Officials from the Department of Environmental Quality were in the valley recently to encourage the County Commissioners to work towards development of some enforceable air quality regulations. The key word here would be “enforceable.” One of the officials mentioned in passing that the county could begin by simply “putting teeth” into whatever regulations it already has on the books.

It’s an interesting way to phrase it. It’s also apt. Passing a regulation to control activities that have been recognized as harmful makes sense. But to put a rule on the books with no penalty is a little bit like taking a bite out of a tough steak when you’ve got no teeth. It simply creates another dilemma. And an embarrassing one at that. You either end up swallowing the thing whole after gumming it for a while, or you spit it out.

To develop some voluntary guidelines that might help protect the public health is one thing. It amounts to good information and good advice. But to put a regulation on the books prohibiting something because it has been found to be a danger to public health with no way to enforce it is ridiculous.

The county has a waste disposal regulation that prohibits the burning of toxic materials. We do not need a committee to study the issue for a year to determine if a regulation is needed. We already have one! The County Commissioners could easily put some teeth in it. Why don’t they?

Perhaps the Commissioners could establish a committee to devise some more comprehensive air quality regulations. But would those be enforceable?

Not without some teeth.

Letters to the Editor

Obama and Clinton poor choices

Dear Editor,

It's Leap Year again! Every four years we experience special Leap Year activities: The 2008 Summer Olympics kick off this year in Beijing. Trivia point, the last Olympic Games held in a communist country was the 1980 Summer Games in Moscow, Russia. The United States led a 64-country boycott of this event. Likely more on people's minds is simple: The Presidential Election! That's right, we the people elect our President every four years, which coincides with the Leap Year. This is where I fear a solemn irony unfolding…

The hearts and minds of Americans are strewn about the planet right now. Gas prices are growing. We've been in Iraq for 5 years, with no end in sight; Afghanistan for almost 7 years. The growing possibility of more terrorist attacks on US soil lingers in the security measures you see at airports, seaports, and mass transit facilities throughout the country. Medicare, taxes, and social security are always an issue. The Federal Government's inability to provide substantial aide in the midst of a natural disaster has swayed public faith, Katrina. Conspiracy theories into corruption, false intelligence, lies, ulterior motives, and war-mongering have abolished trust in the administration.

The simple replacement of a President and his administration, especially considering our current National and International positions, will create drastic changes across the country and the World. First and foremost, any new President will be faced with substantial pressure to alleviate our responsibility in Iraq. Even the most moderate of adjustments can spur a flourishing Islamic Militant response, thrusting the entire region deeper into turmoil. Take that note from someone who's been there and has a decent amount of real knowledge and expertise of the situation. And the ball rolls downhill…

Iraq aside, most of us are noticing that your dollar doesn't get you a gallon of gas anymore. Ten years ago it did. Many will blame that on Iraq. I'm no economic pro by any means, but I've also noticed the dollar won't buy me a soda anymore, a pack of cigarettes has more than doubled in price in the last decade. Movies cost more, a decent meal costs more. And for those that travel overseas, the Euro is almost 2:1 against our dollar, even the Japanese Yen and Thai Baht slowly gain on it. Trend analysis tells me that our economy is slowing down. Side effect of the war budget? Maybe…

So what is the absolute, single, most drastic thing we can do this election year to ensure that there is no smooth transition between administrations?

Change the image of the United States of America.

That's right! Overnight we can completely alter the face of our country! You can go to sleep one day, and wake up the next with an entirely different look!

How sweet is that!?

Ellen Glasgow said, "All change is not growth, as all movement is not forward."

The Bottom Line: It is my fear that our country will literally take a huge Leap this Year. And thrust us into a new world we are not prepared for by any stretch of the imagination.

With the election growing closer, Texas Primary Election on March 4th, there seems to be growing support for Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama.

Anyone who knows me, knows that I am by no means a racist, nor a sexist for that matter. I simply feel that a Presidential Election of either of these two people would be a grave mistake.

As Americans, a melting pot of men and women from every race, creed and origin, we have become comfortable in our diversity. All men and women are equal. We can overlook simple differences of color and gender. Which is a fantastic feat! We should applaud ourselves on this, and exploit it to its greatest potential.

However, it is not necessarily us Americans who are making our own lives harder. There are thousands of people who wake up every morning, ready to give their lives to destroy the United States of America. Entire cultural, ethnic, and religious groups have openly admonished our existence and granted financial support, military equipment and training, to any who seek to take us down. As an American, you can hardly travel to any country, walk two blocks, and not encounter someone who at least thinks to themselves, "Ah, stupid American."

