Mountain Views News          Saturday, January 29, 2011

11

OPINION

 Mountain Views News Saturday, January 29, 2011 


HAIL Hamilton My Turn

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

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 

Think We Have An 

Illegal Immigration Problem?

WHAT DO WE GAIN FROM AN EDUCATION?

President Obama in his State of the 
Union Speech on Tuesday night 
emphasized the importance of improving 
the quality of education in 
America. He further emphasized 
the importance for Americans to be 
innovators in our changing world. 
This got me to thinking about what 
I had actually gained from my education. 
Well, to put it simply, by going to college for 
four years and then Law School for three years and then 
passing the State Bar Exam I became eligible to follow a 
profession. Almost all of my friends from Junior High 
School and High School have obtained Graduate Degrees 
which have allowed them to enter professions and 
to enjoy fairly comfortable economic lives.

This earned entitlement to follow a profession, I believe, 
is something very different from learning to be an entrepreneur 
or an innovator. None of my friends have 
become particularly creative within their professions. I 
really don’t know what it means to be an innovator and 
I certainly don’t know where one obtains the skills. My 
son, for a while, worked in a restaurant that was owned 
by one of my High School classmates. This guy owns 
something like 22 restaurants and is immensely successful. 
As far as I can tell he is a considerate employer 
and a socially responsible person. He vaguely remembered 
me from high school as one of the “students”. This 
term is a pejorative one which implies that I was part of 
a group that took school too seriously, worried a lot, and 
missed the joys of irresponsible teenage hood.

 Really I think my friends are typical of the vast group 
of kids who did pretty well in school, but were underdeveloped 
in most other areas. We were not the geniuses 
who could go on to Cal Tech or MIT or Harvard and become 
research scientists. In fact we all avoided science 
classes and we all knew we had to get good grades to 
get into Law School or Graduate School. We were all so 
intimidated by our schoolwork that we frequently had 
little time to read anything outside of our assignments. 
I think that this is still true today. Students are generally 
so involved with their own stuff that they have little time 
to be concerned about the rest of the world.

 I am leaving out something very important. Almost 
every college kid I knew was involved in numerous 
emotional upheavals. Everyone was either suffering 
from unrequited love or coping with betrayals and depression. 
The sad thing is that these emotional upheavals 
did not stop in College. Maintaining honest stable 
relationships is, I think, a great problem for everyone. 
We never learned how to do it and our lives have involved 
the break-up of families and have damaged the 
people that we hold most valuable in the world. Things 
have not changed. Everywhere I look relationships 
are breaking up and people live their lives as walking-
wounded. Many of the cases that I see in Court are the 
culmination of jealousies and distrust. 

 Yes I know jobs and the economy are important. I 
know health care and immigration and Afghanistan, 
and Iraq, and Iran, and North Korea are important. 
Global warming, gun control, clean energy, and school 
tuitions must be considered. Still, I believe, if Americans 
are to cope with this changing society and utilize 
their abilities to be innovators creating new businesses, 
then it is necessary that there be some change in mental 
health. Isn’t it possible that our “education” actually 
include realistic models and methods to assist us in coping 
with our own emotions? Too many students and 
parents seem to be trying to cope through the use of 
drugs. There are consequences to this behavior. While 
drugged, we are robbed of our own creativity and are 
frequently unaware of what is going on around us. We 
often live our lives in secret from our loved-ones and are 
out of touch with our own feelings.

 I believe that it is necessary to understand that what 
we all need is not more information about the outside 
world but, instead, a better understanding of ourselves. 
We need to be able to control our emotions rather than 
be controlled by them. We need to learn to actually 
communicate. How are we to learn to do this? Are there 
any models of sane people? Can our schools of all levels 
be of any help? We spend an awful lot of time there, 
memorize and forget tons of nonsense, and write papers 
that are quickly forgotten. It would be very nice if 
an “Education” had something to do with the attempt 
to provide an individual with help in maintaining mental 
health. It would be nice if an education helped us 
be happy in our lives. Frankly it would be nice to hear 
someone talk about the importance of mental health - 
that would be the start of an education.

The Manitoba Herald recently reported that the 
flood of American liberals sneaking across the border 
into Canada has intensified in the past week, 
sparking calls for increased patrols to stop the illegal 
immigration. The recent actions of the American 
Tea Party are prompting an exodus among left-
leaning citizens who fear they’ll soon be required 
to hunt, pray and to agree with Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck. Canadian 
border farmers say it’s not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, 
animal-rights activists, administration officials, Bayer employees, and 
Unitarians crossing their fields at night. 

