Mountain Views News          Saturday, September 25, 2010

10

OPINION

 Mountain Views News Saturday, September 25, 2010 

Maybe it’s time for Voters, 
especially in California, to 
reevaluate the way we choose 
our leadership. We need to stop 
making choices based upon 
personalities, party affiliations, 
gender, race, wealth or media 
influence. We need to start 
making decisions based upon 
who really has the ability 
and commitment to oversee 
our government in the same 
judicious manner that successful 
corporations are run but also 
remembering that the PUBLIC 
is the Board of Directors. 

 We need to look at what the 
person brings to the table 
(experience, background, 
intelligence); we need to 
examine their motivations, and 
we need to draw conclusions 
based upon their actual aptitude 
to get the job done for the people.

 

 However, we need to learn 
at least one thing from our 
corporate overseers, their policy 
of making decisions based upon 
fact. We need to think more 
like them, recognizing that 
when it comes to making a 
choice, it’s not personal, it’s just 
business. After all, managing 
the government, whether it be 
on a local, state or national level, 
requires more than a person 
with a lot of money, a smooth 
message and a lot of emotional, 
rah rah supporters. BUT while 

I am suggesting that we take 
a more pragmatic approach 
to selecting our candidates by 
following a very businesslike 
model, that is about all we 
should take from Corporate 
America!

 Increasingly visible in the last 
decade or so, the influence of 
Corporate America over our 
lives has become overwhelming. 
Millions of Americans are 
without jobs, not because of 
their unwillingness to work, 
but because their jobs have 
been shifted overseas where 
it is more profitable. And 
corporations don’t reinvest 
those profits into our cities 
that their abandonment 
has decimated, no; they 
just leave us to fend for 
ourselves. 

 There is a political video 
running right now that shows 
the impious manner that a 
corporate leader felt about the 
consequences of her actions. It 
contains U.S. Senate Candidate 
Carly Fiorina shrugging off the 
jobs sent overseas (specifically 
to China), and saying “perhaps 
the work needs to be done 
somewhere else.” And with the 
Supreme Court’s recent ruling 
regarding the designation that 
Corporations should be treated 
as ‘people’ when it comes to 
political campaigns, the impact 
of the individual voter seems to 
be diminishing rapidly.

 First of all…what was the 
Supreme Court thinking?. 
Corporations are NOT people! 
They don’t think like people, 
they don’t feel like people and 
they don’t care about people! 
And yet, the US Supreme 
Court has empowered them 
to brainwash people. I am not 
saying that corporations are 
evil, but their primary goal is 
profit not the best interest of 
the community. And, although 
many ‘responsible’ corporations 
like Nestle and Fed Ex and 
Home Depot are good to their 

employees and ‘give back’ 
millions to their respective 
communities, they still do not 
have the same vested interest 
that you and I do when it comes 
to who shall lead us.

 November 2, 2010 will be the 
first major California election 
where the impact of empowering 
corporate Pac donations 
basically without regulation 
will be felt. All I can say is…..
remember the Pied Piper? As 
voters, we need to remember 
that tale and do our homework 
in order to get through the hype. 
We also need to remember 
that we didn’t drive ourselves 
into this deep economic hole 
we are in, but far too many big 
corporations did, using their 
considerable financial clout to 
influence our legislators and us. 

 

 Unfortunately, in California 
we have two powerful corporate 
candidates running for 
elected office this November. 
Gubernatorial Candidate Meg 
Whitman and U.S. Senate 
Candidate Carly Fiorina both 
bring a wealth of corporate 
experience and money with 
them. And that is my biggest 
concern. They both, if elected, 
will bring their very impersonal, 
corporate management styles 
and wealthy self interests with 
them. Problem is, they aren’t 
running for corporate offices. 
They are running for positions 
to govern our state, to represent 
us, the people.

 I am not impressed with 
either as it relates to being an 
effective leader for the people 
of California. Both Whitman’s 
and Fiorina’s present campaign 
statements and commercials are 
in direct contradictions to their 
professional behavior. Neither 
is known for, nor can tout, any 
experience in public service or 
any record of doing anything 
significant ‘for the greater good’.

 First of all, Meg Whitman didn’t 
even bother participating in 
the voting process for 28 years! 
That’s a fact; she didn’t register 
to vote until 2002! I was done 
with her the moment I verified 
that. Each and every responsible 
citizen takes their responsibility 
seriously and casts votes that 
they believe is the right one. 
Doesn’t matter who they voted 
for….they participated in 
the process because they 
believed in it. Now comes 
Whitman, who clearly felt 
that electing officials to 
govern was someone else’s 
job, now she’s asking for our 
vote. No. Absolutely not. It’s 
not personal, it’s just business! 