How do you think the terrorists will react when they see the greatest country on Earth, being run by a woman. For those who don't know, Arab women don't share the same freedoms and respect that Americans do. Will they respect our female President?

What attempts of false camaraderie is Barack Obama up against? Will he be able to use his Muslim lineage to his advantage in Middle Eastern affairs? Or will he be made a fool of and chastised by fundamentalist ideology?

Are we ready for a multi-cultural President? Are we ready for a female President? I am sure that we are. Is the rest of the world ready for it? That is one thing you should keep in mind.

Am I saying don't vote for who you believe to be the best man for the job? No. Think everything through, pay attention, make sound, and educated decisions. Note that Barack Obama has accomplished virtually nothing of value in his Senate seat from Illinois. So how do we know what he will actually do in the White House? Clinton, we've already had one, which I'm sure she had NO influence during her First Ladyship. At the same time, we went through two Bushes, and many of you might think that was a bad idea. What do you think will happen when the mocked wife of an unfaithful former President gets a chance to don the largest pants in the world?

Do and vote as you will. I still am unsure who I am going to vote for. But I will give you two guesses who I'm not voting for, and I'm sure you'll get them both right.

Don't make the United States of America take a Leap of Faith this Leap Year. It worked for Indiana Jones, but he had stunt men and special effects.

Max H. Majors
Austin, Texas

Obama now associated with racist agenda

Dear Editor,

Barack Obama had been doing a great job. He had successfully concealed all of his political warts during the never ending presidential primary of 2008. It seems like this thing will never end, and Obama was beating Hillary Clinton’s socks off.

Someone said that Barack has lost his mojo. I agree, and I don’t think he can get it back again. His pastor, mentor, advisor and friend, Jeremiah Wright, is a hateful demagogue who spews racist, anti-American invective from the pulpit. The scenes of his ranting are truly disturbing. Just look at his congregation. Many of them are clapping, laughing, and obviously in agreement with him. There are small children being subjected to his destructive message, with the obvious approval of their parents.

Obama gives truly magnificent speeches. His delivery is usually flawless, and he says nothing better than anyone I have ever heard. At least he says nothing specific until he is forced to. While Hillary repeatedly and unsuccessfully tries to reinvent herself, Barack has sailed along making millions of Americans feel good about his candidacy and about themselves.

Now, suddenly, the chickens have come home to roost. (I borrowed that line from the Reverend Wright, who got it from Malcolm X). Putting those clips of Jeremiah preaching to his flock on TV may save America from disaster. Not only has Obama’s radically liberal voting record in the Senate been exposed because of the scandal, but the dialogue on race he sanctimoniously informed us that we need has opened a window into black churches like his. The last thing this country needs is a president who for twenty years has knowingly subjected himself and his family to the raving of Jeremiah Wright.

Clearly Barack Obama is not a post racial candidate as he has claimed. The nation has come a long way toward being just that. Obama is not, and neither are his hypocritical apologists. I have been amazed by the people, most of whom are black, who have been interviewed on camera defending the asinine remarks of Jeremiah Wright. What they say is in fact very revealing. It represents a dialogue that has been going on in the black community for as long as I can remember. There has never been anything positive about it.

There is nothing that Jeremiah Wright says that would encourage other ethnic groups to participate in a discussion with him about race. What sane white person would want to discuss race with this hateful preacher, or those who hold his views? I have seen whites interviewed on TV making excuses for Wright and his followers. Almost without exception they are liberals. They feel guilty about slavery and segregation. Slavery in America ended officially in 1865, and Jim Crow laws were abolished in 1964. America today has no resemblance to Jim Crow America. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan and other black racists refuse to acknowledge any change. Sadly, liberal whites are too guilt ridden to challenge them because they fear being called racists. I call them misguided and confused.

Black academics are trying to defend the indefensible. They argue that black people can be forgiven racist and hateful views because of slavery, and the segregation that was once part of America’s culture. That is absolute nonsense, and the only thing it accomplishes is the enrichment of race hustlers. In their numbers I include radically leftist educators, and Democratic politicians who promote black ignorance, grievance and class warfare.

If there is to be a true discussion on race in this country it has to start with that frequently mentioned and imaginary “level playing field.” As long as white Americans are too intimidated and politically correct to openly challenge people like Jeremiah Wright on his racism, the field will never be level.

