Bitterroot Politics

Transit reform in Montana was the topic of Monday’s Humanities Montana/UM Center for Ethics discussion at the Bitter Root Brewery in Hamilton. With such a geographically large, yet under-populated state, there are some interesting factors in play with this one. Here’s forum organizer Zack Rogala’s summary:

Everyone ‘transports.’ Yet when it comes to transportation in Montana there are three points to consider before any substantive discussion can take place.
1. Corporate and Government investment in infrastructure.
a. Corporate investment. In Montana we have a unique history with regards to railroad transportation. With the copper mines in Butte, rail road operators had a dilemma. They had full loads heading east to the manufacturing centers in the Great Lakes and east coast regions. Yet they generally had empty loads heading west. Any businessman would like to fill this void. This situation, I would argue, fostered a large impetus for the Montana Homestead boom when immigrants from Europe and elsewhere were lured into heading west to cultivate farms. Such a boom created the dozens of spur communities, most prevalently found in Eastern Montana, spaced 10-20 miles apart. Yet with the advent of the combustible engine the personal vehicle quickly replaced rail as the ideal means of individual transportation.
After this transition, fast forward approximately a hundred years and you find Montana now…lots of communities spread out over vast distances with declining or increasing populations in direct relation to the distance from major highway or interstates. The farther from a highway or interstate, the higher the population decline.
Check out Joseph Kinsey Howards, Montana: High Wide and Handsome, or Michael Malone’s, James J. Hill: Empire Builder of the Northwest, for an interesting look at the history.
b. Governmental investment. Montana gets $1.60 for every dollar sent to the federal government in 2003. That is seventh highest overall. Considering that New York City alone has a population almost 8.5 times that of the entire state of Montana, and New York State ranks 42nd in amount of federal transportation dollars returned, one feels pretty grateful for the state of our roads.
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/article_82d23890-1c00-5986-a0ff-154ffbb13b1d.html
2. Vehicle as Identity.
a. Such vast distances between towns creates a large sense of identity in connection with vehicles. We rank fifth highest in the nation with respect to vanity license plates. And with good reason. When football playoffs can cover hundreds of miles from Ekalaka to Eureka, you get familiar with your vehicle.
3. Conflicting values
a. Bozeman and Missoula residents double the national average when it comes to desiring alternative modes of transportation (biking, walking, bike paths, walking districts, bus, etc.). In contrast, I lived about six miles from the Darby school system. A bike was out of the question.
With these three topics in mind we can begin to have a more nuanced discussion on transportation issues in Montana. Finally, the logical fallacy of the week is not a formal fallacy, rather a paradox. The claim is often made such that:
‘We must increase energy efficiency, so that we can mitigate our energy consumption.’
Yet William Stanley Jevons, after studying coal in industrial England concluded entirely the opposite:
‘When energy efficiency is increased, consumption increases.’
Therefore, energy efficiency alone is not the panacea for energy consumption. From this, appropriate energy policies need additional amendments in order to truly decrease energy consumption. Taken in context of transportation issues, look to Reserve Street in Missoula. The idea behind Reserve was to meet demand 20 years down the road by building a five lane road. Three years after it was constructed congestion had already met that 20 year mark. So the Jevons Paradox with respect to transportation is not:
‘In order to handle our transportation issues, we must increase efficiency, i.e. the most number of vehicles in the shortest possible time.’
But rather…
‘In order to handle our transportation issues, we must take into account not only efficiency, but also sufficiency. And our cultural values must provide a mediation of sorts between the two concepts.’
That’s it for now. Enjoy the week and see you Monday.
-Zack Rogala
Additional Information:

Jevons Paradox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Transportation for America Campaign
http://t4america.org/

Russell Street in Missoula Plan
http://www.russellstreet.org/

On Monday, Nov. 1, the group will convene from 5-6 p.m. at Liaisons Coffee Shop across from the Roxy Twin Theater in Hamilton to discuss ‘The Tragedy of the Commons: Overfishing on the Bitterroot?’ The presenter for that discussion will be none other than Mr. Zack Rogala, UM Philosophy Graduate Student.

