Mountain Views News          Saturday, November 20, 2010

11

OPINION

 MountainViews-News Saturday, November 20, 2010 


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 

War is Good Business

According the 
National Priorities 
Project website 
costofwar.com, 
the cost of the 
wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan is 
a whopping $1.1 trillion, and increasing at an 
exponential rate of $66,666 per second! It could 
easily surpass the $1.2 trillion mark by new year’s 
Day. This works out to be $742 billion for Iraq, 
and $365 billion for Afghanistan. And that’s the 
good news.

The bad news is that experts now estimate that 
the total cost of both wars is now likely to exceed 
$4 trillion, and could run as high as $6 trillion! 

To me it seems apparent that ending these 
wars is both economically smart, as well as 
the right thing to do. There is another mind-
set, though, that sees these figures as a very 
lucrative business opportunity. They argue 
that war is good business! 

Concerned about the disability costs associated 
with returning veterans? Privatization of the 
armed services solves this one, turning it into a 
simple workers compensation issue.And don't 
forget the economic benefits of having a cheap 
testing ground for new weaponry. Xe/Blackwater 
is going to need this new stuff to handle the 
immigration issue.And, if you are worried about 
the "human" costs associated with killing a bunch 
of rag-heads half-way across the planet, worry 
not, we can send em some medical supplies, 
help em build a few hospitals, maybe even sell 
em some health insurance.Contamination of 
the landscapes of Iraq and Afghanistan by the 
leftover uranium armor-piercing shells? That's 
why we have environmental clean-up companies.
If America has learned anything since WWII, It 
is that we can bust em up, and rebuild em, and 
make a buck along the way. The inalienable rights 
of the American people must be protected--not 
the "human" people, the "corporate" people. This 
isn’t freshman government or economics 101, this 
is the real world. 

War is profitable in the extreme. The Korean 
conflict jacked defense spending from a paltry 
$14.9 billion to $49.9 billion. The defense budget 
remained at about $40 billion all through the 
Eisenhower years. Ike was so concerned about 
the undue influence of military spending on 
our democratic institutions he included a stern 
warning in his farewell address about what he 
called the “military-industrial-complex.”

We ignored his warning. And then came the 
Vietnam War. By 1975, after 8 years of fierce 
fighting and 58,226 American lives lost, the war 
had cost a staggering $828 billion ($5 trillion in 
today’s money)), and the big winners were again 
the war profiteers. Before Vietnam the defense 
budget was beginning to decline because of the 
reliance on less costly nuclear weapons had begun 
to replace the more costly conventional arsenal 
requiring the maintenance of large armies to deter 
communist aggression. The new defense strategy 
was appropriately named MADD, “Mutually 
Assured Destructive Deterrence.” But war is only 
profitable to the those politically connected to 
the vision of projecting American power abroad. 
This is why George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, 
Donald Rumsfeld, and the rest of their neocon 
cronies got so rich at the expense of taxpayers and 
future generations. And these same war profiteers 
are continuing to enrich themselves under 
Barack Obama’s misguided continuation of the 
Bush’s vision of an American world economic 
hegemony. 

Our elected officials aren’t interested in stopping 
these wars, too much is at stake. The bottom 
line of war isn’t about patriotism; it isn’t about 
toppling tyrants and promoting freedom, liberty 
and democracy around the world. War is about 
making money--lots of it. It’s also about getting 
reelected. That means toadying to the wishes of 
defense contractors. And remember just about 
every corporation in America is in some way 
involved in “national defense.”

We escaped the crushing debt from WWII, 
Korea and Vietnam due to unique circumstances. 
Notably we possessed the world's largest GDP, 
we had a massive manufacturing and consumer 
base, we were the number 1 oil producer, health 
care was not costing 18% of national GDP and 
government budgets were not crushed under 
the weight of unfunded obligations. In contrast 
nothing in our current situation suggests we will 
get out from under the crushing war debt easily 
or without painful sacrifices.

Watching politicians applaud their approval when 
Obama’s announced to Congress his new “surge” 
in Afghanistan, I was reminded of one of those old 
newsreels of a bunch Soviets clapping themselves 
silly at the end of one of Stalin's speeches because 
nobody wanted to be the first to stop.

