, but Ms. Bookbinder never sought the reasons why we voted against SB-173. By her admission Ms. Bookbinder attended the open meeting on this bill, but never spoke in favor of it.

Yes, I did vote against SB-173, the waterside management bill and for good reason. This bill would have allowed the State to mandate zoning regulations for Ravalli County. If, like Ms. Bookbinder, one feels that local control should be turned over to the State, then you probably will agree with her, but I believe that the citizens of Ravalli County should make their own decisions regarding zoning ordinances, not the State. Our County already has within our existing laws the ability to do everything that SB-173 sought to do, but on the local level, which is where it belongs. Our Growth Policy was not drafted in Helena, but in Ravalli County.

SB-173 had some other problems which were not addressed by Ms. Bookbinder, such as none of the technical concerns in the fiscal note were addressed, the bill created an entirely new permitting and enforcement program for every local government in Montana, without any State funding, and this bill created State wide zoning for every county. All of this was to be accomplished without due process at the local level.

Ms. Bookbinder had some concerns that legislative decisions were not based on the principles of our growth policy. In response, some of the legislation that I've been working on includes SB-116 which changes the procedural guidelines for subdivisions, SB-185 which allows local governments the ability to impose impact fees on subdivisions so that builders and developers pay their fair share of capital improvements and supported the Quality Growth Act which gives counties the ability to assess fees on a per lot basis for planning, so that local governments have the funding to do long range capital planning. And last, but certainly not least, initiated SJR-11 which will allow for an interim committee study to resolve the thorny substantive issues of the subdivision statutes (MCA 76-3).

Ms. Bookbinder, we must find a way to work together to solve difficult issues, not by being disagreeable, but by agreeing to find commonality in our community challenges.

In closing, Phyllis, why do you try to push us apart when you should be trying to pull us together?

Re: Hamilton Study Commission

Dear Editor,

During March, 2003, Lorraine Crotty, Eleanor Prosser and Richard White filed a lawsuit against the City of Hamilton and Kennedy's Tavern for more than $2 million. Now fast forward. Prosser and Crotty have been elected to the City Government Study Commission. Prosser was the Chairperson as late as January 11, 2005. Crotty was named as Treasurer of the commission. White has been named by Prosser as investigating the City Treasurer history, reporting back to the Commission. According to the Republic articles on March 11, 2003 and April 30, 2003, the trio of plaintiffs had carried on a very acrimonious and strident campaign against the City of Hamilton and the Tavern. I cannot find any archival reference to any settlement although the last week of April, 2003, the District Court ordered a settlement conference.

That isn't the entire story. The commission chairman, Bob Frost, has changed the intent of the commission defined in the Montana Code, using the commission to examine the present City Government to determine if changes are needed to have more efficiency which neatly fits in with the antics of Bob and Bob the day after they were elected to the City Council. Now Hamilton is forced to live with three plaintiffs suing the City for over $2 million alleging City administration misconduct and at the same time conducting an investigation of the City government under the leadership of one of the "3 Bob" trio which has been actively attempting to take apart city government for two years.

This goes to a key factor. What I believe or anyone else believes means absolutely nothing. The impropriety of these two people serving on the commission cannot be addressed. No one in government has control. I must assume the two attorneys on the commission are aware of the legal action against the City and are comfortable serving on the commission with Crotty and Prosser. The thought has occurred to me that if a majority of the commission resigned, another election may be the way to go or the Mayor could appoint new members. Who knows?

During the commission meeting on November 29, 2004, chaired by Prosser, Crotty explained to a citizen attending that, "The state mandate requires the city (her word) to study options to present to voters in order to create what citizens want. This mandate is being followed." Immediately, Frost explains to the observer that, "It is our job to first study our present form of government to determine if changes are needed to have more efficiency." To the reader, just think about that collection of words. I for one believe the naked arrogance of that statement. I believe those assembled were hearing Bob and Bob and Bob talking.

There is more. A new researcher has surfaced. His name is Dick. I believe this is Dick White, another plaintive to the lawsuit against the City. On January 16, 2005, Crotty emailed Prosser mentioning that Dick was looking intoŠ "the treasurer's position and some history of what happened."

The commission has obtained the services of a secretary from RSVP. I suggest to that very worthy organization and the very dedicated people who participate, that the leadership closely study this commitment.

On January 3, 2005, Mr. Frost (that's Bob #3) wrote the Mayor about office space. I quote, "We expected to use this office (upstairs finance office) any time, since we are now legitimate City Officials, just as you areŠ We are entitled to an office, and unlimited access to it."

