Mountain Views News          Saturday, May 12, 2012

16

LEFT TURN/RIGHT TURN

 Mountain Views News Saturday, May 12, 2012 

MARRIAGE AS A POLITICAL STUNT 

 President Obama’s statement that he now supports gay marriage should be 
complimented for its honesty and abhorred for its rank manipulative timing. 
Everyone already knew that President Obama’s true beliefs lay. After all, his 
Attorney General refused to defend the constitutionality of the Defense of 
Marriage Act. So there’s some other reason for the announcement’s timing, 
and, as with so much from this President, it has little to do with what’s good for 
the nation and more to do with what’s good for him politically.

 Some political observers have floated the theory that Vice President Biden’s 
earlier public comments were meant to force Obama’s hand. Even if true, this 
only affirms the rank political manipulation of the move, although it does so by 
crediting Biden with more political chops than the President. No, it is much 
more likely that this came from the top. Biden’s earlier comments must have 
been sanctioned. His were the opening salvo. More than plausible, in fact overwhelmingly probably 
because Team Obama, if nothing else, has shown itself to be amazingly political in its policy calculations. 

 Gay marriage is an issue which promises to energize flagging components of his base without much 
damaging support among the President’s black and Hispanic constituencies. Even though a large 
majority of blacks are morally opposed to gay marriage, interviews this week with several prominent 
black religious leaders made it clear that disappointment with this decision won’t translate into 
disaffections. So on a worst case basis, Obama captures 93% instead of 2008’s 94% of the black vote. 
The same loyalty seems to be present among Hispanics that voted for him in 2008.

 It is the rest of the liberal base that needs to be rallied. The economy, the failed stimulus, the 
amateur mistakes and foreign policy blunders have taken a heavy toll on many traditional Democratic 
constituencies. This is especially true among younger voters. As bad as the economy has been for 
the rest of us, unemployment among young adults is about 30%. Young adults also happen to have a 
more uninformed view of marriage. To the extent that conservative opposition to gay marriage can be 
portrayed by the Obama election team and mainstream media as ignorance, bigotry and homophobia, 
young adult turnout in November could be reinvigorated.

 Team Obama is clearly counting on the uninformed to be riled up and turned out to stand against 
conservative bigotry and hatred. Allow me therefore to quickly recap the importance of maintaining 
marriage as it has been defined by all major religions and cultures for more than 2,000 years – as if that 
fact alone were insufficient to warn people against tampering with so significant and foundational an 
institution.

 1. If love becomes the sole basis for marriage, which is the reasoning offered by gay activists, 
marriage will be weakened. Why shouldn’t 3 people who love one another get married? Why shouldn’t 
a brother and sister marry? If marriage between one man and one woman isn’t uplifted as special, the 
crazy combinations we’ll see will cheapen the entire institution.

 2. Traditional marriage is better for children. A mother and a father each give something different 
to a child. There’s simply no way for either to be an equal substitute for the other.

 3. Traditional marriage is also better for men and women because each compliments the other, 
making them whole, in a way that a relationship with the same sex cannot. 

 4. Traditional marriage is critical for the health of society. Society is strong only when its basic 
building block – the family – is strong. Experience in Europe (where gay marriage is allowed) shows 
that more people simply choose to form a “family” based on a vague commitment to stay together. 
Most break apart, resulting in greater psychological dysfunction, personal unhappiness and greater 
poverty for women and children.

 Marriage is a foundational element of society. Redefining it bears risks that threaten us all – gay and 
straight. Obama is to be commended for his honesty, even though it is motivated solely by his desire 
to stay in power. Whatever the outcome of the 2012 election, nobody can deny the significance of the 
choices before us.

 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.

HOWARD Hays As I See It

 
“Give no bounties; make equal laws; secure life and prosperity and you need not 
give alms.”

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

I didn’t know colleague Greg Welborn had advance notice that I wouldn’t have a 
column last week. Rather than his usual fare of conservative viewpoint, he covered 
for me by instead devoting his column to describing how liberals look at things. He 
even began his column, as I occasionally do; by commenting on recent observations 
by Bill Maher. (I wonder if Greg includes me in his category of “hip-left-media 
types”.)