 “I went out to milk the cows the other day and there was a Hollywood 
producer huddled in the barn,” said Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, 
whose acreage borders North Dakota. The producer was cold, exhausted 
and hungry. “He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range 
chicken. When I said I didn’t have any, he left before I even got a chance 
to show him my screen play.” In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield 
erected higher fences; but the liberals scaled them. He then installed 
loudspeakers that blared Rush Limbaugh across the fields. “Not real effective,” 
he said. “The liberals still got through and Rush annoyed the cows so 
much that they wouldn’t give any milk.” 

Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals 
near the Canadian border, pack them into Volvo and Mercedes station 
wagons and drive them across the border where they are simply left to 
fend for themselves. “A lot of these people are not prepared for our rugged 
conditions,” an Ontario border patrolman said. “I found one carload in a 
Mercedes wagon without a single bottle of imported drinking water. They 
did have a nice little Napa Valley Cabernet, though.” 

 When liberals are caught, they’re sent back across the border, often wailing 
loudly that they fear retribution from conservatives. Rumors have 
been circulating about plans being made to build re-education camps 
where liberals will be forced to drink domestic beer, watch NASCAR races 
and read the Constitution. 

 In recent days, liberals have turned to ingenious ways of crossing the border. 
Some have been disguised as senior citizens taking a bus trip to buy 
cheap Canadian prescription drugs. After catching a half dozen young 
vegans in powdered wig disguises, Canadian immigration authorities began 
stopping buses and quizzing the supposed senior citizens about Perry 
Como and Rosemary Clooney to prove that they were alive in the ‘50’s. “If 
they can’t identify the accordion player on The Lawrence Welk Show, we 
become very suspicious about their age,” an official said. 

Canadian citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are creating 
an organic broccoli shortage and are renting all the Michael Moore movies. 
“I really feel sorry for American liberals, but the Canadian economy just 
can’t support them,” an Ottawa resident said. “How many art history and 
English majors does one country need?” 

 Canada isn’t our only neighbor upset about the invasion of unwanted 
Americans. Mexico City’s La Prensa reported last week that Mexican immigration 
officials are alarmed about the thousands of Americans illegally 
entering their country each day, and have filed a formal complaint with 
U.S. ambassador. They say most of these undocumented migrants “are unemployed 
middle-class moderate Republicans, Democrats, and Independents 
fleeing persecution and public humiliation for their opposition to 
the liberal-socialist agenda of the Obama administration.” 

 One official complained that “these gringos are abusing the Mexican legal 
system by claiming refugee status under the UN Convention Relating to 
the Status of Refugees, and are costing Mexico millions of dollars for resort 
quality detention facilities, not to mention clogging up our immigration 
courts with a backlog of frivolous deportation appeals to process.” 

 He said, “I fear the influx of so many Norte Americanos with their innovative 
ideas of free enterprise could have a catastrophic impact on the 
our economy by challenging our tradition of corruption, and could even 
threaten the very existence of our wealthy ruling elite.” He warned, “Order 
could quickly turn into chaos.” 

 Drug cartels are also fearful of the American invaders. A cartel boss said, 
“The idea of thousands of well-armed and well-organized NRA members 
moving south is very disturbing.” He complained, “Fighting the Mexican 
Army is one thing, but going up against a profit-motivated efficiency-
based all-volunteer armed force of greedy capitalist crusaders screaming 
‘God Bless the Almighty Buck’ is quite another.”

 

 Think we have an illegal immigration problem? Think again. I don’t know 
about you, but I’d much rather have a bunch of hardworking drug smugglers 
and human traffickers importing much needed narcotics and cheap 
labor into my country than the hordes of pretentious, often ostentatious, 
liberals or innovative politically moderate entrepreneurs invading Canada 
and Mexico. 

And now Not Starring...


RICH Johnson

One of my favorite websites 
is Notstarring.com. A terrific 
group of researchers have 
sorted through all manner 
of data pertaining to actors 
who were originally signed or 
seriously considered to play 
movie roles they ended up 
not playing. 

I wrote about them a couple 
of years ago and I think it would be fun to retake 
this trip down memory lane.

It doesn’t just include actors. For example, George 
Lucas was originally slated to direct Apocalyse 
Now. However Francis Ford Coppola decided to 
direct it himself.

Mel Gibson, and Tim Curry auditioned to play 
the lead role of Mozart in Amadeus. Of course 
it went to Tom Hulce. Mark Hamill was also 
considered as he played Mozart on Broadway. 
And Mick Jagger auditioned to play Antonio 
Salieri, the part that went to F. Murray Abraham. 
Speaking of Mick, he also wanted the lead role of 
Dr. Frank N. Furter in The Rocky Horror Picture 
Show. That role went to Tim Curry.

 Remember the movie Arthur starring Dudley 
Moore and Liza Minnelli? Liza’s role, Linda was 
turned down by Lucie Arnaz and Carrie Fisher. 
Kim Basinger and Mia Farrow also auditioned for 
the part. Pete Rose was original going to play the 
role of Murdoch in the movie Airplane. That role 
went to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. And the doctor 
played by Leslie Nielsen was originally offered 
and turned down by Christopher Lee.