FACE TO FACE

Well, one of my all-
time favorite TV shows 
“In Treatment” has 
returned and I am just 
thrilled. As most of you 
probably know, the show 
is an HBO series which 
centers on the practice 
of psychotherapist Paul 
Weston. Although there is occasional domestic 
material relating to Dr. Weston’s wretched home 
life almost ninety-five percent of the half-hour 
consists simply of two people talking. Generally 
Dr. Weston and his patient are seated across from 
one another and simply talking. That’s it and to my 
mind this is the most thrilling kind of interaction 
that can occur without taking off one’s clothes.

The rare opportunity to speak to an objective, 
intelligent listener focused on the conversation 
is one of life’s great gifts. The program displays 
the dynamic nature of relationships. Masks are 
pulled off and then replaced but can no longer 
completely obscure what has been revealed. Is 
this unmasking healthy or even necessary? To 
me the personal and cultural confrontations 
enacted on screen are demonstrative of what 
must take place if our present civilizations are to 
survive. That’s all!

My experience of life is that most of us 
construct false stories which act as protective 
shells around us. These shells become self-
constructed prisons which operate to keep us 
safe but disconnected from the outside world. 
Inside of our prison cells we allow in a little 
light and our pleasant and non-threatening 
diversions. We have our favorite music, our 
familiar kinds of books, our TVs, and our 
repeated conversations with a few safe people 
we allow to partially enter our cells. Today’s 
electrical technology allows us to keep the 
cell doors even more tightly closed. We can 
allow in new information with less risk of 
confrontation and unmasking. Through this 
limited interaction with the outside world 
perhaps we can avoid the displays of anger, or 
jealousy, or frustration inherent with actual 
personal interaction. Perhaps we can similarly 
avoid noticing that we are increasingly 
removed from actual connection with anyone 
including our families and ourselves.

As I look around it seems that this modern age 
has allowed the construction and maintenance of 
destructive fantasy worlds. Families, friends, and 
frequently whole cultures often have so little in 
common that they are actual strangers linked only 
by cell phones and short abbreviated electrical 
messages. The dramatic impact upon me of the 
“In Treatment” presentations is the realization 
that it is so perilous to allow oneself to actually be 
known by another individual. It takes time and 
courage and is frequently very unpleasant.

How important is it to endure this 
unpleasantness? Directing our attention away 
from the individual and to the country and 
world at large, how important is it that we 
understand how the rest of the world views 
America and how we view ourselves? Reflecting 
back to 9-11 do you recall how baffled we all 
were by the World Trade Center Bombing? 
How could other countries not like us? They 
must be crazy, or just jealous, or brainwashed. 
After all we are America The Good. The right 
thing to do is to bomb these deluded people 
and depose their awful leaders so that truth will 
emerge and everyone will love us the way we love 
ourselves. Right—well, it hasn’t exactly worked 
out that way. We still have limited understanding 
of any non-American perspective and deep, 
ugly divisions have surfaced within America 
itself. Is it possible in these next two years for 
our Congress and the President to work together 
or will one side (I really mean the Republicans) 
still maintain a completely obstructionist policy 
hoping that the Democrats will soon go away. I 
believe that in order for America to be healthy 
and vital and to have influence in this quickly 
decaying world it is necessary for the Nation to 
go IN TREATMENT. By this I mean America 
must confront itself. No more you’re a liberal 
and you just want to take my money and tell me 
what to do. No more you’re a conservative who 
is so ignorant that you just hold on to your guns 
and religion and fetuses while being duped by 
the evil, manipulative super-wealthy. (As you 
can surmise I have my own strong opinions in 
this area.) Really we all need help.

I believe the only way poor little Humankind 
can hang around for a while and not kill itself or 
destroy the habitability of the entire planet is for 
the whole world to go IN TREATMENT. If we are 
to survive it is necessary that we all make attempts 
to understand one another and to understand our 
own culture. I used to think that what was needed 
was more education. With enough education 
everyone would learn to think just like I do and the 
world would be safe. Well, somehow something 
else has permeated through my protective shell 
and I think that I now have a new glimmer of 
understanding about the relevancy of other 
perspectives. I need to understand more and so 
does everyone else. I just hope that “In Treatment” 
survives for another season; it might be a positive 
omen.