A word about the questionnaires. I have looked at the ones tailored for the following: City Clerk, City Attorney, City Judge, and City Council. My first impression was that the commission is attempting to build a databank that would bring a smile to any despot and it is all legal. I believe commission member Sanders cautioned the members that no one is required to answer any of the questions. Remembering back a few years, the questions have a haunting similarity to those introduced by anti-government factions at meetings with RML. I cannot understand what application these questions have in studying forms of city government.

Apparently the commission is a completely independent monster reporting to no one and whose members claim to be legit city officials, two of whom are suing the City for millions of dollars in damages. That is one for the books.

I'll close with a rhetorical question. What are we doing to ourselves? The so-called silent majority cannot stay silent on this one.

Earl Pollard
Hamilton

Thanks to Morris Gardner

Dear Editor,

The Bitterroot Chapter of Trout Unlimited sadly notes the passing of Morris C. Gardner. Morris served as the auctioneer for every Trout Unlimited fundraiser held in the Bitterroot for 25 years.

His wonderful personality, ringing voice, and unrivaled skill as an auctioneer contributed to the success of our efforts and helped us raise tens of thousands of dollars for the streams and fish in the Bitterroot. Without his help, many of the projects and much of the work that we have accomplished over the years would not have been possible. Morris and his wife Arthella were regular fixtures at the banquets, often urging on their many friends to dig a little deeper for a good cause. In recent years, he was aided by his son-in-law, Randy Kearns, but no one could work the crowd for a good cause like Morris.

At our 25th Silver Anniversary Banquet last fall, Morris was recognized with a Special Service Award. He will be remembered and missed in coming years.

So, on behalf of all the streams and fish of the Bitterroot Valley, Trout Unlimited would like to thank Morris and to extend our sincere sympathy to the members of his family.

Marshall Bloom (for)
Bitterroot Chapter of Trout Unlimited

Easy fix for Social Security

Dear Editor,

The Social Security "crisis" can be fixed with one stroke of the pen by President Bush.

No, we do not need to raise the retirement age. That would be unfair to our senior citizens who have already been working for 40-plus years. That would also keep young job seekers from finding a job if these seniors had to work longer.

No, we do not need to cut benefits to our seniors that need them.

What we need to do is merely eliminate the $90,000 taxable wage cap on Social Security deposits. Under the present system, once you make over $90,000 you no longer have to pay anything more into Social Security for that year. However, if you make less than that, 100% of your income is taxed for Social Security.

Instead of those making more than $90,000 crying about having the law changed to require them to keep paying in like the working man or woman that makes less, these well-to-do folks should be thankful that they had the opportunity to succeed in their careers and earn such a good wage.

Please write, email, or call your elected officials and tell them to eliminate the cap.

Ric Hanson
Columbus

Support for Fair Tax

Dear Editor,

FairTax ­ and the significant, positive impact of a progressive national sales tax on the economic well being of this country. Chairman Greenspan was right on target. Replacing the income tax is long overdue. HR 25/S 25 ­ commonly called the FairTax ­ eliminates all personal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, earned income, Social Security/Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes. The legislative package is revenue neutral for Social Security, Medicare and treasury revenue, delivering the same amount of revenue as the current systems.

Calculations conducted by several nationally known economists, including Harvard's Dale Jorgensen, conclude these key components of the FairTax package will eliminate some 22 to 25 percent in tax costs hidden in retail prices today.

Then you add in the FairTax progressive retail sales tax of 30% (or said another way, an income tax equivalent of 23%). This results in consumers paying close to the same as they pay now for products and services but with added advantage of a larger take home paycheck that is free of federal income and payroll tax deductions. No withholding. No records. No receipts. No tax preparers. No tax software. No filing. No audits. No enforcement!

It is not surprising that the FairTax plan is finally getting the attention it has long deserved. Grassroots America knows it's the best plan. Learn more at www.fairtax.org.

Alan Findly
Ronan

Speak out against Coke

Dear Editor,

George Dennison, president of the University of Montana, recently acknowledged before television cameras (NBC, ABC, 3/2/05) that crimes committed against union workers of Coca-Cola's bottling plants in Colombia indeed happened. In fact, the assertion that they "have been making all along" is that "the loop" cannot be made from Coke in Colombia back to Coke in Atlanta/Montana. This is the only premise from which Dennison, Vice President Robert Durringer and UM Legal Counsel David Aronofsky, are defending their decision to maintain an exclusive contract with Coke. This is a truly disingenuous argument as "the loop" can easily be made by any honest observer. This administrative trio is working diligently to demonstrate to existing, and potential, corporate investors that they can "manufacture the consent" necessary for a submissive public that won't resist a corporate take over of their university. 

