Mountain Views News          Saturday, April 7, 2012

4

OPINION

 Mountain Views News Saturday, April 7, 2012

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

Production 

Richard Garcia

Photography

Lina Johnson

Chris Bertrand

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

Dorothy White

Webmaster

John Aveny 


THE FEAR FACTOR

 LOOK OUT! Here it comes; the drone peeking into your window to 
check out whether or not you are hiding something in an unmentionable 
body-cavity. No, perhaps, it has not come to that yet. YET; but did you 
read or hear anything about Supreme Court Justice Kennedy’s opinion in 
the Frances case? I read about the opinion as I checked out the internet 
Tuesday morning. Justice Kennedy, the swing-vote, the seventy-six year 
old Ronald Reagan appointee, who is supposed to be the hope of the few 
remaining liberals (I’m kidding I think) in this country has authored and cast the deciding 
vote in the case entitled Florence v. County of Birmingham. According to this incredible 
interpretation of Constitutional , the Court has held that people who have been arrested may 
be strip-searched after arrests for the most minor offenses. Included within this category are 
violations of leash laws, driving without driver’s license in your possession, and of course, 
allegations of failing to pay child support.

 Now understand that this strip searching would occur prior to conviction of any crime 
during that supposed guaranteed period wherein the presumption of innocence is still in 
effect. Justice Kennedy justified the strip search of “people detained for minor offences” on 
the grounds that such minor offenders “can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous 
criminals.” He noted that Timothy McVeigh, later put to death for his role in the 1995 
Oklahoma City bombing, was first arrested for driving without a license plate. This is the 
source of my alarm, with which I first began this article. If minor offenders are considered as 
potential terrorists hiding behind their non-serious crimes, then people who have committed 
no crimes at all must be suspected of being the most devious and threatening of all potential 
evil-doers. Why? Because they have been careful not to do anything to which would bring 
them to the attention of the police authority. They must be watched. Yes, it’s all absolutely 
crazy!!

 The legal scholars amongst you might remember a passing acquaintance with the fourth 
amendment of the United States Constitution which was written and adopted to guarantee 
people on these shores the freedom from unreasonable and unwarranted police intrusion. 
What has happened to these protections? Rachel Maddow, Oxford PhD. and, Rhodes Scholar, 
has made an attempt at explanation in her recently released and, probably well-searched 
and researched book, Drift. This surprisingly entertaining but nevertheless frightening 
book focuses on the manner in which this entire nation is risking a shipwreck as it is being 
manipulated though the over-dramatizing of security concerns, safety, and resultant fear. 
She begins by focusing on the drafter of the Declaration of Independence and future two-
term President, Thomas Jefferson. She reminds us of Jefferson’s wariness of “animal foods, 
spirituous liquors, state religion, national debts, abolitionists, embittered slaves, and unelected 
federal judges. But his predominant and animating worry was the centralization of power in 
large banks and secret societies, and most of all in governments: the enemy within.

 Don’t these concerns sound amazingly contemporary? Remember, old Thomas was worrying 
about this stuff around 250 years ago, well before most public relations and advertising 
agencies were even conceived. Believe it or not, our founding forefathers may not have even 
imagined lobbyists. To make this point absolutely current have you received any phone calls 
from companies saying that you have been recommended to them by a friend who wants to 
emphasize your need for an overall Home Security System? This is such a blatant obnoxious 
attempt to capitalize on the fomented racial panic seemingly generated by the Trayvon Martin 
killing in Florida that I am genuinely sickened.

 Of course it is all similar to the curtailments of our rights to privacy (remember those) 
that were instituted after the 9-11 World Trade Center Towers destruction. This event was 
somehow spun to justify the beginnings of our endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Rachel 
Maddow describes how concerns for safety and security are used to navigate away from 
our American traditions and formerly protected freedoms. Seemingly every event is used 
to increase our fears and to convince Americans that our safety and security is worth any 
sacrifice. She reminds us that Thomas Jefferson felt it absolute necessary that the United 
States refrain from maintaining a standing army. He wrote that if a standing army existed it 
would be utilized and America would be thrown into a perpetual state of war at the cost of its 
most valued freedoms.