On Monday, Humanities Montana and the UM Center for Ethics hosted a discussion at Hamilton’s Bitter Root Brewery entitled: ‘The Montana Constitution: Conflicting Values.’ The discussion was part of an ongoing local series that presents topics of local importance and explores the varying perspectives people take on them. Here is organizer Zack Rogala’s summary of Monday’s discussion:

First off, some numbers on our current constitution. It was adopted after the 1972 Constitutional Convention and was only the second time the State has met to create a new constitution, the first being the ratification of our state (there were numerous territorial constitutions and at least one constitution that was lost on the way to the print, which never made it to the public). The 1972 constitution was created by 81 men, 19 women, ranging in ages from mid-20’s to mid 70’s. There were 58 democrats, 36 republicans, and 6 independents (even an independent republican). In order to foster bi-partisanship, all delegates sat alphabetically. In addition, no one could be a delegate if they were presently holding office. The political climate at the time called for a convention due to the ineffectiveness of the old constitution. In 1889 when the previous constitution was written, delegates essentially ‘cut and pasted’ from other states constitution. This created, by some estimates, a constitution where only 48% of provisions where actually practical in 1970 Montana.
Yet one clause that was effective was one that stated every 20 years Montanan’s had the opportunity to call for a constitutional convention or not. Being 2010 we are on that 20 year mark and now have the opportunity to call for a convention. The question is, under what qualifications should one be called?
There are many reasons why a constitutional convention should be called. To begin, is the current constitution equitably treating all individuals regardless of creed, race, sex? Is the current constitution distributing justice by the same metric? Is the constitution overly vague or explicit, resulting in judicial controversies?
The first trap to avoid when discussing a new constitution is the appeal to cultural relativism. The Montana Constitution should be of the people, for the people. Yet it must also transcend time and place to a certain degree. I could see myself voting for a ‘Montanan’s have the right to an open and untracked powder field’ provision but that doesn’t mean it should be in the constitution. By way of a more poignant example, this years’ ‘Double Tax’ constitutional amendment could be seen as such a culturally relative provision. Regardless of your stance on the issue, is the constitution an appropriate place for such an issue?
One the other side of the coin, when creating a constitution you have the possibility of transcending place and time to a large enough degree that you distance yourself entirely from the populace. Such distance is a harbinger to civic apathy, I would argue. As new generations come up the ranks and encounter a transcendental document that doesn’t mesh with any of their cultural values, why bother?
So, one must weigh the issues of today with those of yesterday and tomorrow to create a document that allows for agreed upon rights and responsibilities. We in Montana have an incredible opportunity to do this ‘weighing’ every 20 years and it gives us more liberties and fosters more engagement than others. When looking to the US Constitution we sometimes find disenfranchisement due to the inherent inaccessibility of a document representing over 300 million citizens.
So, with this framework I’ll conclude with the preamble to our constitution:
“We the people of Montana, grateful to God for the quiet beauty of our state, the grandeur of our mountains, the vastness of our rolling plains, and desiring to improve the quality of life, equality of opportunity and to secure the blessings of liberty for this and future generations do ordain and establish this constitution.”
And finally, the logical fallacy of the week is that of a loaded question. This is a situation where more than one question is grouped into one question, where an answer to one unfairly responds to the others. Think of this like getting backed into a corner. Examples of loaded questions include:
‘Now listen here, are you trying to take away my guns or are you ramming health care down my throat?’
Or…
‘When did you stop beating your husband?’
That’s it for now. Enjoy the week and see you Monday.
-Zack Rogala

On Monday, Oct. 25, the group will meet again at the brewery from 5-6 p.m. to discuss “Transit Reform in Montana.” The presenter will be Mr. Patrick Rhea of the UM Transportation Board.

On Monday, Humanties Montana and the UM Center for Ethics held the third in their series of topical discussions at the Bitter Root Brew Pub in Hamilton. The topic for the evening was “The Extents of Humanitarian Aid.” Here is forum organizer Zack Rogala’s summary:

To begin we made an important distinction, that of the difference between disaster and developmental aid. In the case of disaster aid the problem of investing time and resources ineffectively is much less relevant then in developmental aid. When dealing with collapsed infrastructure of entire cultures, as in the case of the earthquake in Haiti or the Tsunami in Banda Aceh, sure there will be inefficiencies…but what are these inefficiencies compared to? It is hard to argue a claim along the lines of, “We should withhold significant amounts of resources to a Haiti-esque situation due to possible inefficiencies in implementation.” It is always necessary to look at the mechanisms for implementing disaster aid, but this has to be balanced with the fact the hundreds of thousands need food and water.

When we move on to developmental aid at times we find the opposite, that the immediacy has to be tempered with appropriate means for implementation. These mechanisms have to take into account the local knowledge of the situation, establish trust between community members and third parties, and communicate effectively between all (much along the concepts presented by 2009 Nobel Economics Laureate Elinor Ostrum). Understanding the local knowledge, establishing trust, and communicating effectively hinges almost entirely on time. Yet time is not on most groups’ side. It is much easier to infuse economies with capital, two week volunteer trips, or ‘gift baskets’ then it is to take a few years to understand what the community in question actually needs to improve its given situation.

