Mountain Views News          Saturday, June 23, 2012

17

LEFT TURN/RIGHT TURN

 Mountain Views News Saturday June 23, 2012

TWO DIFFERENT VISIONS 
FOR AMERICA

 I’m traveling in Virginia, visiting my daughter 
at the University of Virginia, and I came across a 
bumper sticker I hadn’t seen before: “No Tea For 
Me; I Prefer Progress”. It’s cute – I’ll give you that 
– but it also puts into perspective two different 
visions for America. The Tea Party vision was 
perhaps best represented by Ronald Reagan, while 
the “progressive” vision (really a leftist vision with 
a long pedigree) is represented by our current 
president. Interestingly enough, when Barak 
Obama became president, it is reported that he 
sought out a lengthy biography of Ronald Reagan, 
seeing in Reagan the same sort of transformative 
accomplishment that he hoped he would have 
during his term in office. At the 3-year-and-
counting mark of each president’s tenure, the 
comparison between these two presidents is not 
that flattering to President Obama and those on the 
left who flatter themselves with their unsupported 
claim to represent true “progress”. 

 Both new presidents came into office with a 
troubled, if not collapsing, economy. Both of them, 
in the same vein of aggressiveness and commitment 
to change what they inherited and what ailed the 
country, pursued radical solutions. President 
Reagan passed the largest tax reduction in this 
country’s history, deregulated a host of industries 
and applied a firm-footed brake to the easy money 
policy of the day, which risked driving the economy 
further into recession. President Obama pushed 
forward with the largest spending increase in this 
country’s history, instructed his various department 
heads to increase the regulatory burden in their 
respective spheres and has goaded the Fed into two 
“quantitative easings”, with a third on the drawing 
board, in his attempt to float us out of the recession 
on a sea of newly printed greenbacks.

 It’s hard to argue that three-years-plus in office 
is not a sufficient waypoint at which to measure 
the progress and success of these diametrically 
opposed solutions. At Reagan’s third year, GDP 
growth had returned to a whopping 5% on its way 
upward (it finally peaked at about 7%). As we stand 
now in the middle of Obama’s third year, we have 
an anemic, if even measurable, 1.5% growth rate 
with some concerns that it could slip into negative 
numbers, signaling a double dip recession.

 I bring this up not to argue that’s where we’re 
heading, but to make the secondary point about 
confidence. Every measure of American confidence 
was hitting high marks at the end of Reagan’s third 
year, while today every measure of American 
confidence in Obama, the economy, the country, 
fill-in-the-blank, is dour and getting worse. With 
Reagan, America was back; with Obama, there is 
concern America may be slipping away.

 An honest observer – liberal or conservative – 
has to admit that one radical program worked and 
the other has not. I’d go even further to say that 
Obama’s is hurting the economy, but we don’t have 
to agree on that point per se to at least acknowledge 
that Obama’s massive spending, regulatory 
meddling and monetary profligacy has failed to 
accomplish what he promised his program would 

and what clearly Reagan’s 
opposite program did 
accomplish.

 The difference of course lies 
is in the difference between 
the basic philosophies 
which undergird both 
men’s programs. Obama, 
as the quintessential Leftist 
Progressive, clearly believes 
that the federal government 
is the solution. The larger 
the government as a share of the overall economy and 
the more regulations that are promulgated, the more 
control Washington exercises over the conduct of 
our lives and our economy. This isn’t an insult or an 
accusation. It is a truth born of both observation and 
the current President’s own words.

 Reagan’s philosophy, a precursor to the Tea Party 
platform today, was rooted in his trust in both the 
goodness and the industriousness of the individual. 
Free up the individual to pursue his dream, to build 
the castles he saw in those visions, and, Reagan was 
confident, the rest of the country would bloom and 
prosper. Reagan’s Tea Party philosophy and policies 
unleashed a miracle of productivity and growth by 
giving back to the average American the economic 
incentives that would reward such effort. Reagan 
reduced marginal taxes to allow Americans to keep 
more of what they produced by the sweat of their brows. 
He removed the hurdles which prevented America’s 
great companies (large and small) from employing the 
innovative genius that seems to be in our DNA. He 
removed the destructive risk that inflation posed on 
anyone who wished to invest in the future. The results 
were nothing short of phenomenal.

 Interestingly enough, both presidents faced 
mountains of criticism and dire warnings that their 
policies were doomed to fail. These weren’t easy 
agendas to implement. Obama’s healthcare and 
budget battles are still fresh in our minds, but the 
opposition Reagan faced may be a lost historical 
point. Today it seems so obvious what he did, but at 
the time economists staked their reputations on the 
“fact” that A) the economy could not grow without 
inflation increasing, and B) it would take almost a 
decade for the economy to recover. They were wrong. 
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Obama’s 
policies. The dire predictions leveled against Obama’s 
program have sadly proved to be true. We are more 
in debt, less confident and more exposed to a coming 
tidal wave of inflation than we have ever been before, 
and things are not getting better. 