 If she didn’t care then, why 
now? And, just how smart is she 
to spend so much of her personal 
money on a political office? It’s 
not compassion….so what is it? 
There is no question that she is a 
competent money manager, but 
her focus has always been on 
her personally, even when she 
ran EBay. There, her motivation 
was creating massive wealth for 
herself. Is that also her goal 
should she become California 
Governor? 

 And then there is Carly….
Carly….Carly! Really? Just 
listen to what she has said and/
or done:

Fiorina Defended The 
Outsourcing Of American 
Jobs. Investor’s Business Daily; 

“We left billions of dollars in 
cash overseas because of the 
differences in tax rates” Fiorina 
Remarks, Milwaukee, WI; 

 As Head Of HP, Fiorina 
Undercut U.S. Foreign Policy 
By Exporting Goods To Dubai 
To Open Up Markets In Iran. In 
the April 12, 2004 issue a Forbes 
magazine story titled “Trading 
With The Enemy” reported, “If 
you want to get around export 
controls, just sell the product 
to a front company in Dubai. 
The middlemen will take it from 
there... Hewlett-Packard, Dell 
and Microsoft, among many 
other U.S. companies, keep 
Dubai offices and are favorites 
these days among Iranian 
traders in Dubai. Reason? 
Strong demand for ‘anything 
high-tech for military or oil 
services,’ says Bolurfrushan of 
the Iranian Business Council.” 
[Forbes, 4/12/04]

According to CNN, Fiorina 
said, “Well, I don’t think John 
McCain could run a major 
corporation...It’s a fallacy to 
suggest that the country is like 
a company. So, of course, to 
run a business, you have to 
have a lifetime of experience 
in business, but that’s not what 
Sarah Palin, John McCain, Joe 
Biden or Barack Obama are 
doing.” [CNN, 9/16/08]

 Now maybe there I might agree 
with her somewhat. “It’s a fallacy 
to suggest that the country is like 
a company”. She’s right. Neither 
the country nor the state, or 
even our local governments are 
companies. They are far more 
complex, have a direct impact of 
the lives of millions and require 
leaders who are committed to 
serve the people”, not just to 
serve themselves.

 So, for the two corporate 
candidates at the top of the 
ticket, who both happen to 
be Republicans, I have to 
say without hesitation, NO 
VOTE, NO WAY! And to the 
corporations who keep pouring 
millions of dollars to influence 
campaigns across the nation, 
stay out of our decision making.

 Remember, it’s not personal, it 
just business. Or should I say to 
Corporate America, mind your 
own business and stay out of 
ours.

s.henderson@mtnviewsnews.com

SUSAN Henderson

Nothing Personal, It’s Just Business

Mountain Views

News

Publisher/ Editor

Susan Henderson

City Editor

Dean Lee 

Sales

Patricia Colonello

626-355-2737 

626-818-2698

Art Director

Allison Kirkham

Production Assistant

Richard Garcia

Photography

Jacqueline Truong

Lina Johnson

Contributors

Teresa Baxter

Pat Birdsall

Bob Eklund

Howard Hays

Paul Carpenter

Stuart Tolchin

Kim Clymer-Kelley

Christopher Nyerges

Peter Dills 

Hail Hamilton 

Rich Johnson

Chris Bertrand

Mary Carney

La Quetta Shamblee

Glenn Lambdin

Greg Wellborn

Ralph McKnight

Trish Collins

Pat Ostrye

Editorial Cartoonist

Ann Cleaves

Webmaster

John Aveny 

 
Increasingly visible in the last 
decade or so, the influence of 
Corporate America over our 
lives has become overwhelming.

My Turn

HAIL Hamilton

Proposition 19 Is A Step In The Right Direction

Mountain Views News 
has been adjudicated as 
a newspaper of General 
Circulation for the 
County of Los Angeles 
in Court Case number 
GS004724: for the City 
of Sierra Madre; in Court 
Case GS005940 and for 
the City of Monrovia in 
Court Case No. GS006989 
and is published every 
Saturday at 55 W. Sierra 
Madre Blvd., No. 302, 
Sierra Madre, California, 
91024. All contents are 
copyrighted and may not 
be reproduced without the 
express written consent of 
the publisher. All rights 
reserved. All submissions 
to this newspaper become 
the property of the 
Mountain Views News and 
may be published in part 
or whole. 

Opinions and views 
expressed by the writers 
printed in this paper do not 
necessarily express the views 
and opinions of the publisher 
or staff of the Mountain 
Views News. 