It amazes the onlooker that Dennison has not thought to utilize his influence to publicly denounce the actions of Coca-Cola's bottling plants in Colombia that have allowed paramilitary death squads to execute its union workers. It contradicts the most basic moral standards that he acts as though there is nothing he can do as an influential customer of Coke's products to pressure Atlanta to pick up the phone, contact their bottling factories in Colombia, and to tell them to stop terrorizing their workers. Mr. Dennison and his staff are acutely aware that Coca-Cola in Atlanta can stop shipping its syrup to Colombia or that it could remove its franchise from the Colombia factories without batting an eyelash. 

With our passive consent, George and Co. are enjoying impunity. They expect us to take their word for it that there is nothing that they can do. However, couldn't this kind of naive thinking lead to new exclusive contracts between the university and sayŠ some scholastic furniture company? Or Nike? Or worst of all, a single book distributor?

Jay Bostrom
Missoula

Where were my Catholic brethren?

Dear Editor,

On March 3, there was a male strip show presented at the Plum Loco Bar in Stevensville. it was disguised as a "Male Revue." The intent of this letter is to express my sadness and grief at not seeing hundreds or even thousands of Christians picketing at the Plum Loco in protest of this immoral and licentious act. Where were the picketers? Where were my Catholic brethren?

There were approximately 250 honks of approval for the picketers from passing vehicles. These 250 people could have held a sign for an hour or two. One way we can be an accessory to another's sin is by silence. We needed numbers to speak out against the male strip show held at Plum Loco.

May God bless the handful of picketers that were present. May He inspire those Christians who "stayed at home" to be visible when asked to take a stand for what is right.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." --Edmond Burke.

Eve Olha Williams
Stevensville

How cool is COOL?

Dear Editor,

There is a great deal of rhetoric being bandied about today in the press and in the legislative halls concerning the topic of Country of Origin Labeling as applied to agricultural products. It is a highly divisive issue and there is really no middle ground. You are either for it or against it, although no individual producer or organization will publicly take an adamant position against COOL. Mandatory COOL is public law due to be implemented in September 2006. Opposition takes the form of delaying implementation, or destroying its effectiveness through amendments, such as making compliance voluntary instead of mandatory. Voluntary COOL is like passing a law banning smoking in public places, and then adding compliance is voluntary.

There is currently before the Montana legislature a bill known as "The Montana Country of Origin Placarding Act" (HB 406). This bill would provide a means by which the consumer could identify a product at the retail level as being of foreign or domestic origin, something that cannot be done presently. In view of the efforts by the USDA to remove all restrictions on the importation of beef and cattle of all ages from Canada this bill becomes very significant. At least for Montana consumers it will plug the hole created by the delayed implementation of the Federal law.

The Montana House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture recently held a hearing on HB 406. There were approximately 100 people in attendance. As an organizational procedure, Committee Chairman Ed Butcher asked for a show of hands indicating support or opposition. Only two indicated opposition. However, during testimony representatives of the Montana Stockgrowers, the Montana Farm Bureau, and the Montana Cattlewomen all spoke in such a manner that Mr. Butcher stated, "I am considering you in the opposed category."

Montana based producer organizations such as R-CALF USA, Montana Cattlemen's Association, Northern Plains Resource Council, and Montana Farmers Union all support mandatory COOL and the Montana COOL Placarding Act. We need to add the voice of the consumer to our efforts. If you, as a potential purchaser of agricultural products at the retail level, believe you have a need and a right to know where your food comes from, let your legislator know that you support HB 406.

Dick Gosman, Director District 3
Montana Cattlemenıs Association

More to the story

Dear Editor,

This is in response to the letter written by Julie and Rob Sims regarding the 3rd and 40th grade girls Kids First basketball.

I didn't witness the behavior you mentioned at the last game. What I did witness was weekly games where the Lone Rock team followed the rules and Stevensville did not. Did you read the rules published at the beginning of the program for this grade level? Obviously our coaches did, and Stevensville coaches did not (or they chose to play only to win, not to play by the rules).

At least once during each game our coaches would ask the referee, the same person almost every game, to remind the other coach and team to play by the rules. The ref did this, but didn't follow through by calling the illegal defense. Specifically, the girls were supposed to play man-to-man defense. Lone Rock did, Stevensville did not. There was also not supposed to be any double or triple team defense; Stevensville also ignored this rule. If Kids First isn't going to call the game according to the rules they published, why have rules at all?