 Well, today we know those fears were justified and that secret powers are manipulating us 
for their own benefit. Somebody profits from these continual wars and the creation of these 
huge banks that are too big to fail, such that the only thing left to fail may be the American 
Way of Life.

 Remember,don’t look out your windows, be sure to vote for the war-maker of your choice, 
and be ready to allow some unelected, almost octogenarian, Federal Judge rule your life. 
Pleasant dreams. 


WHAT DO BUNNIES 
AND EGGS HAVE TO 
DO WITH EASTER?

Bunnies, eggs, Easter gifts and fluffy, yellow chicks in gardening 
hats all stem from pagan roots. They were incorporated into the 
celebration of Easter separately from the Christian tradition of 
honoring the day Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

According to University of Florida’s Center for Children’s Literature 
and Culture, the origin of the celebration -- and the Easter bunny 
-- can be traced back to 13th century, pre-Christian Germany, when 
people worshiped several gods and goddesses. The Teutonic deity 
Eastre was the goddess of spring and fertility, and feasts were held in 
her honor on the Vernal Equinox. Her symbol was the rabbit because 
of the animal’s high reproduction rate.

This pagan festival went on for a long time before rising Christian 
missionaries trying to convert the pagans to their religion had some 
issues with the non-Christian festivals occurring around the same 
time as the Christians celebrated the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 
Luckily for the Germanic pagans, these converters weren’t going 
to go the violent route. Instead of outright abolishing the pagan 
celebrations altogether, they slowly added in different aspects of 
Christianity and the resurrection of Christ into them.

In an effort to finally completely remove the pagan aspect of this 
holiday, Eastre was changed to Easter to remove any connotation 
regarding the pagan Goddess of Offspring. The rabbits were no 
longer being worshipped, but were kept in most traditions. Since the 
rabbit can epitomize the idea of fertility, it can easily be incorporated 
into the story of Christ’s resurrection as a reference to Jesus being 
re-born. This is where the Easter Egg also starts to play a big factor in 
metaphoric references to the resurrection of Christ.

Spring also symbolized new life and rebirth; eggs were an ancient 
symbol of fertility. According to History.com, Easter eggs represent 
Jesus’ resurrection. However, this association came much later when 
Roman Catholicism became the dominant religion in Germany in 
the 15th century and merged with already ingrained pagan beliefs.

The first Easter bunny legend was documented in the 1500s. By 1680, 
the first story about a rabbit laying eggs and hiding them in a garden 
was published. These legends were brought to the United States in 
the 1700s when German immigrants settled in Pennsylvania Dutch 
country, according to the Center for Children’s Literature and Culture

The Easter Bunny folklore arrived in America in the 1700s via the 
German settlers. They brought their long time tradition of Easter 
Bunny and Easter Eggs to a Dutch Pennsylvania settlement and it 
just got big from there. The tradition of making nests for the rabbit 
to lay its eggs in soon followed. Eventually, nests became decorated 
baskets and colorful eggs were swapped for candy, treats and other 
small gifts.

So while you’re scarfing down chocolate bunnies (I hear chocolate 
is good for you!) and marshmallow chicks this Easter Sunday, think 
fondly of this holiday’s origins and maybe even impress your friends 
at this year’s Sierra Madre Volunteer Firefighters Association Easter 
Egg Hunt this Saturday at 10 a.m. in Memorial Park.

Happy Easter!

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


HOWARD Hays As I See It

MICHAEL Reagan

Due to a 
production 
error, last week 
Stuart Tolchin’s 
article appeared 
in this spot. We 
apologize for any 
confusion that 
may have caused. 
-The Editor

“In a civilized and rich country like 
the United States, it is reasonable 
for society to accept an obligation 
to ensure that all residents have 
affordable access to at least basic 
health care . . . it is also reasonable 
to expect residents of the society 
who can do so to contribute an 
appropriate amount to their own 
health care. . . . It could be a ‘soft’ 
mandate, meaning that failure to 
obtain coverage could result in the 
loss of tax benefits . . . “

- Dr. Stuart Butler

 At the time those remarks 
were delivered at a Congressional 
hearing a decade ago, nobody had 
heard of “Obamacare”. Dr. Butler 
was describing policies developed 
ten years earlier, when he served 
at The Heritage Foundation 
crafting a conservative response 
to “Hillarycare”. This plan for an 
“individual mandate” received 
backing from Republican leaders 
in Congress such as Sens. Orrin 
Hatch (UT) and Charles Grassley 
(IA), and Rep. Newt Gingrich 
(GA).