In the Batman movie, The Dark Knight, several 
actors were seriously considered for the role of 
the Joker, which ultimately went to Heath Ledger. 
Among the considered: Paul Bettany, Adrien 
Brody, Sam Rockwell, and Robin Williams.

 In the grizzly Quentin Tarantino film Grindhouse, 
the role of Stuntman Mike that ultimately went 
to Kurt Russell had originally been offered and 
turned down by Ving Rhames. Mickey Rourke 
was originally cast in the part. 

 And the wonderful 1938 film The Adventures of 
Robin Hood starring Errol Flynn had originally 
planned to star James Cagney (Wouldn’t that 
have been different?) Douglas Fairbanks Jr., also 
turned down the part because his father had done 
a silent version in 1922. David Niven had been 
intended for the role of Will Scarlett but was off 
vacationing. And Orson Welles had been offered 
either the role of Friar Tuck or King Richard, but 
turned both of them down.

 Then there’s the 1951 classic The African Queen. 
Had the movie been made (cont. on page 15)

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

LEFT TURN/RIGHT TURN


State of The Union 
Is In The Details

 Rush Limbaugh told 
listeners they needn’t 
listen to the State of 
the Union address; 
he’d tell them all they 
needed to know. I’ll 
do the same, but while 
Limbaugh’s audience might exceed mine 
in size (“might”), I’m sure a greater 
percentage of mine listened to the speech 
themselves. I consciously avoided post-
speech commentary to avoid skewing 
my own recollections (and because I’d 
miss Keith Olbermann).

 There wasn’t the traditional separation 
of the parties on either side of the aisle, 
and some intermingling took place. One 
result was that audience reaction wasn’t 
as predictable; apparent applause lines 
were met with silence, while ovations 
that did occur seemed more sincere, 
spontaneous and bipartisan.

 President Obama alluded to this when 
he said the important thing was “not 
whether we can sit together tonight, but 
if we can work together tomorrow.” He 
reminded that it will now require both 
parties to pass any new laws.

 The opening topic was jobs and the 
economy, and what the president called 
our “Sputnik moment”. Rather than 
spurred by a Soviet space program, we 
now see China as home to the world’s 
fastest computer and largest solar 
energy research center. The president 
mentioned the one million private sector 
jobs were created last year, but stressed 
that to compete we have to “out-innovate, 
out-educate and out-build the rest of the 
world”.

 The role of government was emphasized. 
Innovations such as the internet, GPS 
systems and computer chips began, 
the president reminded us, as part of 
government programs, and government 
support would continue in developing 
information technology, biomedical 
research and clean energy. “Innovation”, 
the president said, “is how we make our 
living.” Goals were set; a million electric 
vehicles on the road by 2015 and 80% of 
our energy from “clean” sources by 2035. 

 It would be paid for by eliminating 
billions of dollars in subsidies now going 
to oil companies; “They’re doing okay 
already”.

 The president stressed the need for 
a new attitude towards education; that 
“It’s not just winners of Super Bowls 
that deserves to be celebrated, but the 
winners of science fairs.”

 

 He noted that in South Korea 
teachers are referred to as “nation 
builders”, and called on young 
people still deciding on a career 
path, “Become a teacher - your 
country needs you.”

 The successful “Race to the Top” 
initiative was noted, where programs 
come from state and local innovation, 
under both Republican and Democratic 
leadership, while direction for “No 
Child Left Behind” came mainly from 
Washington.

 The president called for making 
tuition tax credits permanent, and noted 
federal funds for student loans are no 
longer going to subsidize banks serving 
as middle-men. 

 There was a push for the DREAM act, as 
the president observed that a promising 
student knowing no home other than 
the USA can live in fear of deportation, 
while foreign students on visas take their 
diplomas home to compete against us.

 The goal set by the president is that 
we become first in proportion of college 
graduates, moving up from the ninth 
place we occupy now.

 The nation that built the transcontinental 
railroad, the president suggested, 
should now commit to high-speed 
transportation and internet systems. In 
25 years 80% of Americans should have 
access to high-speed rail, and 95% access 
to the internet.

 Businesses stand to benefit from lower 
tax rates; achieved not by adding to the 
deficit, but by closing loopholes. The 
president predicted a doubling of exports 
by 2014, and mentioned the 70,000 new 
jobs resulting from talks with South 
Korea. He announced upcoming trade 
initiatives with Panama, Columbia and 
Asian-Pacific nations.

 The president recognized the economic 
benefit of reviewing federal regulations, 
but reminded that the purpose of those 
regulations is to protect the American 
people. He cited new rules protecting 
consumers from exploitation by credit 
card companies, and protecting patients 
from exploitation by private health 
insurers. 