This constant inability of the Stevensville team to adhere to the rules was very frustrating to Lone Rock coaches, parents and players. However, our girls continued to enjoy practicing and playing every week, despite the fact they never won a game, and they were aware the other team wasn't playing by the rules. Thanks to Lone Rock coaches Doug Brewer and David Doll, our girls will continue to be taught the game of basketball, as well as good sportsmanship and the importance of playing by the rules.

Lori Grimes
Stevensville

Second half in Helena

Dear Editor,

The second half of the session has begun. It is a little busier than the beginning of the first half, but nothing like the last two weeks of the first half. To continue the football analogy, having finished the "two minute drill" at the end of the first half, each side is testing the other in the opening minutes of the third quarter. But, like football, the pace is a little faster because we are in the last half.

The biggest item coming up soon is the budget in the form of HB 2. During the first half, each of the Appropriations Subcommittees was hearing bills which asked for new appropriations. Now, the committee is meeting as a whole to fit the separate pieces together into one bill. This is going to be a big job because, as of transmittal, the biennial budget was $121.1 million above the statutory limitation. The expenditure limitation or "spending cap² was adopted by law in 1981. The law says that the increase of general fund, plus state special revenue and certain long-range building funds in the 2007 biennial budget, may not exceed the 2005 biennial budget plus a growth factor. The allowable growth is based on the three year rolling average of personal income growth in Montana, which is 8.53%, as of this year. We've not heard much about the cap in recent sessions because the Governor's proposals and the Legislature's actions never came close to the cap.

We likely will hear many possible scenarios and combinations thereof during the next seven weeks to make budget fit. Everything from across-the-board cuts to excluding certain categories in order to reduce the base, or even an outright repeal of the limit as recommended by the Governor's budget director, David Ewer, last week. However it is done, HB 2 is due on the floor of the House next week. I should add that the proposed $121 million overage does not include recommendations of the five committees working on defining "Quality Education." It's gonna be a long second half.

One bill that generated a lot of discussion on the floor last week was HB 91, the first "Open Container Ban" to hit the House floor. After adoption of an amendment to make possession by a passenger not reportable on the passenger's driving record, and two more minor "word-smithing" amendments, there followed a series of amendments aimed at gutting the bill. The first would have made a violation not reportable on the driver's record; it failed 44-55. The second would have required that an officer must know that a container contains alcohol before making a stop. Obviously, impossible; the motion failed 34-66. The third attempt would have required an officer to have a search warrant before searching the vehicle after a stop. It is already well established in law that under such circumstances, the officer has a right to search. The motion failed 23-75. This is an unusually large number of amendments on the floor. The sponsor of these amendments announced that he had 18 more amendments to offer; whereupon a motion for cloture was made and passed 67-30. Cloture is the end of debate. The bill then passed second reading 74-26. The bill came up for third reading, which is not debatable, on Saturday, and passed 78-18. But wait, there's more; HB 91 now goes to the Senate.

Rep. Gary MacLaren
Victor

Response to Miner letter

Dear Editor,

As of yesterday, there is still absolutely no evidence, facts, or observations supporting the troubled theory of evolution. There are, however, a number of troubled individuals including many scientific learned men and women who believe evolution to be truth because they can't stand the thought of the obvious. This theory is not based on any observable platform nor is it supported by previous scientific findings. How a theory that is only fantasy can predict anything accurately is beyond understanding. Because one cannot prove evolution, this leaves only two options, you believe it or you don't believe it. Which brings us back to the fact that evolution is a belief system based on assumptions, driven by personal preference with its main objective not being the advancement of science, but instead the attempt to degrade and discredit creation-based origins. It's the "anything but" syndrome. There has never been an advancement in science in which evolution was useful or helpful. It is not mathematical unless used with biased testing, it is not logical in relation to other scientific processes or common sense, and its foundation is forever on the shifting sands of time... billions of billions of years ago... Is there any real record of that? Evolution is not science, not even related to science, although it is misleadingly associated with factual, observed science.