LEFT TURN / RIGHT TURN

 
Years ago I worked for 
an outfit that did business 
with TV news and 
documentary producers. 
Not that it entailed daily 
brushes with celebrity, but 
I did manage to score for 
my wife an autographed 
photo of Ted Koppel.

Back then I got my daily news fix through 
Koppel's hosting of ABC News NIGHTLINE. 
During a business call with an associate 
producer on the show, I took the opportunity 
to voice a complaint. I don't recall what the 
topic was the night before, but I mentioned 
there was an appearance by Henry Kissinger 
who, while being interviewed by Koppel, 
remarked how splendidly the decision to 
expand the Vietnam War into Cambodia 
turned out.

I told the producer I couldn't believe, as a fan of 
Koppel, I was seeing him allow the statement to 
go unchallenged. She explained that Koppel 
himself shared my frustration, but refraining 
from issuing such challenges was the price 
that had to be paid for ensuring Kissinger's 
willingness to return for future appearances.

I'm still a fan, so took note of Koppel's column 
in last weekend's Washington Post on " . . 
. the death of real news." It was largely a 
pensive reflection on the way things used to 
be. He goes back to the Radio Act of 1927, 
and its charge that broadcasts serve "the 
public interest, convenience and necessity". 
Broadcasters feared losing their FCC licenses 
should they fail to serve the public interest, 
at a time when government agencies sought 
to protect the interests of the public, rather 
than the interests of the industries they were 
charged with regulating.

The network news divisions of forty years ago 
lost money, and were expected to. They were 
kept separate from the entertainment divisions 
and sales, so they could do their work, 
providing a service in return for the network's 
use of the public airwaves, unencumbered 
by interference from ratings-watchers and 
advertisers.

This changed, as Koppel notes, in the late 
1960s when, after three years on the air, CBS 
News' 60 MINUTES started making money. 
Network executives took notice, and the 
notion of treating "news" as any other profit-
making division took hold. Just like for sports 
and entertainment, boosting ratings and not 
offending advertisers became paramount 
concerns.

With the acquisition of networks by larger 
corporate parents, operations were cut that 
didn't make business sense, such as foreign 
news bureaus and investigative staffs. Koppel 
recalls a meeting where a presentation was 
given by Michael Eisner, then-head of Disney, 
owner of ABC. Eisner explained sacrifices had 
to be made by everyone, whether animators 
working on cartoons or staffers in newsrooms. 
Koppel resented the implied equivalency, and 
recited for Eisner names of correspondents 
and cameramen killed or wounded while on 
assignment. ("The suggestion was not well 
received.")

There's nostalgia in evoking names such as 
Huntley and Brinkley, Howard K. Smith and 
Walter Cronkite. We could spend a half hour 
every weeknight with these men, yet have little 
idea as to their personal political leanings, or 
how they'd cast their vote for president. It's the 
tradition of presenting the news as it is, rather 
than as it's assumed a certain demographic 
wants to hear it, that Koppel fears losing.

Reaction to Koppel's column was swift and 
revealing. One of those mentioned in the 
column was Bill O'Reilly, who explained 
on THE FACTOR that Koppel was simply 
jealous of the success of Fox News. O'Reilly 
took special umbrage with the accusation he'd 
engaged in lying, and challenged Koppel to 
come on face-to-face and confront him with 
whatever lies he'd heard on the show. (This 
was in itself a lie, as Koppel made no such 
accusation in his column.)

O'Reilly then engaged with familiar "Fox 
Contributors", which offered a self-evident 
example of what Koppel had written about. 
When an opinion-maker asks other opinion-
makers their opinion of an opinion column, 
it's not news. It's opinion.