 He promised not to return to the 
days of patients losing coverage because 
of a “pre-existing condition”. While 
acknowledging shortcomings in the 
Affordable Care Act, his advice was to 
“fix what needs fixing” rather than “re-
fight old battles”.

 The last thing we need, the president 
said, is to go $250 billion further in debt 
by repealing the ACA. In addressing the 
deficit, he proposed a five-year freeze 
on domestic spending, but not with 
cuts carried “on the backs of the most 
vulnerable citizens”. (cont. pg. 13)

HOWARD Hays

 As I See It

GREG Welborn


There were two State of the Union 
speeches delivered this week, and both 
were done by the same man. President 
Obama started his 2011 address in a 
manner that echoed Ronald Reagan and 
seemed to indicate that he’s waking up to 
the economic reality that our economy is 
in serious trouble. “… the naysayers predicting 
our decline are wrong.”, “We are 
the first nation to be founded for the sake 
of an idea.”, We need to out-innovate, 
out-educate and out-build the rest of the 
world.”, and “Our free enterprise system is 
what drives innovation.” could easily have 
been said by President Reagan. So it looks 
like he gets it, that he understands that his 
policies, and those the Democrats have 
been pushing since they came to power, 
are part of the problem. But then we get 
to the rest of the speech. The back 3/4ths 
of it where the devil in his details clearly 
demonstrate he’s grandstanding and posturing 
while pushing through more of his 
devastating economic agenda.

The speech stressed U.S. competitiveness 
and the need for a strong manufacturing 
base. The speech followed several other 
less significant announcements which 
in their own right built momentum toward 
the State of The Union. The trend 
pointed toward an awakening in this still-
naive president to the three basic realities 
of how to grow an economy. 1) let people 
work harder and smarter; 2) foster innovation; 
and 3) allow investment capital 
to be used as efficiently as possible. All 
three are heavily dependent on government 
policies, but a very different set of 
government policies than what Obama 
has been pursuing.

Harder, smarter work requires that you 
let the people doing that work keep the 
potential rewards earned by their efforts. 
That means lowering taxes, not increasing 
them. It’s a simple rule of economics 
that what you tax you get less of and what 
you reward you get more of. Tax those 
who work and innovate to give it to those 
who don’t is not a recipe for success. A 
variation on that rule applies to the allocation 
of investment capital. When 
the government manipulates investment 
markets by pushing investments into favored 
areas and away from disfavored 
ones, we end up with boom and bust 
cycles of the depth and severity of the one 
we’re in now. 

Lest someone say I’m being too harsh 
on President Obama who’s only been in 
power 2 years and a couple months, I am 
incorporating the fact that he is the leader 
of the Democratic party and has been 
a part of it since his 
political birth. Democratic 
control began 
with the 2006 congressional 
elections 
and was confirmed in 
2008 when they took 
the presidency. It 
was during these years when the tax and 
regulatory burden punished whole industries. 
It was during these years when 
government financial regulations forced 
banks to lend to borrowers who clearly 
couldn’t afford the mortgages in the interest 
of creating more home ownership 
among the supposedly “disenfranchised”. 
Industries started shutting factories and 
moving production overseas, bad loans 
were packaged and sold, and when the 
loans started going bad, it was no surprise 
that major banks and insurance companies 
were in deep trouble. The government 
had directed capital away from 
productive parts of the economy and into 
unproductive parts of the economy.

So much for the history, but why am I 
still criticizing the president’s efforts? 
Because I do believe that details give us 
better insight into what a man is thinking 
and where he wants to take us than the 
lofty philosophical thematic statements 
do. Don’t get me wrong; I loved the thematic 
elements in the beginning. Reagan 
could have delivered them. The difference 
is that Reagan believed in them and 
acted on them; Obama is still wedded 
to the Democrats’ old, tired big government 
policies. That was in evidence in 
the speech’s policy statements where we 
learned that the solution to what the government 
has done to our economy is to 
have it do more to the economy by building 
high-speed trains and solar shingles. 
I could almost live with those statements 
as simply red meat for his leftie listeners 
were I not aware of the details contained 
in his previous big policy announcement.

 Last week, in preparation for the State 
of The Union speech, President Obama 
unveiled amidst great fanfare an executive 
order telling all the regulatory bureaucracies 
to subject their rules to cost-benefit 
analysis to eliminate those regulations 
which needlessly destroy jobs or prevent 
companies from expanding. Sounds like 
a great idea, and certainly the press treated 
it as an amazing move to the middle by 
this practical, centrist president. Unfortunately, 
it was just media hype. Tucked 
away in the executive order was the qualifier 
telling the bureaucracies to consider 
in their calculations (cont. pg. 13)

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.