I respect Mr. Miner's viewpoint but he needs to know that this theory of evolution which he claims accurately predicts a progression of fossil body types and times, that he is trying to put over as truth, is far from it. The predictions he is talking about are taken from "biased only" viewpoints, not facts and true observations. In the early 1800s, a fictitious geological column was built on the assumption that evolution was true. The index of fossils we find presented by this model is based on the same faulty assumption. Dates are not assigned because of radiometric dating results, but rather the strata they are found in. The fossils date the strata, and the strata date the fossils, which is circular reasoning, and not good science. You see, the ages applied to the geologic columns do not exist anywhere except in bogus textbooks. Polystrata fossils, missing layers, misplaced fossils and misplaced fossil layers, strata layers out of order, and reverse order strata, all invalidate the geologic column that evolution uses.

Did you know that laboratories will not carbon date dinosaur bones because the dates won't match up with the geologic column dates? Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early 1950s. Nothing on earth carbon dates in the millions of years because the scope of carbon dating only extends a few thousand years. Now that is science. So the ability for evolution to predict anything noteworthy is highly unlikely.

Evolution is built on assumption with heavy bias and a lot of holes. In other words, it's a sinking ship, a story, and unfortunately it's still being taught as truth and as science. This is not quality education, this is lying with misleading information. Science is science and stories are stories until proven otherwise. "In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions; in general these have not been found, yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks." -- David M. Raup, "Evolution and the Fossil Record," Science, Vol. 213, July 17, 1981, pg. 289.

"As by this theory (evolution), innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? The number of intermediate links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great." -- Charles Darwin, 19th century.

Simple common sense tells us that if this is true, we would find, somewhere, numerous "missing links" thus supporting evolution. One hundred and fifty years later, with all of our combined knowledge, technology and scientific approaches, not one single empirical fact of an intermediate species has been found. This itself is an authentic finding. Let's teach this to our children. Darwin's theory and the fossil findings are in serious conflict. If anything, science (not collaborating scientists) disproves evolution as occurring or having ever occurred. In no way, shape, form, theory or proof does science promote the "idea" of evolution. This is fact. Evolution goes against the very principles of science. It is unscientific and wrongly associated with good and real science.

What promotes evolution is individuals bent on forcing their beliefs on the public while hiding behind textbooks, degrees, titles, organizations and money. Just because people are experts in their fields does not mean everything they say or promote is truth. Remember, we all have our beliefs and preferences and opinions. At the least, "good" beliefs will retain a consistent integrity. Evolution, a belief, is not even one of those. Each time something supposedly supporting evolution is disproved, discredited, and found to be very unlikely (even by its proponents,) another "story" comes down the pike for us to be force fed as truth in order to keep its option open. This "method" may be poorly used for philosophies or religions, but certainly true science has no tolerance for it. The type of scientific community our public schools should have a relationship with is that of an open mind, not indoctrinated, brainwashed students of special interest theories. Especially one that has not led to probability, has not offered one single fact to support itself, or even has realistic explorations and assumptions. In regards to evolution, most of us have been taught the fiction for fact and the opinion as fact and not science.

It is time to call the storytellers to the carpet. Those in authority are accountable to those they are teaching or governing. Many of us have failed to hold our leaders accountable and the results are obvious throughout the realms of education, society and history. This also needs to change.

"Let me control the textbooks and I will control the state." "How fortunate for those in power that the people never think." Adolph Hitler made those statements and the rest is history. When uncontested and/or not kept in check, the ridiculous, perverse, and the false can become the norm and even the law. Let's not let that happen anymore than it already has. Opinion is opinion and fact is fact. Evolution is not fact nor a good or useful theory. Remember, there has never been one advancement in any field of science in which evolution was instrumental or helpful. It does not dovetail nicely to any branch of science.

In response to Miner's excerpt on the learned value of separating church and state power, please note that the true Christian doctrine and its people do not and did not support the actions of the "church authority" during the Dark Ages. Extremists and various nutbuckets can be found associating themselves with most any group or cause and should not be considered the norm unless of course this is a consistent and repeated theme or observation. History is full of mistakes, atrocities, and unpleasantries because of "special interests" and agendas.

As for the phrase "separation of church and state," let's take a closer, rarely seen look. The phrase first appeared in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a Baptist preacher in Dayton, Connecticut. Atheists, evolutionists, and humanists almost always leave out the last part of the letter when ranting their misused slogan of "separation of Church and State!" The complete letter shows Jefferson's intent of the phrase. This is the context of that letter.

"The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state. That wall is a one dimensional wall. It keeps government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government."

So in regard to: a) evolution as good, authentic science, b) keeping religion out of the science classroom, yet teaching evolution, and c) the misrepresentation of "the church" and "separation of church and state," I say strike three, Mr. Miner, you and evolution are out.

Tim Mangold
Stevensville