LEFT TURN/RIGHT TURN
B5
Mountain Views News Saturday, July 6, 2013
HOWARD Hays As I See It
From The Right
TOM Purcell
“I can’t
really picture a
female governor
surrounded
by women,
signing a bill
that mandates a
colonoscopy for
any man who wants a prescription
for Viagra.”
- Randi Rhodes
President Obama Tweeted,
“Something special is happening
in Austin tonight”, followed by a
link to the live video feed from the
Texas Statehouse, and the Twitter
ID “#STANDWITHWENDY”.
There were 200,000 viewers
tuned into that feed a week ago
last Tuesday, as State Sen. Wendy
Davis (D) stood for eleven hours
to filibuster the state’s effort to
assert jurisdiction over one of the
most personal decisions a woman
can make. Senate allies held the
floor for an additional two hours
and then, as the clock ticked
down, some 700 supporters in the
gallery made sure the midnight
deadline passed without a vote.
SB5 was intended to deprive
Texas women of autonomous
control over their reproductive
decisions and access to
reproductive healthcare; except
for those able to afford one of
the top metropolitan hospitals or
travel out of state. The number
of facilities state-wide providing
abortion services would drop
from 42 to 5. It would criminalize
abortions after 20 weeks of
pregnancy. (In California, the
cut-off is when the fetus becomes
viable – to be determined by
doctors, not politicians.)
The bill failed that night, but
within hours Gov. Rick Perry (R)
called another special session to
bring it up again and this time
gets it passed. He gave a speech to
supporters in which he reminded
that Sen. Davis was the daughter
of a single, teen-age mother, and
then became a single, teen-age
mother herself – before going on
to earn a Harvard law degree and
serve as a Texas State Senator. “It
is just unfortunate that she hasn’t
learned from her own example”.
Sen. Davis argues it’s not a matter
of choices she has made, or that
other women have made, but
of protecting the right of every
woman in Texas to make those
choices for herself. As for the
governor’s remarks, “They are
small words that reflect a dark
and negative point of view. Our
governor should reflect our Texas
values. Sadly, Gov. Perry fails that
test.”
For a legislative hearing last
week, Republican leadership ruled
that no more than 140 members
of the public would be allowed
to speak, though over 1,900 had
signed up to testify. They chose
a room with only 67 seats; a third
already reserved for lawmakers
and media. Republican leadership
refused Democratic requests
to allow more Texans to have
their say in front of their elected
representatives. Over 5,000
Texans showed up last Monday in
front of the State Capitol to have
their say, anyway.
Over the past couple of weeks,
Sen. Wendy Davis has been the
most visible figure on the issue
of protecting a woman’s right to
make her own choices. Her story
also brings attention to another,
separate issue prominent in the
recent news.
As a Fort Worth City
Councilwoman, Wendy Davis
won her Senate seat in 2008 with
support from her district’s large
black and Hispanic population;
a constituency largely ignored
by the 20-term(!) Republican
incumbent. Davis is white, but as
the daughter of a single mother
with a sixth-grade education, a
divorced, single mom herself at
19 working multiple jobs to get
through college on a scholarship,
“I have a story that’s very similar
to so many people that I see
struggling in the district that I
represent”.
Republicans couldn’t win
elections in their districts, so they
changed the districts. Before
the gerrymandering following
the 2010 census, there were
94 precincts in Davis’ district
that were more than 70%
black and Hispanic. After the
gerrymandering, there were 46.
According to Davis, minorities
“were being separated very
purposely from each other - and
therefore from the power to ever
express their preference at the
ballot box again.”
Wendy Davis went to the U.S.
Dept. of Justice and sued under
Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act. A Federal Court ruled in her
favor, that the state had sought
to dilute the power of minority
voters. The Court saw through
other schemes, that “The map-
drawers consciously replaced
many of the district’s active
Hispanic voters with low-turnout
Hispanic voters in an effort to
strengthen the voting power of
Anglo citizens”. Federal Judges
found that “substantial surgery”
had been performed in largely
black districts.
However many challenges
were brought nation-wide under
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act,
the ones upheld by Federal Courts
during the 2012 election cycle
were in Texas.