There will always be racists. Racism is a communicable disease, and Barack Obama exposed his children to it every time he took them to hear Wright preach. The present existence of a relatively small number of white racists should not justify giving a pass to Jeremiah Wright or to Barack Obama. Obama’s relationship with, and defense of, Wright, disqualifies him for the most powerful position in the world.

Gene Williams
Hamilton

Republic vs. Democracy

Dear Editor,

When The Constitution is adhered to the American government is a Republic, not a Democracy. We have all been subjected to the term democracy throughout our lifetimes. In fact after the birth of this nation there have been people like the great American statesman Fisher Ames, whose writings comprise a perceptive, inside view of the history of the nascent United States. Ames recognized and steadfastly opposed the drift, which was already starting, from lawful, orderly government of a republic to democracy. Democracy, Ames asserted, is "a government by the passions of the multitude, or no less correctly, according to the vices and ambitions of their leaders." It is "the creature of impulse and violence." He went further to say: "Democracy, in its best state, is the politics of Bedlam; while kept chained, its thoughts are frantic, but when it breaks loose it kills the keeper, fires the building, and perishes."

The Roman statesman, Cicero, wrote that democracy was a type of government in which the uncontrollable passions were unleashed. The Roman historian Seneca wrote that "democracy is more cruel than wars or tyrants." Our American Founding Fathers knew well the lessons of antiquity, warning in their writings and speeches against any drift toward democracy. Alexander Hamilton, for instance, observed, "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos." James Madison, known as the father of the US Constitution, cautioned that, "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

It does not matter whether a majority in a democracy discovers that it can rob the minority through the ballot box or whether its advocates simply want to gain empowerment through the ballot box. In either case unless the people are very well educated on the issues and understand the Judeo-Christian principles that lead to the proper role of government, they will vote the way those who control the media want. We must recognize that there are some things that the people should never be allowed to vote on. These are matters that affect the lives (and abridge the God given rights) of our citizens and constitute power far beyond what you as an individual have a right to do. For instance, should the people be allowed to vote on whether one race or religion is superior to another? Obviously not, there has to be a limit to "democracy." When you place limitations, then you have established the rule of law, and that is a republic. Furthermore, in a republic if you have the right to do something, you may delegate that right to the government--but you will never lose it, only delegate it. If you do not have a right to do something, then you cannot delegate the government to do it in your name. (You cannot allow two foxes and a chicken to vote on what they are having for lunch!) We the people established our government and cannot delegate any power or right to the government we do not have in and of ourselves. Our American system is based on protecting our rights, not dreaming up new powers for government--- to be control freaks oppressing our neighbors with laws and regulations through government that we would have no right morally to force on them individually. If you do not have the right to tell your neighbor what he can do with his property as an individual you cannot rightfully under a republic delegate that authority to your government. This is individual sovereignty and unalienable rights. As combined sovereign citizens we become a sovereign nation. But it begins with individual sovereignty which we collectively instituted our government to protect, not take through majority vote. We owe the same respect to sovereign nations around the world. If you don't personally have the right to force someone in Iraq to adopt democracy, how do you think you can support our government enforcing democracy in Iraq at the point of a gun under an unconstitutional UN mandate nonetheless? Besides, if we are trying to impose democracy on the world, then that is the same objective as stated by Karl Marx in the 1848 Communist Manifesto. To impose democracy elsewhere is wrong because, a) we have no right to impose anything on other people, rather it is our job to set the example for others to follow, and b) Democracy leads directly to communism. This is exactly what Karl Marx understood when he said that his followers needed to "win the battle for democracy." William Edward Lecky was one of the most renowned historians of the 19th century. In his last book in 1896, “Democracy and Liberty,” his theme was that democracy and liberty are mutually exclusive concepts. He lays out that the bitter fruits of democracy would be: Wars of unprecedented destructiveness, instability in political life, voracious taxation, the rise of totalitarian ideologies, the insatiable public appetite for sensationalism and vulgarity, the collapse of morals, and disorders of every description and at every level of social life. (Have we not reaped all of these including the collapse of morals?)

The Founding Fathers created a Republic and the Constitution they produced mandates a republican system for every state government. It states: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of government: (U.S. Constitution, Art. 4, Sec. 4.) You will not find the word democracy used in the Constitution or any state constitution. The easiest way to remember that we are a Republic is to simply say the Pledge to our Flag: ". ..to the Republic for which it stands...." In any dictionary, in 1787 democracy was defined simply as "majority rule."