Mountain Views News is 
wholly owned by Grace 
Lorraine Publications, 
Inc. and reserves the right 
to refuse publication of 
advertisements and other 
materials submitted for 
publication. 

Letters to the editor and 
correspondence should be 
sent to: 

Mountain Views News

 80 W. Sierra Madre Bl. #327

Sierra Madre, Ca. 91024

Phone: 626-355-2737

Fax: 626-609-3285

email: 

mtnviewsnews@aol.com

So just what would Proposition 
19, The Regulate, Control & Tax 
Cannabis Initiative of 2010, do? 
According to an assessment by the 
independent California Legislative 
Analyst’s Office , the immediate 
effect of the measure would be to 
allow adults age 21 and older to 
possess and grow limited amounts 
of marijuana in the privacy of their 
own home. The agency estimates 
that halting the prosecution of these 
minor marijuana offenses would save 
state and local governments “several 
tens of millions of dollars annually,” 
and enable law enforcement to re-
prioritize resources toward other 
criminal activities.

The longer-term impact of Proposition 
19 would be to enable “local 
governments to adopt ordinances and 
regulations regarding commercial 
marijuana-related activities.” These 
activities would include taxing and 
licensing establishments to produce 
and dispense marijuana to persons 
21 and older. By doing so, “state and 

local governments could eventually 
collect hundreds of millions of dollars 
annually in additional revenues,” the 
office estimates.

Predictably, critics of Proposition 
19 have tried to paint a much more 
foreboding picture. For example, 
California senior Sen. Dianne 
Feinstein claims that the measure is 
“a jumbled legal nightmare that will 
make our highways, our workplaces 
and our communities less safe.”

Not so, says the Legislative Analyst’s 
Office, which calls Feinstein’s fears 
about pending workplace and 
roadway calamities unfounded. States 
the office: “(T)he measure would not 
change existing laws that prohibit 
driving under the influence of drugs 
or that prohibit possessing marijuana 
on the grounds of elementary, 
middle, and high schools. “... (E)
mployers would retain existing rights 
to address consumption of marijuana 
that impairs an employee’s job 
performance.”

Sen. Feinstein, Pres. Obama and 
drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, say their 
primary objection to Pro. 19 is that 
Proposition 19 will dramatically 
increase consumption and cost the 
state millions in health and social 
costs.

Right now, however, virtually anyone 

in California who wishes to obtain 
or consume marijuana can do so, 
and it is hard to believe that adults 
who presently abstain from cannabis 
would no longer do so simply because 
certain restrictions on its use were 
lifted. In fact, in the years following 
Californians decision to legalize the 
medical use of marijuana in 1996, the 
state has seen a dramatic decline in 
marijuana use by young people.

Finally, unlike alcohol and tobacco 
-- two legal but deadly products -- 
marijuana’s estimated social costs are 
minimal.

According to a 2009 report by the 
Canadian Centre on Substance 
Abuse, health-related costs per user 
are eight times higher for drinkers 
than they are for those who use 
cannabis and are more than 40 times 
higher for tobacco smokers. It states, 
“In terms of (health-related) costs per 
user: tobacco-related health costs are 
over $800 per user, alcohol-related 
health costs are much lower at $165 
per user, and cannabis-related health 
costs are the lowest at $20 per user.”

A previous analysis commissioned 
by the World Health Organization 
agreed, stating, “On existing patterns 
of use, cannabis poses a much less 
serious public health problem than is 
currently posed by alcohol and 

tobacco in Western societies.”

So then why are Sen. Feinstein, 
President Obama and his drug czars 
so worried about adults consuming it 
in the privacy of their own home?

California lawmakers criminalized 
the possession and use of marijuana 
in 1913 -- a full 24 years before 
the federal government enacted 
prohibition. Yet right now in 
California, the state Board of 
Equalization reports that some 
400,000 use marijuana daily. Self-
evidently, cannabis is here to stay.

It’s time to reject the drug czar’s tired 
rhetoric, and abandon the failed 
federal policy of criminal marijuana 
prohibition. Let’s stop ceding control 
of this market to unregulated, 
untaxed criminal enterprises and put 
it in the hands of licensed businesses. 
Let’s stop sanctioning adults for 
private behavior that is engaged in 
absent of harm to others. Let’s begin 
to regulate the use, production, 
and distribution of pot like alcohol 
-- complete with common sense 
controls regarding who can legally 
produce it, who can legally distribute 
it, who can legally consume its, and 
under what circumstances is its use 
lawfully permitted. 

Proposition 19 is a step in the right 
direction.