An hour before Sen. Wendy
Davis began her filibuster, the
U.S. Supreme Court nullified
Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act. Barely two hours later, the
Texas Attorney General moved to
have those previously disallowed
redistricting maps reinstated.
In addition, new voter-ID laws
would be imposed, where an
expired gun license from another
state would allow one to vote, but
a photo student-ID from a local
university would not.
Texas Republicans will do what
they can to see that Wendy Davis
does not return to office. They
realize changing demographics
are likely to turn Texas blue within
a couple decades, so to delay the
inevitable they’ll suppress the vote
and dilute the influence of groups
threatening their power.
It’s questionable, though, how
long that will be effective. A
bipartisan poll the week of the
filibuster showed 80% of Texans
opposing their legislature’s taking
up the abortion bills, with 71%
saying the focus should be on the
economy and jobs, instead. 74%
feel private decisions about an
abortion should be made by the
woman, her family and her doctor
- not by politicians – and that
includes 61% of Republicans,
Regardless of how they try to
cling to power, Republicans will
see that those 700 supporters
in the gallery, the 5,000 on the
statehouse steps and 200,000 tuned
in to the live video feed are just
the beginning – as more and more
throughout Texas, and throughout
the country, are determined to
#STANDWITHWENDY.
DECLARE INDEPENDENCE FROM GOVERNMENT
In the course of human events it is necessary,
now and again, to reaffirm some of the thoughts
and principles we have lost sight of.
And so it is that we need to renew our independence.
More than 55 percent of Americans now
receive some form of federal government benefit
— and many of us need to get off the dole.
I cite the findings of Richard Vedder, a professor
emeritus of economics at Ohio University and
an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise
Institute.
In The Wall Street Journal, Vedder argues that
more Americans are not only becoming more
dependent on government benefits, but that their
dependence is adversely affecting the growth of
our economy.
Consider: From the mid-17th century to the late
20th century, Vedder says, the American economy's
growth averaged a robust 3.5 percent a year.
Compare that to economic growth for the last
quarter, which was revised down to 1.8 percent.
A key reason for the stumbling economy: Fewer
able-bodied Americans are working because government
programs give them incentive not to.
Vedder offers four examples:
• Food stamps, now known officially as the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program. Approximately
48 million Americans receive food
stamps — 30 million more than in the year 2000.
• Social Security Disability. This program was established
for people with genuine needs, but its
numbers are soaring. In 1990, 3 million Americans
received such payments; today, there are
nearly 11 million — 6 million have been added
since 2009 — despite widely reported fraud and
abuse.
• Pell Grants, which pay people to go to college
instead of entering the workforce. The concept
sounds reasonable enough — educate people so
they get better jobs and pay more taxes — but
Vedder says nearly half of college graduates now
work in jobs that require no college degree.
• Extended unemployment benefits. Vedder says
that since the 1930s, unemployment insurance
has been about lending a short-term hand to
folks losing their jobs. But in the past four years,
the traditional 26-week benefit has grown to a
year or more — peaking
at up to 99 weeks in some
states.
Vedder's argument makes
sense. When government
incentivizes people
to stay home rather than
seek work — when it
gives them the opportunity to avoid jobs where
pay and conditions do not meet their expectations
— they will avoid work, and that will have
a negative impact on the economy for all of us.
Which is why we need a renewed declaration of
independence — from our own government.
The American dream has long been about the
freedom to pursue one's own passion and success
— not about being lured into the trap of getting
by on a variety of federal and state programs.
And make no mistake, many more Americans
are enjoying expensive government goodies —
grants and tax breaks for crony capitalists, health
insurance provided to employees tax-free, low-
interest mortgages and deductions for vacation
homes backed by Uncle Sam, etc. — than we like
to admit, and these costs are killing us.
The American dream requires a robust economy
that affords every American an opportunity to
find meaningful work, but an undisciplined government
carrying high debt and deficits stands in
the way of a robust economy.
Heck, our government was formed to secure our
unalienable rights, among them life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness — not to inhibit them.
If we have any hope of carrying on the American
dream, we have to declare our independence
from government all over again. We all have to
get our hands out of the government cookie jar
and scale back government goodies across the
board.
I hope and pray that we have the will to get our
affairs in order, so that younger generations may
freely pursue their dreams, but I worry plenty
these days. And I wish you a happy Fourth of
July.