The Constitution under which we live is our God-inspired national safeguard ensuring freedom and liberty, justice and equality before the law. Let us learn it, get back to it, and honor it, before it is too late.

Art Baker
Stevensville

Ballot Buzz

Dear Editor,

With all the attention the national election is getting in the press these days, and that November voting date seemingly creeping up faster than a spider on the wall under pursuit, citizens need to remember that we have ballots to cast about local concerns that are just as important to the well being of our community as the national elections.

Specifically, the Florence community has a May 6, 2008 mill levy increase on the local ballot for our trails and parks. Through the combined efforts of all the wonderful folks in this community, we have a fantastic baseball park, simply delightful Hideout Mountain playground and lovely landscaping along the bike n’ hike trail running through our community. All of these amenities are well used and also need to be maintained well to preserve them for future use.

I urge you to become informed about the benefits and the costs associated with the maintenance of these valuable assets. If this levy is passed, we should see sidewalk lights on again and the watering system functioning in a way that will keep our trees and shrubs along the hike n’ bike trail alive plus a sundry of other things that need care.

There is an article coming out in the April Falcon View (the school newspaper) that tells how a taxpayer can figure out the specific costs if the levy is passed.

Be informed, discuss the issue with others and vote on May 6th at the Florence Carlton School Administration Building. This May ballot date is really creeping up!

Judy L. Heimkes
Florence

Our Last Best Bitterroot

Dear Editor,

Never be so open-minded to fast bucks that your brains fall out! We must support planning as foreseen by 2006 Bitterroot voters and by over 4,000 hand-gathered petitioners who left their names at Lolo Peak above clawing ski scars. These were delivered to Missoula U.S. Forest Service office and then by Jack and me to Stevensville and Hamilton.

Montana DOT counted up to 4,000 vehicles in an hour north of Florence (Mile Posts 74-91). High congestion prohibits smooth flow and access to U.S. 93—the only road that completely serves the Bitterroot’s approximate 100 mile long, 3-15 mile wide valley beneath 9,000’ incredible peaks. Montana may never financially afford commuter lanes or an eastside bypass; we have yet to finish U.S. 93 South expansion or necessary features as pullouts or Florence Bridge pedestrian and bicycle lanes. Accidents and foul weather already toll deaths, hardship, and substantial delays. Safety is paramount.

Proposed Aspen Springs, Bitterroot Resort, Flat Iron, Legacy or other mega-divisions would detrimentally affect safety, attributes, and our heavily-burdened and/or voluntary infrastructure. Brain fallout also against wildlife, air, water, and earth critically impinges on Montana signature sustainability obvious in 140 consecutive years of our family alone from Darby to Missoula. We survive wars; depressions; and apple, sugar beet, and timber busts. We can picnic, horseback, hike, boat, fish, hunt, or cross-country ski at little or no-cost in our federal and state lands. Why unduly injure rather than enhance vital agricultural, educational, medical, recreational, tourist, road transport, log-home building, outfitting, and other industries that serve natural, historical and cultural Bitterroot communities and Missoula’s hub?

Each of us is gloriously blessed with an unassuming, nearly self-sufficient Last Best Bitterroot Resort as it thrives from Bitterroot River headwaters near Lost Trail Ski Area & School to the river’s mouth near Snowbowl Ski & Summer Resort. Let’s plan to keep it.

Jack and Cheryl (Holden) Rice
Stevensville

Global warming cause still in question

Dear Editor,

I am responding to a recent letter by Jon Garvin. He heard me on the radio on the subject of Global Warming and believed it was an interview; in fact it was my comments to the Environmental Quality Council and I was addressing what I thought was propaganda. The Earth is warming, the generally accepted increase in temperature is about 1.2 degree Fahrenheit since 1900. The increased temperature may be due in large part to increased C02 in the atmosphere. I suspect his knowledge of the subject is limited to the media and biased presentations by academics, often with little expertise in the science of climate. Many of the academics upon whom Mr. Garvin relies are not climatologists. One of the most noted local academics who is well spoken, and outspoken, on the subject is Dr. Steven Running, a professor at the U. of Montana's forestry school. Dr. Running implies that it is settled science that the Earth's warming is the result of an increase in C02 and reputable scientists do not contest this conclusion. This is not the case. Noted examples of dissent are Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University, the noted hurricane forecaster; Dr. Richard Linden, the Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT; and Dr. Roy Spencer, National Space Science and Technology Center. These gentlemen are truly experts; climate study has been their life's work.