Keith Olbermann's response on his own 
show was longer and more emotional, but 
seemed defensive rather than addressing 
Koppel's point. Olbermann argued there is 
no "equivalence" between MSNBC and Fox 
News. MSNBC runs a few half-hour shows 
weekday evenings with avowedly "liberal" 
hosts, with almost as much time in the 
morning hosted by a conservative Republican 
ex-congressman. Fox News is a 24-hour 
propaganda machine run by ex-Republican 
operative Roger Ailes, laughingly promoting 
itself as "fair and balanced".

Olbermann reminds us that revered 
newscasters of old were not "glorified 
stenographers", but took great risks in pursuing 
stories according to subjective decisions. He 
mentions how Edward R. Murrow risked his 
career by going after Sen. Joseph McCarthy, 
how Cronkite raised alarms when predicting 
nothing but "stalemate" in Vietnam, and 
most notably the increasing pressure from 
the Nixon White House on front offices as 
newscasts devoted more time to the unfolding 
Watergate scandal.

Koppel himself becomes a target, as 
Olbermann accuses him and contemporaries 
of rolling over for White House lies about 
"Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq. He 
wonders whether that "third-rate burglary" 
by the Nixon campaign would've even been 
given a second look by those who couldn't be 
bothered looking into claims that led us to war.

Jon Stewart expressed his own frustration 
in an interview with Rachel Maddow on 
MSNBC, saying he finds it disconcerting so 
many come to his show for news - a show 
airing on a network called "Comedy Central". 
He points out that nobody considered The 
Smothers Brothers, or Weekend Update on 
SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE, to be newscasts - 
no doubt because they knew where they could 
turn for their "real" news when they wanted it. 

It's harder to stay informed and find the "news" 
when it's shaped by corporate sponsors (and a 
certain Australian media tycoon). George 
Carlin, noting that Barbara Bush advised 
parents to read to their kids every night, said 
parents instead should be telling their kids 
to question whatever it is they read. Or, he 
might've added, whatever it is they see on TV 
called "news".

Obamacare

In Practice

GREG Welborn

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


I suppose it’s because the election is over that 
we’re learning more about what Obamacare 
really looks like in practice. Prior to the election, 
there were lots of motivations to distort what 
was going to be our future. There were plenty 
of vested interests that had to insist that this was 
a good piece of legislation, if only because their 
reputations and/or careers were on the line. 
When conservatives actually sat down to read 
parts of the bill and then made those public, 
the invective thrown their way was bracing and 
intimidating. But now we learn that conservative 
concerns were very real. Today we’re beginning to 
see just how duplicitous were the underpinnings 
of the Obamacare argument and how terrible the 
results will be.

Let’s start with the admission by no less a liberal 
than Paul Krugman that death panels will in 
fact be convened, that by necessity they must be 
convened. On ABC’s “This Week” show, New 
York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, admitted 
“ some years down the pike, we’re going to get the 
real solution, which is going to be a combination 
of death panels and sales taxes.” I don’t 
understand the sales tax reference, but I suppose 
the old adage about only two things being certain 
– death and taxes – has more truth than not in it.

When asked about his comments, Mr. Krugman 
tried to back pedal a bit, but this only confirmed 
the worst of what conservatives have been saying 
for some time. On his website, he explained that 
Medicare and Medicaid will have to be the ones 
deciding what they’re willing to pay for. They 
are going to have to decide how much we are 
willing to pay for extreme care. “Extreme care” 
is the quaint turn of phrase which references 
the last, and usually most expensive, treatments 
that are used in a patient’s last months of care. 
They are the procedures that until the passage 
of Obamacare the patient and doctor decided 
would be best under the patient’s circumstances. 
In other words, until Obamacare, each of us was 
entitled to decide with the input of our doctor 
how much we were willing to do to cling to life. 
Now, it will be some faceless bureaucrat who will 
decide that.

Some of you may resist my use of the term death 
panel. But when a group of people sit on a panel, 
committee, or whatever else you want to call it in 
order to decide what treatment is “cost effective” 
for someone other than themselves, and when 
that group of people is considering a treatment 
which could extend life – or its absence terminate 
life – then I don’t think there can be much 
argument about whether that group of people is 
a “death panel”. 