 In Greg’s column last week, the subject was “charity”. The conflict arises from differing definitions. 
For most of us hip-left-media types (I’m beginning to like that phrase), charity can be defined as 
selflessly helping out someone in need.

 For far-left-ex-hippie types like me, you can take it further and relate it to the concept of “karma”. 
One of those riddles from ancient Buddhist literature (stop me if you’ve heard it) goes, “How can a 
cupful of water be more powerful than a whole ocean?” The answer is that a cupful of water given in 
an act of selfless kindness to a thirsty elderly or sick person creates a karma that lasts long after the 
oceans have dried up.

 A more contemporary story is of the guy who contributes $2,000 to his temple, then finds a 
misprint in the monthly bulletin where his gift is listed as only $20. He goes to complain to his Sensei, 
asking that a correction be printed the following month. The Sensei responds, sure – they’ll be happy 
to do it. But his wanting to make sure he gets credit just wrecked whatever good karma he might have 
gotten from the act.

 The definition of “charity” for others is less nuanced. For Mitt Romney, charity is what you get a 
tax deduction for.

 What set Greg off was Bill Maher’s ridiculing of Mitt Romney’s characterizing his regular donation 
to the Mormon Church as charitable giving. To make his point, Maher held up a picture of a storefront 
HIV/AIDS clinic and said, “Giving to this is charity”. He followed that with a picture of a huge 
Mormon temple, looking like something out of Frank Capra’s LOST HORIZON, on a mound of real 
estate that would make the Beverly Hilton seem low-rent, and said, “Giving to this is not”.

 Greg accuses liberals of having difficulty separating the personal from the political. I’d say it’s 
more of a concern about separating the sort of activity warranting taxpayer subsidies from those that 
don’t. I couldn’t denigrate the value of world-wide health and literacy programs sponsored by the 
Mormon Church. Four years ago, the Mormon Church contributed some $8.4 million in support of 
Proposition 8, to overturn the California Supreme Court ruling permitting gay marriage.

 Greg might argue a church is a charity, no matter how it decides to spend its money. I’d suggest it’s 
one thing to work towards alleviating poverty in third-world countries, and another thing to establish 
statutory bigotry here at home.

 What’s most puzzling is Greg’s suggestion that different racial and religious groups take care of 
“their own”. He further suggests that without government efforts to alleviate poverty, there would be 
more private efforts.

 This brings up other philosophical differences: Conservatives see an amalgamation of separate and 
often competing religious and ethnic groups. Liberals see America. Conservatives see government 
as a distant, distinct body threatening the private sector. Liberals see “We the People”. Conservatives 
see charity as a noble gesture by our betters towards the less fortunate. Liberals see getting together 
to help our fellow Americans as an expression of who we are as a people – regardless of whether we 
can write it off on our taxes.

On a personal note – 

 When my family and I first moved to Sierra Madre, I stopped by this club called the Sunset on 
Sierra Madre Boulevard. It had black walls, and I thought if I ever felt twenty years younger, I’d stop 
by again. It didn’t happen.

 At that time, we enjoyed a restaurant on Baldwin called the Pepper Tree – especially for breakfast. 
When it relocated to Sierra Madre Boulevard, we stopped by on a night they featured an improv 
comedy troupe. I commented to a performer my problem with improv was that it never seemed well-
enough rehearsed. She gave me a weird look.

 Then, another transformation. There was Dixieland. There were big bands. There was jazz, 
Western swing, Flat-Top Tom, quiz night on Tuesday and Opera on Sunday. There were the dulcet 
tones of V.R. Smith and the piano artistry of Jon Mayer. There were students from the jazz programs 
at PCC showing the future of jazz to be as bright as its past.

 Visiting my son in Prague while in his “study abroad” program, I tasted absinthe for the first time. 
I got home, and Mario poured me a glass at 322.

 With friends who were unfamiliar with the town, I’d show them around and they’d be impressed. 
I’d take them to Café 322, and their jaws would drop.