 There is still hope, but it lies in a different direction 
than where President Obama and others on the left 
point. Being a progressive sounds great. Who can argue 
with making progress? The critical issue is defining 
what constitutes progress. Any serious definition has 
to include an improving economic situation. Clearly, 
Obama and his fellow travelers haven’t provided that 
and can’t seriously argue that it’s within our grasp now. 
Perhaps when all is said and done, another good cup of 
tea is just what this country needs

HOWARD Hays As I See It

 
“Children are a wonderful gift. They have an extraordinary capacity to see into the 
heart of things and to expose sham and humbug for what they are.”

- Desmond Tutu 

 Before anything else, I’d like you to check out what I would happily consider 
the “last word” on gay marriage. I’ve offered my opinion on the subject a couple of 
times herein, as has my colleague on the right-side of this page. Never, though, have 
I heard the topic addressed with such insight, clarity and eloquence.

 Kameron Slade was to deliver an address before his school in Queens, but the 
principal banned the speech once she became aware of the subject. Instead, the speech was given 
outside for the reporter’s microphone and camera. Thanks to that principal’s action and the internet, 
the speech has now reached more people in more places than it ever would have otherwise. Kameron 
is in the fifth grade.

 You can Google “Kameron Slade”, or check it out at: “http://jezebel.com/kameron-slade”.

 (Keep your laptops handy; there’s another website, on a more personal matter, I’d like you to check 
out at the end of this column.)

 I watched the speech again and marveled at the observations of one so young. I then turned to 
the online edition of last week’s MVN to marvel in a different way at the observations of one a good 
deal older; as our Councilman Chris Koerber fretted that the existence of a local entity with the word 
“green” in its title raises the prospect of subjugation by the United Nations.

 At the June 12 council meeting, Mr. Koerber suggested the “folks at home” should “Google-up 
Forbes-dot-com Agenda 21”. I was a folk at home, so I Googled it up.

 I assume Mr. Koerber was referring to “Agenda 21: The U.N.’s Earth Summit Has Its Head In The 
Clouds”, an opinion piece published in Forbes by “contributor” Larry Bell, a University of Houston 
professor whose specialty is “space architecture”, and recent author of a book on the “Global Warming 
Hoax”. (Mr. Koerber cited the publication date as May 21, 2012, though the article I found was from 
June 14, 2011. The May 21 issue featured a cover story on Justin Bieber.)

 Prof. Bell’s basic argument is that the “global warming” issue is merely a front for the U.N. to pursue 
“wealth redistribution agendas”, “world governance goals” and Mikhail Gorbachev’s “global socialistic 
Marxist objectives” (not to mention a CVS Pharmacy at the site of the old Howie’s Market).

 As for “Agenda 21”, its origins are traced back to the 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and 
Development at Rio de Janeiro. The premise is that while climate change and sustainable development 
are global concerns, they must be addressed at the local level. The work is continued through ICLEI 
– Local Governments for Sustainability, comprised of over 1,220 local governments from 70 different 
countries. One of the founding members was former Irvine mayor Larry Agran, who got together 
with other local leaders in 1989 to discuss depletion of the ozone layer.

 According to Prof. Bell, though, terms such as “comprehensive planning” and “growth management” 
are code words for “global socialism” and “centralized control of virtually every aspect of urban life.”

 On a related topic, a recent Gallup poll shows while 46% of Americans believe God created humans 
in their present form within the past 10,000 years, 58% of Republicans do. Following President 
Obama’s release of his “long form” birth certificate last year, a majority of Republicans still had their 
doubts as to his birthplace, with a third saying he “definitely” or “probably” was born outside the 
country.

 A poll conducted last month by Farleigh Dickinson University of New Jersey found that those who 
rely on Fox News for their information are less informed on domestic and international issues than 
those who watch no news at all. (Those who listen to NPR did best.)

 It’s become an annual tradition; with the first big snowfall of winter, Fox viewers are treated 
to shots of blizzards and snowdrifts accompanied by an explanation that this effectively disproves 
suggestions of “global warming”. It’s also predictable that with a catastrophe like the near-meltdown 
of the Fukushima nuclear reactor following the earthquake and tsunami in Japan last year, hired-gun 
columnists like Forbes’ Prof. Larry Bell will admonish us not to allow New World Order “green” 
activists to exploit events to cast doubt on the wonderfulness of nuclear energy.

 They will warn us not to harbor naïve optimism about inherently impractical energy sources such 
as wind and solar – or anything, for that matter, that might be regarded as clean and renewable.