Tom Purcell, author of "Misadventures of a 1970's Childhood"
and "Comical Sense: A Lone Humorist Takes on a World Gone
Nutty!" is a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review humor columnist and is
nationally syndicated.
We’d like to hear from you!
What’s on YOUR Mind?
Contact us at: editor@mtnviewsnews.com or www.facebook.com/
mountainviewsnews AND Twitter: @mtnviewsnews
OPINION
HAIL Hamilton My Turn
STUART Tolchin..........On LIFE
TESTS OF MERIT
HOW SERIOUS ARE WE ABOUT NATIONAL
SECURITY?
KABOOM!! Happy
Birthday, America. Another
year has gone by. This is
probably as good a time as any
to look back and reflect upon
some recent changes. Among
the most obvious changes that have occurred
over the last few years are the accepted American
attitudes toward race and homosexuality. The
overall reaction to the rapid acceptance of same-
sex marriage demonstrates the way American
attitudes can change in a very short time. It is
now necessary in polite society to never make
disparaging remarks about gay people and their
right to marry and I agree that this change is
completely appropriate.
The attitude change has been so rapid that not
only is a total acceptance of same sex intimate
relationships required but also it is universally
recognized that individuals that have any problem
with this acceptance are nothing but ignorant
bigots who have no right to be heard in the public
forum. This, I think, can be problematic.
A very similar phenomenon has occurred
regarding discussions of race. The only acceptable
attitude in polite society is to understand that no
race is better than any other. Any individual who
would maintain a different opinion is someone
completely unworthy of respect and should
be shunned. In fact it seems to be common
knowledge that any White person who has ever
used the word, or even uttered it secretly to
himself or herself, is by definition an unrepentant
bigot unworthy of respect.
My own self-respect at this time requires me to
assure you that I am not a racist or a homophobe
and some of my best friends are gay, lesbian,
transsexual people of all colors and ages and
educational levels. Still, this whole judgmental
business really troubles me. It reminds me of a
comment I heard right after college. The comment
was, “he’s cool—he smokes dope.” I knew even
then that “coolness” or any other kind of merit
could not be measured that easily. Character is
a combination of many factors and it cannot be
determined by a one question test. Somehow it all
reminds me of the worst aspects of McCarthyism
when presence at a political meeting decades
earlier demonstrated that a person was a threat to
society and should never be allowed to travel in
the presence of right thinking Americans.
I admit that I am capable of this kind of
overreaction myself. I think organized religions
are manipulative nonsense meant to prey on
ignorant people who are taught not to think
for themselves. I am told that something like
40% of all Americans are fundamentalists who
believe that the stuff written in their Holy Books
is the actual word of the creator. Strangely
though I keep chancing upon devout people
who hold strong religious beliefs and yet are
intelligent, creative, and interesting. Did you see
the Discovery Channel Special showcasing the
tight-rope walker who walked across the Grand
Canyon?
Every third step this guy took involved a Thank
You Jesus or some other comment addressed to the
Almighty. How silly I thought; but after hearing
the post-walk interview I had a different opinion.
The walker explained that he used his religion as
a way of focusing himself. Without his religious
devotion he could not do what he wanted to do
with his life. Of course, for me, walking across
canyons isn’t exactly what I wan to do with my life
but I admire the man’s achievements.
Similarly, I imagine that a good percentage of
the 19 Arizona firefighters recently killed fighting
the Arizona wild fires were devout religious men.
These were brave men committed to performing
a valuable service and their deaths make it clear to
me that individuals should be judged not by some
simple standard but rather by the consideration of
their full lives.
I think the nation has learned a great deal during
the five years of the Obama Administration.
Although we would never want to admit it, many
of us just loved voting for then Senator Obama
for the very reason that he was Black. That was
enough. Well, I think we have all learned that being
Black isn’t enough. Being an effective President
requires a combination of skills, experience, and
luck and maybe all that isn’t enough? Was the
President an unacceptable bigot eighteen months
ago when he admitted that he had a problem with
same-sex marriage? Is he a completely acceptable
person now that he has evolved and changed his
position on this one issue?