 When friends from out-of-town (like in-laws from Japan) said they wanted to visit and asked what 
would be a convenient time, we’d check online to see when Jack Sheldon and his California Cool 
Quartet was playing. No matter what they saw on their trip to California, we knew family from Tokyo 
would be talking about having heard the trumpet solo line for “The Shadow Of Your Smile” played by 
the fellow who first recorded it over forty years ago.

 A great place for celebrity-sightings. Last time I was there, famed columnist Rich Johnson sat at 
the very next table. He acted like he recognized me, and my wife hasn’t looked at me the same way 
since.

 When I heard of Café 322’s closing, I wondered if its replacement would be even better. I then 
thought, if the replacement is nearly as good, we should all be thankful. Café 322 is a tough act to 
follow.


Independent’s Eye by Joe Gandelman 

SOME CERTAINTIES ABOUT THE 
2012 ELECTION

Who needs 
TV with its 
bad acting 
when we can 
watch the 
Oval Office 
race between President Barack Obama 
and presumptive Republican nominee 
Mitt Romney? The overheated rhetoric 
and overdramatized outrage on each side 
is now in full gear. Suspense is injected by 
perpetually see-sawing polls: the latest two 
show them in a dead heat nationally and 
Obama losing ground in 12 key swing states.


Amid the suspense and question marks there 
are some certainties in this race. Here are a 
few:

The Republic will survive: although 21st 
century politics and its new and old media 
thrive on apocalyptic rhetoric, much of 
what’s predicted will never come to pass. 
Each Presidential election year our rhetoric 
seemingly goes further over the top.


On the other hand, some fears are realistic. 
Republicans fear a second-term Obama will 
not need to woo independent voters and could 
be more liberal (likely). Democrats fear that 
despite his moderate past Romney has not 
shown the political courage or convictions 
to resist demands from his party’s far right 
and will give them what they want (likely). 


The Republican Party of Teddy Roosevelt, 
Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon 
is dead. Thomas Wolfe had it right - “You 
Can’t Go Home Again.” Those expecting 
the GOP to shift more towards the center if 
polls this fall show a backlash against its 2012 
conservative orientation will be disappointed. 
And if Romney loses, hardline conservatives 
won’t just hand Jeb Bush the keys to the 
party in 2016. The Tea Party movement 
and conservative talk show hosts will have 
“won” the battle for the Republican Party.


Centrists are being weeded out in both 
parties. Uh, oh, here come tiresome 
accusations of “false equivalency,” a phrase 
as grating as chalk on a blackboard. Several 
factors (including his residency) played a 
role in Indiana Republican Senator Dick 
Lugar’s political demise, but a big one 
was his being targeted by Tea Partiers for 
being too moderate. Utah’s Sen. Orrin 
Hatch will face a primary challenge due 
to his (gasp!) reaching across the aisle.
The Daily Beast’s John Avlon correctly points 
out that while hunting RINOs (Republicans 
in Name Only) is a popular GOP sport, 
“DINO hunting is starting to catch on in 
Democratic circles,” and two Democratic 
centrists were defeated in the recent 
primary in Pennsylvania. The trending is 
NOT towards moderation or non-lockstep 
partisans in Congress or in the country.


Expect a close election and dirty campaign: 
The wildcard of the uncertain economy 
adds volatility. Some GOPers are already 
trying to “Swift Boat” Obama on his role 
in the killing of Osama bin Laden, while 
Team Obama has made it known it has 
lots of material on Romney that’ll be 
released at key moments of the campaign.


Independents will be needed even if partisans 
continue to disparage them: The award for 
the silliest statement about independent 
voters goes to MSNBC’s Ed Schultz who 
recently suggested independent voters are 
not flocking to Obama because they don’t 
like Obama’s gun stand. If Democratic 
strategists are as insightful as Schultz, 
then get ready for President Romney. 
P.S. Independents aren’t monolithic.


Anything smug analysts predict could prove 
wrong: Who ever would have thought that the 
Oprah Winfrey Network would lose nearly 
$330 million? Or that in the end, New York 
Rep. Anthony Weiner would not only live up 
to his name but actually embody it? As I always 
say: beware of the conventional wisdom, 
because if it’s suddenly shattered all evidence 
of it will be discreetly swept under the rug.