 With young people being brought closer to the world around them, however, they are becoming 
more aware of deforestation in the Amazon basin, destruction of the Nigerian Delta through 
uncontrolled oil production, the shrinking of the Greenland ice sheet and threats posed by a 
Keystone pipeline to an aquifer providing 30% of our nation’s farmland irrigation. Any suggestion 
that translating such concerns into local action was somehow connected to a United Nations power-
grab would be regarded, in the words of Desmond Tutu, as “sham and humbug” (though the young 
people themselves might have different words).

 Also, as shown by Kameron Slade, they know that if your message is the right one, it can reach the 
world – no matter what your school’s principal thinks about it.

 Now, here’s that other website:

 http://www.indiegogo.com/saxonfilm

 I told my son Anthony I’d send it to all my friends, and ask them to send it on to theirs. I consider 
readers of my column to be my friends – especially those who make it all the way to the end.

THE REPORTER INTERRUPTING 
OBAMA: LOWERING THE BAR AGAIN

Independent’s Eye by Joe Gandelman

If a reporter from an ideologically-anchored publication interrupts a President 
by shouting out questions right in the middle of his statement and it’s 
unprecedented, will some partisans immediately rush to his side to defend the 
reporter and claim this is the way real, respectable, professional journalists 
operate? Yep. 

Will all his fellow partisans defend him? Happily: Nope. But once again the bar 
has been lowered on how political business is conducted in the United States – lowered so far that the 
sharks are now ordering Bloody Marys.

The bar was lowered on June 15 when The Daily Caller reporter Neil Munro interrupted President 
Barack Obama as Obama was delivering a statement on his administration’s historical immigration 
policy shift. Munro later claimed he didn’t intend to interrupt, but at least one journalist there insists 
it was clear he did and video confirms that view.

Munro yelled a question akin to one that would be screeched by an 
ideological cable talk show host: “Mr. President, why do you favor 
foreign workers over Americans?” The defenders ( the green-card 
carrying) Munro, including his enabling, cheering-section boss 
Tucker Carlson, later defended his question, equating Munro with 
retired ABC newsman Sam Donaldson’s shout outs to President 
Reagan. Donaldson told The Huffington Post: "Never once did I interrupt 
a president in any way while he was making a formal statement, 
a speech, honoring awardees or in any other way holding the 
floor."

In reality, Munro wasn’t emulating Donaldson. He seemed to be 
channeling the late, obnoxious Morton Downy, Jr. Some conservatives 
later got footage showing Reagan interrupted as he was turning 
a podium over to someone else. But the bottom line is authentic 
journalists at all media levels and political persuasions have never 
screamed out questions at public officials who are speaking, even if 
they don’t think they’re getting answers.

If journalists interrupted every politician they felt was not being 
candid answering questions, politicians would have to learn to sign 
and mime. And Mitt Romney – who evaded Bob Schieffer’s question 
several times about what whether he’d rescind Obama’s immigration 
order -- would be the first in line.

The larger issue is that we’re again seeing the bar lowered on expected 
and “given” behaviors in American discourse in the never 
ending partisan struggle for power and political dominance. It’s not 
just about civility. It’s about being willing to listen to another point 
of view without trying to drown someone out, keep him from making 
an argument, or demonizing him.

If this behavior is allowed to stand and not totally repudiated, then 
it will occur again. And if it does, say goodbye to any vestige of 
politicians or leaders being allowed to finish statements or speeches 
without being interrupted by some loudmouth who wants to advance 
his career, or who has a political axe to grind, or who has an 
editor who realizes that notoriety brings hits, readership and audience 
share from many like-minded, angry partisans.

Reporters everywhere let officials deliver speeches and public statements 
and ask questions after. When I was a reporter in Spain, India, 
Baja California, California and Kansas, not one American or 
foreign reporter would ever interrupt an official speech or statement 
because they were there to gather information -- not to halt 
information that was being given. 

Top conservative media types (Michael Medved, Bill O’Reilly, Bill 
Kristol, and Chris Wallace) were critical of Munro and Carlson. 
Meanwhile, CNN”s Don Lemon did a withering piece taking Munro 
and Carlson to task – even asking Carlson how he would have 
liked it if someone had interrupted him when he was performing 
on “Dancing with the Stars.” 

And Carlson? His descent from a once promising young, serious 
conservative pundit into partisan hackery was complete when he 
told Fox News’ Andy Levy that he was “proud” of Munro and not 
worried about “thinking through the consequences for society.” 
(Oh.)

Due to his being an editor who enables and encourages his reporters 
to discard worldwide standards of journalistic behavior, I suspect 
the even the sharks wouldn’t let Carlson sit at their bar far 
below.

 They’d tell him to go jump in the lake -- and sit with the crappies.