STUART Tolchin..........On LIFE 

 
Whatever 
happened to the 
future? No one 
seems to talk 
about it anymore. 
Are we just too 
busy twittering? 
Remember when the future was on 
everyone’s mind and we talked about 
ending war and eliminating disease 
and travelling to other planets. 
Whatever happened to nuclear 
disarmament and gun control? Also, 
whatever happened to work and 
enterprise, ethnic heritage, technical 
innovation, scientific research or 
anything else potentially lofty and 
ennobling? Has it all become too 
clearly unlikely? Are we all secretly 
living our final days? These are the 
questions asked by the New York 
Times op-ed columnist David Brooks 
in his article reviewing Jonathan 
Frunze’s new book,” Freedom”. 

 According to Mr. Brooks Mr. 
Franzen makes two points about 
American Life. First, he argues that 
American culture is over obsessed 
with personal freedom. Second, he 
describes an America where people 
are unhappy and spiritually stunted. 
I am afraid that this description 
corresponds to my present experience 
of America. I see a world where even 
the lawyers are now covered with 
tattoos and piercings. To me this is 
a sign, not of freedom but instead 
indicating a doomed attempt to 
escape unsatisfactory lives where 
a bright façade hides deep secret 
dissatisfaction.

 I look around in my canyon and 
see lovely homes on the outside; 
but inside I know there is great 
unhappiness. It’s tough to make 
marriages work; it’s tough to get 
along with twenty-something 
children who, perhaps because of 
the economy, are forced to still live at 
home with their parents. I think that, 
perhaps because of the technological 
revolution, parents do not seem very 
interesting or wise to their children. 
There is little to learn from these 
frequently challenged and downright 
inept older personalities who young 
people feel forced to tolerate.

 Maybe it’s because the roles have 
changed so rapidly. In my day, men 
imagined becoming athletic heroes 
and impressing their girl friends 
and seducing these impressionable 
girls into sexual liaisons that, it 
was generally agreed, only the men 
enjoyed. Later in life men would go 
into military service to protect the 
lives of the fragile women that stayed 
behind and tended to the children. 
When not at war, men would come 
home and work hard to provide for 
their wives and families, who would 
loyally be waiting at the window with 
supper on the stove to be provided to 
the man as a reward for his hard work 
and virtue. OR SOMETHING LIKE 
THAT. 

 Okay, maybe it never was really like 
that. Maybe women were unhappy 
not being allowed to participate in 
the work force and have interesting 
careers and such things, and maybe 
they secretly liked sex. Maybe the 
kids were unhappy being considered 
as something like disabled adults 
who usually did not have even their 
own bedrooms, or their own TVs, or 
their own cars, and certainly not their 
own computers, or their own secret 
vast social system. The main hope 
then was to grow up and get out of 
the house and become a happy adult. 
Well, now, it’s become clear to the kids 
that there are no happy adults. In fact 
there are no adults at all. We now live 
in a world of permanent adolescence 
craving distractions, and continual 
stimulation. Whatever happened to 
good old contented boredom where 
the family just sat around together 
and played cards?

 In the name of freedom we seem 
to have lost our ability to enjoy 
one another. Maybe it’s drugs or 
something but parents can’t trust their 
children; children can’t rely on their 
parents or step-parents or whoever 
is left from their broken families. 
Maybe some of the despair comes 
from not just the loss of mommy or 
daddy, but also from the inevitable 
loss of the companionship of mommy 
or daddy’s significant other and their 
friends who suddenly disappear, 
almost without explanation, after a 
break up.

 Sometimes, I think divorced parents 
try to keep the kids at a distance 
from the new boy friend or girl 
friend because they don’t want their 
kids to experience abandonment. 
Really, I don’t think abandonment 
and loss is the problem. Rather I 
think the problem is that everyone 
is trying to keep their real life and 
real feelings a secret. We don’t even 
trust our dogs anymore; they have to 
be leashed and watched. Yes, I think 
probably everyone, including the 
dogs, are unhappy with the present 
life style—it’s just that the dogs hide 
it better than we do. After all their 
very survival depends on making us 
master-humans think that no matter 
how we neglect our pets, we are still 
loved. It would be nice if we could do 
the same thing for one another.


Taking A Look Around

Mountain Views 
News

Mission Statement

The traditions of 
the community 
newspaper and 
the concerns of 
our readers are 
this newspaper’s 
top priorities. We 
support a prosperous 
community of well-
informed citizens. 
We hold in high 
regard the values 
of the exceptional 
quality of life in our 
community, including 
the magnificence 
of our natural 
resources. Integrity 
will be our guide.