But the odds are that after the votes are counted 
many certainties on this list will have held up. 
Just as there is this certainty: 2012 is unlikely 
to be an uplifting election that will leave the 
country more unified and informed on issues.


And if I’m wrong? There is a lor more room 
under that conventional wisdom rug…

Joe Gandelman is a veteran journalist who wrote for 
newspapers overseas and in the United States. He has 
appeared on cable news show political panels and is 
Editor-in-Chief of The Moderate Voice, an Internet 
hub for independents, centrists and moderates. 
CNN’s John Avlon named him as one of the top 25 
Centrists Columnists and Commentators. He can 
be reached at jgandelman@themoderatevoice.com 
and can be booked to speak at your event at www.
mavenproductions.com.

Tyree’s Tyrades! 

Mother’s Day: No Ifs, Ands Or Buts

By Danny Tyree

“Mom, I love you, BUT…”

I wonder how many times a day that phrase (more ominous than 
heartwarming) is uttered in this great land.

Certainly there is a lot to be said for putting things in perspective, softening the blow of 
unsolicited advice and practicing diplomacy – but in too many families the love and the 
“but” seem inextricably entwined, always leaving the mother feeling “buttered up” and 
anxiously waiting for the other shoe to drop.

I realize that many of us feel awkward about Public Displays of Affection, but it’s downright 
sad that we also struggle with PRIVATE displays of affection. The Hand That Rocks The 
Cradle deserves more than occasional watered-down dollops of tenderness that have been 
hopelessly amalgamated with mundane considerations and petty complaints.

Cards (handmade or store-bought), rose bouquets, leisurely Mother’s Day brunches, spa 
certificates and collectible figurines are all admirable choices for acknowledging mom on 
Her Special Day; but what a change there would be in the national mood if just a few more of 
us adopted a year-round practice of spontaneous, heartfelt, no-strings-attached expressions 
of “I love you”!

To be sure, it is a tribute to mom if you use the wisdom she instilled in you and discern when 
to be firm and when to be sentimental. The “buts” may well be justified when you have hard 
evidence that mom’s new beau is a chiseler or when you and your siblings are in consensus 
that the family matriarch needs assisted living.

Still, “but” should not be your default value, your “go to” reaction. Shaking your “but” 
doesn’t have to be intimidating; it may be necessary to start out small with your attitude 
adjustment. Perhaps just one extra time a month, show a little deference to mom. Hold 
your tongue and listen when you’d really rather “lovingly” express yourself about Needing 
My Own Space, Finally Finding Mr. Or Ms. Right (and the warden gives such a glowing 
endorsement!), Waiting For Just The Right Job To Come Along Before I Get Off This Sofa 
or Being Able To Handle These Substances, No Problem. 

Thank goodness moms -- infused with unconditional love and a spirit of sacrifice -- use the 
“buts” so sparingly. (I’m speaking of mothers in a fairly normal, healthy relationship here. 
Toxic relationships and estrangement are a topic for another day.) What a dreary place the 
world would be if children were told “Son, I love you, BUT that ugly crayon drawing would 
void the warranty on my refrigerator” or “Janie, I love you, BUT I think I can monitor your 
raging fever just as well from my Pilates class as by hovering over your bedside” or “I would 
love for you to use my wedding gown, BUT I don’t know if I can trust you to pay the dry 
cleaning bill”!

I grew up in a family where Mushy Stuff was something to make family members squirm, so 
I can understand the awkwardness of openness. But “I love you” needs to be more than an 
obligatory preface. Say it proudly, without corollaries, codicils, disclaimers or sales pitches.

Embrace saying those three little words – before you find yourself apologizing, “Mom, I love 
you – but your cemetery plot is way on the other side of town.”

©2012 Danny Tyree. Danny welcomes reader e-mail responses at tyreetyrades@aol.com and visits to 
his Facebook fan page “Tyree’s Tyrades”.