Any group of people – be they family members, 
volunteers or paid bureaucrats – deciding what 
life saving procedures are to be used and which 
are to be denied is by definition a death panel. 
The word doesn’t bother me. I accept the fact that 
we have to have death panels. The real question 
is who is on the death panel. The primary 
distinction between the left and right is who’s 
going to be on that death panel. Liberals want 
bureaucrats and “other experts” to be the death 
panel. Conservatives want the patient and his 
family to be the death panel. It’s as simple as that.

The other piece of information which has surfaced 
subsequent to the election is just how ridiculous 
was the claim that the insurance industry was 
denying insurance to people who had pre-
existing conditions. Now, I’m not denying that 
some people who had medical conditions didn’t 
have health insurance. I’m questioning liberals’ 
assertions as to why. Liberal orthodoxy says that 
insurance companies routinely excluded these 
people and/or priced the coverage out of sight 
so nobody could afford to buy it. Therefore, the 
argument goes, the government should provide 
this coverage.

Obamacare instructed 
the De-partment of 
Health and Human 
Services to develop and sell 
its own health insurance 
for these uncovered, 
and presumably denied, 
people. If the liberals’ 
argument was correct, 
you’d assume that when 
the government made such health insurance 
available, millions of Americans would buy it. 
Even if it weren’t millions, wouldn’t you assume 
that hundreds of thousands would buy it? I 
mean, after all, the argument was that millions 
of Americans were deprived of coverage by the 
insurance industry.

Well, the government has done what it 
was tasked with doing, and the number of 
Americans who have taken advantage of this 
new, great health insurance plan totals in the low 
thousands. As of November 1st, 8,011 people 
have enrolled in federal or state insurance plans. 
In a country of 300+ million people, that is a 
statistically insignificant number. More people 
(240,000 as of the last poll I saw) believe that 
Elvis is still alive than bought the government’s 
health insurance policy.

Perhaps cost is the answer, you might say. Sadly, 
this won’t work. The Health and Human Services 
plan costs 65% less than the lowest private plan 
available, and no questions are asked. As if 
that’s not low enough, HHS further lowered the 
premiums by another 20%. Actual experience 
is also being supported by an avalanche of new 
academic research.

The truth is that most people don’t buy insurance 
because they choose to self insure. They choose 
to take the risk that they won’t get sick. This stupid 
gamble is reinforced by the humane practice of 
most emergency rooms of taking all who walk in 
their doors, regardless of ability to pay.

It may seem stupid to you and I, but there are 
some people – a lot of them actually – who are 
willing to take a chance and if their luck runs out 
are willing to rely on whatever they get in the 
local emergency room. They have decided to 
pass the risk and the cost of their poor decision 
on to all the other tax payers. 

Lest we think them to be totally irrational, there 
is some logic in their decision making. The odds 
are low that most people won’t face a catastrophic 
illness, and if the tax payers are willing to pick up 
the tab, you can make a rational argument not 
to buy insurance. In a sense you’re passing the 
insurance cost on to the tax payer. The problem 
with Obamacare is that instead of imposing some 
cost on such reckless behavior it actually rewards 
it. The law now requires that insurers accept 
anyone with a pre-existing condition. It is now 
economically viable to forego insurance when 
you are young and healthy and to buy it only 
when you know you’re becoming sick or old. 
This is the type of incentive structure that most 
government subsidized plans create. They don’t 
intend it of course, but the law of unintended 
consequences always kicks in.

So with the election solidly in the rear view 
mirror, we now are learning just how real death 
panels staffed by bureaucrats are going to be 
and just how stupid the government’s insurance 
structure is. I don’t know about you, but I don’t 
much like all the changes that this president has 
brought. I want to go back to the days when there 
were real costs to be paid for reckless behavior 
and when my family and I decided what type of 
life-saving procedures would be used. 

About the author: Gregory J. Welborn is a freelance 
writer and has spoken to several civic and religious 
organizations on cultural and moral issues. He 
lives in the Los Angeles area with his wife and 3 
children and is active in the community. He can be 
reached at gregwelborn@earthlink.net.

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. 

What DO You Think?

We’d like to hear from you!

Contact us at: 

editor@mtnviewsnews.com or 

www.facebook.com/mountainviewsnews