Of course, I used the word “evolved” purposely
in the above-paragraph. Can one be an intelligent
person and not accept the theory of evolution
based on current evidence? Similarly can one be
a responsible, rational person and ignore all the
scientific evidence and the continuous run of
calamitous weather that now confronts the world?
Well, based on what I have been saying it seems
clear that no one question can provide sufficient
information to allow for a reasoned judgment but
….. Does all that mean that smoking dope isn’t,
and wasn’t, ever cool?
Granting amnesty, of any
kind to undocumented
immigrants, is not only a
slap in the face to all the legal
immigrants, it is a serious
breach of our national
security. Have we all forgotten that the 9/11
attack was, among other things, a failure of U.S.
immigration policy and FAA security standards.
Although the alleged 9/11 hijackers entered the
U.S. legally, they had all overstayed their visas for
years without ever being asked to leave?
If, as the government claims, these potential
threats to our national security were being
watched, why weren’t they deported? Viewing
the security camera recordings of them boarding
at Logan Airport does say much about our
airport security at the time.
During the past few months I have been
following the debate over the current attempt
at immigration reform. I may be suffering from
a bad case of Alzheimer’s but what I’m hearing
sounds an awfully lot like the 1986 Immigration
Reform and Control Act (IRCA) signed into law
by President Reagan -- An act, according to polls
at the time, most Americans didn’t support.
Not surprising to its critics, the IRCA never
lived up to its promises to:
Require employers to attest to their employees’
immigration status.
Make it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit
unauthorized immigrants.
Legalize certain seasonal agricultural illegal
immigrants.
Legalize illegal immigrants who could prove
they entered the United States before January 1,
1982 and had resided there continuously with the
penalty of a fine, back taxes due, and admission
of guilt.
Sounds familiar doesn’t it? Worse still is
the fact that IRCA has proven an utter failure.
Today the number of undocumented immigrant
living in the U.S., depending on who’s counting,
is estimated between 11 to 22 million! In
California it is estimated that 1 in 10 workers is
undocumented! But I digress.
To repeat, amnesty is a breach of our national
security. Among other things, 9/11 was a colossal
failure of U.S. immigration policy and FAA (now
TSA) security protocols. We are all still paying for
it; our troops are putting their lives on the line
in Iraq and Afghanistan, and wherever else the
War on Terrorism takes them. Yet, our borders
and airports are no more secure than they were
before 9/11.
Recently I watched two documentaries that
changed my thinking about this amnesty-
national security conundrum we find ourselves
in today. These two films illustrate far better than
I can in words the challenges we face as a nation
in the near future.
Dennis Lynch’s They Come To America
(2012) covers it all, and from every perspective:
the undocumented job market, unemployed
American workers, drug smuggling criminals,
ranchers under siege on the border, law
enforcement, activists on both sides. It is clear
there is a violent war being fought along our
southern border between local ranchers and
“coyote-narcotraficantes”. A war all but ignored
by Washington and the mainstream press.
While the Border Patrol visibly enforces
areas near border towns with strong fencing no
there are no agents in locations with inadequate
fencing. As one rancher says, “It’s past being a
joke — it’s deliberate.” Lynch reflects, “We can’t
have ranchers defending America’s border. Yet
they live life like that every day — every single
day.”
Rob DelGaudio’s Please Remove Your
Shoes (2010) is troubling, frightening, film
that examines the Transportation Security
Administration’s (TSA) role as protector of the
American skies, raising serious questions about
the disturbing gap between the federal agency’s
avowed purpose and actual airport safety since
9/11.
It is a story about a broken government process,
and about a dozen public servants who try to fix
it. And it is a familiar topic to all of us who have
flown in the last fifteen years: the security routine
at the airport, first the FAA and now the TSA.
Most importantly, this film asks the question
that should make us all squirm: “Is it safer to
fly to today than it was before 9/11? The short
answer, according to this documentary, is NO!”
So how serious are we about our national
security? Not very, apparently. Which makes me
wonder how serious is the threat of terrorism?
Despite the claims of the last two administrations
that since 9/11 they have successfully prevented
any further terrorist attacks by the fact that none
have happened, only makes me wonder:
If terrorism is such a serious threat to our
national security then why do we allow such lax
border and air transportation security to continue?
It just doesn’t make any sense... any sense at all!
CASH FOR OLD
STUFF
CALL 626-264-2085
|