What concerned me at the EQC hearing, at presentations in the Capitol, and in the media, was that questions are avoided, or not answered completely. If you avoid a candid debate, it is not science. An extreme example of this movement to avoid debate and dissent are the comments of my friend Bruce Farling of Trout Unlimited. Bruce said on the radio that the media should not allow those that disagree with Mr. Garvin's position to present their heresy. One of the problems which I have with the theory is that the increase in temperature since the industrial revolution has just now been noticed, although it was predicted in the first half of the last century. It seems that the increase should have shown up years ago. Another is that it was warmer between 900 and 1300 A.D. than it is today. The Norse were farming in Greenland, not growing pineapples but farming. The models used to predict climate change cannot "predict" the temperature that happened in 1950. Mr. Garvin assumes that the climate of the 1980s will go on forever, when it is well known that temperature swings of many degrees are the norm. Mr. Garvin's science takes faith.

Another problem for informed people who are not true believers are the unsophisticated nature of "the solutions" advocated by the proponents of the C02 theory. They do not really address the huge amounts of C02 that continue to be put into the atmosphere. The Chinese build three coal-fired plants per month and we worry about sequestering carbon from one coal plant in Montana to set an example for the Chinese. We cannot get them to use paint on toys that does not have lead, how can we stop their coal-fired plants? Green energy, e.g. solar and wind energy, cannot provide a base electrical load because the sun does not always shine, nor the wind blow. The real answer to lowering C02 emissions is nuclear energy, which is rarely mentioned. Many of the C02 people are supporters of ethanol which takes as much energy to produce as it provides. It also drives the price of food higher, costs the taxpayers 51 cents a gallon, and requires more farm land be created by cutting down forests.

Now "sequestering" C02 is in vogue. Planting trees is good in and of itself, but it does not sequester C02; when the trees die, or are burned, the carbon is released. However, a corporation gets a carbon credit. Sequestering C02 in the ground is a theory that lacks technology to implement it. However, if the technology existed, if a place to inject it could be found which would actually contain the gas, who would watch the site for a few 100,000 years to make sure it did not leak back into the atmosphere? What damage might the C02 do to the subsurface? At great expense are we creating another environmental problem that solves nothing, like the ethanol debacle? Special interests are "conning" the true believers in the movement, just like they did with ethanol.

My points are that while the Earth is clearly warming, the reason, or more likely reasons, are still in doubt, and the C02 advocates simply lack the sophistication to deal with the problem if their theory is valid. Most importantly, I am offended by propaganda masquerading as science.

In closing, I am very much in favor of energy conservation even if it is imposed by the government. At the very least it is a national security issue, but also has implications for the balance of payments and inflation.

Jim Shockley
SD 45

Builders should be regulated

Dear Editor,

We are writing this letter as an appeal to anyone building or remodeling in the state of Montana. Have you been the victim of contractor abuse? Have you had your trust violated and your hopes and dreams turned into a nightmare? We need to hear from you so we can prove to our lawmakers the extent of the travesty being committed. The comment we keep hearing from our lawmakers is a basic denial that a real problem exists in our state. They say ours are isolated incidents. Sadly we can prove them wrong because of all the stories we hear as we speak out about our own construction crisis. Daily we are hearing stories of incompetent contractors who perpetuate price gouging, substituting inferior product while charging excessive prices, homes unlivable after construction that passed inspection, and much more. We are astonished to learn the extent that people are being victimized with no advocate or alternative other than expensive litigation and lengthy unresolved court battles. The stress and financial loss invalidates any possibility of a well-deserved retirement future for many of us. Contractors who are professional and accountable want these changes as well, since they too are unhappy with some of the sub-contractors they have had to deal with, and for having to clean up messes made by unethical or unskilled contractors.

Anyone can become registered with the state as a general contractor for a small fee of $53.00. Nothing more is required. We believe there should be a qualifying test or certification that proves a potential contractor’s skill level, and as in other professions, there should be some periodic updating done to keep current with new laws. We want contractors to be obligated to carry bonding and liability insurance.

If you want to help us work for positive change in our state in this matter please share with us your story, or your name and county or city as we begin compiling a list for our legislators to review.

Joy Ooka, Red Lodge
Bev Perry, Stevensville