REMEMBERING MY FATHER by Christopher Nyerges

When my father’s 80th birthday 
coincided with Father’s Day 
some years ago, I wrote a pictorial 
booklet for my father which 
outlined key aspects of our life 
together. It was my way of thanking 
my father. My wife Dolores 
and I went to his home after the 
wild cacophonous family gathering 
had ended. We didn’t want 
an audience in an atmosphere 
of laugher, sarcasm, and possibly 
ridicule. I only wanted to 
share the thank you story with 
my father in a somewhat serious 
atmosphere. 

Dolores and I brought some special foods, put on some music, and 
I began my short presentation beginning with my earliest significant 
memories. I shared with him my memories of how he told me 
I would be an artist when I grew up. He always told me to put my 
bike and toys away, so "the boogeyman" wouldn’t steal them. As 
I grew older, I learned that the world was indeed full of very real 
"boogeymen" and my father attempted to provide me with ways to 
protect myself against these unsavory elements of life. 

I recalled to my father, while my mother and Dolores listened on, 
the birthday party adventures, getting hair cuts in the garage, and 
how my father tolerated my interest in mycology and wild edibles. 

Everyone found the recounting amusing, even funny, but there 
were also tears mixed with the laughter. As with most memories, 
some things my father recalled quite differently from me, and some 
he didn’t recall at all. Some things that I saw as life-and-death serious, 
he saw as humorous, and vice versa. 

But above it all, I felt I’d finally "connected" with him at age 80 in 
a way that I’d never managed to do before. My "fathers day card" 
wasn’t pre-made by a card company, but consisted of my own private 
and secret memories that I shared with him. I managed to 
thank him for doing all the things that I took for granted – a roof 
over my head, meals, an education, a relatively stable home. 

Of course, all our family members – "insiders" – knew that my father 
was no saint. But I was at least acknowledging the good, and 
sincerely thanking him for it. 

My mother died two years later, and we all knew my father would 
be lost without her. They’d been married over 50 years. His health 
and activities declined and he finally passed away on the Ides of 
March a few years later. 

Though his death did not come as a surprise – I was nevertheless 
left feeling his absence. That early Saturday morning when I learned 
of his death, I even felt parent-less. My view of the world changed 
and I was forced to acknowledge the limits of life and the futility of 
pursuing solely a material existence. 

After I learned of his death via a phone call, I walked out into the 
morning rain, in shock, crying, thinking, remembering. I was not 
feeling cold or wet, and somehow I was protected by that unique 
state of mind that enshrouded me. 

During the next three days, I did as I had done with my mother 
when she died. I spent the next three days reviewing my life with 
my father. 

At first I allowed the random memories and pain to wash over me. 
I talked to Frank constantly during those three days, inviting and 
allowing him to be with me as we did the life review together. I felt 
his pain, his frustration, his emptiness and loneliness in his last few 
years of life. I did nothing to stop the pain of this – I allowed myself 
to feel it all. 

I spoke to Frank as I’d speak to anyone living. I felt his presence and 
even his responses. I did this for myself as much as for Frank and 
his on-going journey. 

I began to see him as a young man, who met, fell in love, and married 
my mother. Somehow, this was a major revelation to me. I had 
never seen my own father in that light before. He had simply been 
"my father." Suddenly, he was a unique individual, with his own 
dreams, aspirations, and goals. Amazingly, I’d never viewed him in 
this way during our life together. 

And then, after perhaps 12 hours of this, and miles of walking, I 
began a more chronological review of my life with my father, point 
by point by significant point. I saw his weaknesses and strengths, as 
well as my own. As I did this review, I looked for all the things that 
I’d done right with my father, all the things I’d done wrong, and all 
the things that I could have done better. I wrote these down, and 
the "wrong" list was shockingly long. The "right" list only contained 
a few items! 

I asked my father to forgive me, and I resolved to do certain things 
differently in order to change and improve my character. I know I 
would not have imposed such a rigor upon myself had it not been 
for the death of my father. 

A week later, when there was the funeral at the church, I felt that I’d 
come to know my father more than I ever was able to do in life. I 
briefly shared to the congregation my three days of "being with" my 
father, and learning what it was like to be Frank, in his shoes, and 
how we forgave one another. 

More importantly, I shared to family and friends gathered that day 
the importance of constantly finding the time to tell your living 
loved ones that you indeed love them, not waiting until they die to 
say the things that you should be saying all along. 

I remember Frank now on Father’s Day, and continue to express 
my heart-felt thanks for all that he – and my mother – gave to me.


[Nyerges is the author of “Til Death Do Us Part?”, “How to Survive 
Anywhere,” and other books. He is the director of the School of 
Self-reliance, and a member of WTI Inc. He can be reached at Box 
41834, Eagle Rock, CA 90041 or www.ChristopherNyerges.com.]