 Provisions for required 
universal coverage, a regulated 
“marketplace”, subsidies for low-
income enrollees, “guaranteed 
eligibility”, “nondiscrimination 
based on health status”, and 
authority of the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services to 
establish minimal standards were 
all contained in the “Health Equity 
and Access Reform Today Act of 
1993” - the Republican plan.

 (One of the Republican co-
sponsors of that bill, former Sen. 
David Durenberger of Minnesota, 
was asked two years ago at the 
height of the current debate to 
compare this situation with that 
of 1993: “I think it’s four times 
more important now than it was 
then because the costs are four 
times as bad and they’re escalating 
more quickly and the entrenched 
behavior of the medical industry 
is so bad today compared to what 
it was then.”)

 In his Washington Post 
column early last year, Ezra 
Klein interviewed economist 
Mark Pauly, described as “the 
father of the individual mandate”. 
Pauly helped develop healthcare 
policy for the administration of 
George H.W. Bush, when he saw 
the individual mandate as the 
preferred free-market alternative, 
because “our view is that excessive 
government intervention will 
make matters worse”. A major 
criticism he has of the current 
law is that tax penalties for those 
not purchasing insurance are 
“only about 20% of the cost of a 
policy”, while “in our version, the 
penalty was effectively equal to 
the premium . . .”

 Klein noted how Democrats 
have been following the 
Republican lead when it comes 
to healthcare, beginning with 
Republican attempts to preclude 
consideration of a “Medicare-for-
all” single-payer system: “Richard 
Nixon countered single-payer 
with an employer mandate, then 
Clinton co-opted the employer 
mandate and Republicans 
moved to an individual mandate, 
and then Obama co-opted the 
individual mandate”.

 M.I.T. Economics Professor 
Jonathan Gruber advised both 
then-Gov. Mitt Romney on the 
Massachusetts healthcare plan, 
and President Obama on the 
Affordable Care Act. The two 
major differences, he explains, are 
that Romney relied on a separate 
entity, the federal government, 
to pay for the Massachusetts 
plan, and President Obama’s 
plan contains provisions for cost 
containment, while Romney’s 
didn’t.

 Prof. Gruber, though, sees 
no distinction as to the origins: 
“This is a Republican idea. It 
was originally developed by 
conservative economists, and at 
the bill signing in 2006 as Mitt 
Romney proudly signed this law 
into place, on the podium was 
a speaker from The Heritage 
Foundation talking about what a 
great conservative law this was. 
All of a sudden President Obama, 
being pragmatic and smart about 
it, decides this is a good idea, 
let’s adopt that, and suddenly it’s 
the devil’s work. I don’t see how 
that could be anything but pure, 
partisan politics. 

 Some might see the president 
settling for a plan to the right 
of what was proposed under 
Richard Nixon, but Prof. Gruber 
sees it differently; “I think what 
President Obama did, as he’s done 
many times in his presidency, 
is do the right thing for policy 
reasons, even if it’s not necessarily 
the right thing for political 
reasons . . . He saw that it worked.” 
Premiums on individual policies 
in Massachusetts have been cut 
by half. 98% of its citizens, and 
99.8% of its children, now have 
health insurance – the highest rate 
in the nation. 

 If it were the “Health Equity 
and Access Reform Today Act of 
1993”, championed by Sens. Hatch 
and Grassley, with an individual 
mandate touted by Newt Gingrich 
and The Heritage Foundation, 
there’d be no talk of a Supreme 
Court review. We wouldn’t have 
Justice Antonin Scalia pondering 
aloud about the government 
forcing us to get broccoli.