Yet without this time, what results are projects such as what our presenter mentioned. One example was of an international agency who distributed food to under fed populations in rural Zimbabwe. This group would arrive with a truckload of food and unload it onto the local economy. This would dilute the marketplace and create a large glut. Farmers who were growing grain to feed the community now had no way to receive a return on their investment from the summer’s labor.

Another example was during the Rwandan Genocide where United Nations provided food and other necessities at such a discounted rate compared to local markets that rebel leaders would buy exclusively from these camps and use the saved revenue to purchase weapons and other supplies for their respected Hutu or Tutsi campaign.

Finally, the logical fallacy of the week is that of a hasty generalization. This is an argument from a special case that is inappropriately extended to a general rule. Otherwise known as ‘Chicken Little Syndrome, examples include:

“I know this hippy that never showers…Therefore all hippies must never shower.”
Or…

“I met a hunter who believes wolves were reintroduced by the government to take away our elk so that we wouldn’t have a reason to hunt so that they could take away our guns much more easily…Therefore all hunters must think this.”

That’s it for now. Enjoy the week and see you Monday.
-Zack Rogala

Interesting examples of aid:
Health Care by Philosophers
http://sciencestage.com/v/30836/prof.-thomas-pogge:-global-health.html http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/igh/

Toyota’s and Babies (5:02)
http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_johnson_where_good_ideas_come_from.html

Microfinance
http://www.kiva.org/

Montana Students
http://www.ewb-msu.org/

This weeks discussion will be on ‘The Montana Constitution: Conflict Values?’
This weeks presenter will be Monday the 18th, from 5-6 pm, upstairs at the Bitterroot Brew Pub.
This weeks presenter will be Mr. John Semmens, 3rd year UM Law Student.

On Monday, the weekly discussion group sponsored by Humanities Montana and the UM Center for Ethics met at the Bitter Root Brew Pub in Hamilton to talk about a topic that is near and drear to many in the Bitterroot Valley: Logging. More specifically, participants discussed the history and future of logging in Western Montana, Sen. Tester’s “Forest Jobs and Recreation Act” and the impact of competition from other regions. Here is discussion organizer Zack Rogala’s Summary:

From Father Ravalli’s time in Stevensville till approximately the beginning of 1990’s, logging was in its heyday. Marcus Daly built a spur line down from Missoula which allowed for the valley to export its lumber products to the hungry smelting and mining operations in the Anaconda/Butte area. Yet from the 1990’s on an approximate 90% decline of the valley’s logging industry has taken place, with the recent culmination of the closing of Smurfit-Stone in Missoula and Plum Creek in Bonner. Such decline is due in part to global competition from Alaska, to Canada, to the Amazon.

In light of this decline across the state, Senator Tester has introduced the ‘Forest Jobs and Recreation Act’ in part to try and provide effective management of our wood products. The bill has gone through multiple revisions and is currently under committee. We had discussion on two aspects of this bill.

First, a provision of the bill mandates that a specific quota of lumber will be harvested from a given ecosystem over a time period of 10-15 years. Discussion was had over whether this provision is sustainable from two aspects, first that of what the given forest can handle, and second, what the market could reasonably distribute. With regards to the latter, it seems that the government would have to provide some sort of subsidy to make sure a glut would not result from such mandates.

Second, we discussed a provision that seeks to take advantage of Beetle kill timber and utilize it as fuel for Biomass boilers, much as the Fuels for Schools program currently implemented by Darby and Victor schools. While at first the idea seems to have merit, one point was brought up. First, with a mandated harvest for the production of fuel, communities could run into a situation where beetle kill becomes exhausted and green timber has to be utilized to continue to fuel the burners. In a situation like this, the energy required to harvest, dry and chip the lumber might not pencil out in Biomass’s favor.

From Tester’s bill the discussion bounced around to appropriate reduction of fuels in community areas, the glut in the market resulting in multiple timber sales in the valley currently without any open bids, to discussion on appropriate mechanisms to ensure all parties have a seat at the table when it comes to creating policies that take into account all interests.

And finally, the logical fallacy of the week is the appeal to authority. This fallacy holds that when an individual in a position of power makes a claim, that in fact the claim is true regardless of the merits of the claim. By way of example…

“Logging is the only way Bitterroot’ers can sustain our economy.”
“Why?”
“Because I worked as a logger for the past 30 years.”

Or…

“Logging is a crime to nature.”
“Why?”
“Because I have a PhD in forest ecology.”

Thanks again. Enjoy the day and see you at 5 this Monday at the Brewery. Grab a drink and a seat early so we can begin promptly at 5.

-Zack Rogala

The group will meet again on Monday, Oct. 11, at 5 p.m. to discuss “The Extents of International Aid?” with a presentation from first year Philosophy graduate student and Zimbabwean native Mr. Alexander Aston.