 We were told what to expect 
back in the early days of the 
Obama Administration, before 
anybody knew what would be in 
the Affordable Care Act, when 
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) told us 
how any attempt at healthcare 
reform would be used against the 
president: “It will break him.”

 It won’t be until late June when 
we can expect to hear a decision 
from the Court. Perhaps by 
then, the Justices might get word 
that it was the insurance execs 
themselves who pushed for the 
individual mandate, as the only 
alternative to more uninsured 
relying on emergency rooms, with 
increasing costs passed on to the 
shrinking few who can still afford 
skyrocketing premiums.

 Or maybe they won’t – with 
the result being an energized 
electorate bringing in a new 
Congress which will accept 
nothing less than a “Medicare-
for-all” single-payer plan, perhaps 
what they should’ve started out 
with in the first place. We might 
then begin to join the rest of the 
developed world where a family 
doesn’t risk losing their home if a 
child gets sick, where the health of 
fellow citizens is regarded as more 
than a source of corporate profit; a 
healthcare system truly worthy of 
“a civilized and rich country like 
the United States”.

GONG, GONG, GONG! 

 I don’t know about you, but watching 
the Republican primary season is 
making me feel like a judge on the “The 
Gong Show.” 

 I watched or listened to all three 
candidates after Tuesday night’s Illinois 
primary. I’m still crying.

 If Mitt, Newt and Rick had given those 
uninspiring speeches on Chuck Barris’ 
twisted 1970s amateur talent show, the 
celebrity panelists would have gang-
gonged them in 30 seconds. 

 The speeches Romney, Santorum and 
Gingrich gave were the least inspiring of this trying campaign 
season. Each one was too long, lacking in vision and boring as 
hell. I think Santorum is still delivering his Gettysburg Address. 

 Hasn’t anyone on his staff ever heard the advice “less is more”? 
Don’t any of these guys realize that their rambling, dull speeches 
are carried live on the cable channels? 

Win or lose, here’s a free idea for one of them to try after the 
Louisiana primary on Saturday (March 24): 

 First give a quick, sharp, inspiring, enthusiastic, Obama-bashing 
speech for the TV cameras. Use a teleprompter if you must or, if 
you want to look Reaganesque, write a few notes on some index 
cards. 

 Then, after three minutes, say “God bless America!” or “On to 
the White House!” and exit stage right. 

Save the rehashes of your positions on healthcare or family values 
for your supporters in the room. Ditto for your sincere thanks 
to your loyal cousin Shirley and the assistant precinct captain of 
Peoria. 

 I have a more strategic suggestion for our three contestants 
before “The Republican Gong Show” gets to Tampa. 

If they are truly serious about wanting to beat Obama in the fall, 
they’d better dump all their advisers now. They each need to find 
someone like a Michael Deaver or a Lyn Nofziger, the media 
geniuses who ran my father’s campaigns, and listen carefully.

The cold truth is that at this point there is only one professional 
campaign team in this never-ending primary and, like it or not, 
it’s Romney’s. The Santorum and Gingrich teams may be more 
conservative, but they are not well funded and they’re amateur 
league. 

 Newt says Mitt can’t beat Obama, but he can’t beat Romney 
or Santorum, and even Ron Paul beat him in Illinois. And Rick 
says Mitt will say whatever he needs to say to win. Welcome to 
hardball politics, Rick.

 Let’s face it. There is no road for Santorum or Gingrich to the 
White House, not even a dirt road. That is unfortunate. But now 
the primary has turned into a “Stop Romney” campaign and that’s 
much more than unfortunate. It’s destructive. And it only helps 
Obama. 

 Here’s a suggestion for Newt and Rick if they insist on going one-
on-one against Romney. Since primary loss after primary loss 
clearly isn’t working, how about a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors 
and the loser goes home? 

Seriously, it’s time for Mitt to get some of his own ideas and 
not take them from Newt (energy) and from Rick (freedom). 
Without his own “big ideas” and own “vision thing,” he will lose. 
Trust me.

 Most importantly, it’s time for Mitt to reach out to the 
conservatives. If he doesn’t, he won’t ever be president, either, and 
Obama will get four more years to continue his deconstruction 
of America.


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.