B4
OPINION
Mountain Views-News Saturday, November 22, 2014
OUT TO PASTOR
A Weekly Religion Column by Rev. James Snyder
Mountain
Views
News
PUBLISHER/ EDITOR
Susan Henderson
CITY EDITOR
Dean Lee
EAST VALLEY EDITOR
Joan Schmidt
BUSINESS EDITOR
LaQuetta Shamblee
PRODUCTION
Richard Garcia
SALES
Patricia Colonello
626-355-2737
626-818-2698
WEBMASTER
John Aveny
CONTRIBUTORS
CoCo Lasalle
Chris Leclerc
Bob Eklund
Howard Hays
Paul Carpenter
Kim Clymer-Kelley
Christopher Nyerges
Peter Dills
Dr. Tina Paul
Rich Johnson
Merri Jill Finstrom
Lori Koop
Rev. James Snyder
Tina Paul
Mary Carney
Katie Hopkins
Deanne Davis
Despina Arouzman
Greg Welborn
Renee Quenell
Ben Show
Sean Kayden
Marc Garlett
CONGRESSMAN SCHIFF
CALLS FOR NEW
WAR AUTHORIZATION
THE EARLY TURKEY GETS THE GOBBLE
I awoke a little groggy
and made my way to
the kitchen only to
be confronted by the
Gracious Mistress of
the Parsonage. There
are times to confront her and then there are
times to run the other way. Being in such
a groggy state of affairs, I was not really
thinking.
"Here is your coffee and breakfast," she said
rather sternly, "go to your study, eat this and
stay out of the kitchen."
As usual, I did what I was told, collected
my breakfast and headed for my study. As
I sat in my chair and started consuming
my breakfast, I suddenly noticed I was
surrounded with an overpowering aroma I
knew was not my breakfast. Until I have had
my first cup of coffee in the morning, I am
really not sure that it is morning.
As the little grey cells begin to wake up
after a half a cup of coffee, it dawned on me
that the aroma was a familiar aroma but I
just could not place it. Then it hit me. It was
Thanksgiving and my wife was preparing
the family Thanksgiving dinner. If this
Thanksgiving preparation time was like
all the times before, I needed to avoid the
kitchen area as much as possible.
Just saying.
When she is in her family Thanksgiving
turkey-roasting mode, I need to stay out of
her way. This is an important history lesson
for me unless I want to be history.
Then she poked her head through the
doorway and said, "I have to go for several
hours, I do not want you to go to the kitchen."
"What if I need another cup of coffee?"
"OK, but that's it. Don't get anywhere near
the turkey. Understand?"
I understood, at least I thought I understood.
I have been married long enough to know
not to take anything for granted when
instructions are coming from your celebrated
spouse. I was going to stand up and salute,
but she disappeared before I could get into
action.
Everything went well for the first half hour.
Then I noticed my coffee cup was empty
and I needed to refill it. I am at the stage of
life where I cannot do anything without my
coffee. I am not addicted to it, but I think it
just might be addicted to me. I cannot afford
a psychiatrist to straighten me out on that
one.
I want everybody to know, my intentions
were good. I was going to go into the kitchen
and get a refill on my coffee and then come
back to my study and resume the project I
was working on. Anyway, that was the plan.
Something happened as I poured my coffee.
I smelled the most wonderful aroma in the
world. I should have stopped myself when I
had the strength, but I did not. I looked in the
direction the aroma was coming and there it
was.
One of the most scrumptious looking roast
turkeys I have seen in my life. There it was
on the counter waiting for the family to
assemble and then dig in.
I can identify with that person who said
that the only thing they cannot resist is
temptation. I guess it all determines on your
definition of temptation.
There it was in all of its glory. The smell was
just overwhelming. I thought that it would
not harm anything if I just went over and had
a closer look at that magnificent delicacy. It
just looked so good.
I then began thinking to myself, I always get
in trouble when I think to myself, what harm
would it be if I just tasted a wee bit of that
turkey? After all, there was plenty of turkey
for everyone.
I pulled off a little sliver of the turkey and
examine it rather carefully and then popped
it in my mouth. Oh, did my taste buds dance
for joy. I was about ready to turn around, get
my coffee and resume my project in my office
when the taste buds clamored for just one
more taste.
After all, what would it harm to have just
one more little sliver?
I am not sure how many little slivers I had,
I lost count, but I thought I had better stop
and go back to my office before I went too far.
About an hour later I heard someone coming
into the house, I knew it must be my wife. I
went back to my work and busied myself.
"Honey," a familiar voice yelled from the
kitchen, "did you get into that turkey?"
It was then that I had one of those "uk-oh"
moments. At first, I did not comprehend
what she was talking about, and then it came
to me that I had devoured several slivers of
the roast turkey. From the tone of her voice I
knew I was in deep "uk-oh" trouble, the kind
of trouble you cannot talk your way out. The
evidence was sorely against me.
After her formidable lecture, she left me to
my solitude to, as she said, "think about what
you just did." As I reflected upon the situation,
I thought of a verse in the Bible. "But if ye will
not do so, behold, ye have sinned against the
Lord: and be sure your sin will find you out"
(Numbers 32:23).
Good intentions have never taken away the
sting of doing something wrong, especially
when you are caught.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), a senior Member of the Intelligence
Committee and author of legislation providing a limited
and narrow authorization for use of military force against
ISIL, sent a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner
calling on him to schedule a debate and vote on a new war
authorization against ISIS during the lame duck session after the midterm election.
During his press conference today, President Obama called for Congress to approve a
new authorization for use of military force against ISIS. The letter is below:
Dear Speaker Boehner:
As you prepare for the session that will close out the 113th Congress, I urge you
to schedule time for consideration of an authorization for the use of military force
(AUMF) against ISIL.
As you know, American forces have been engaged in combat against ISIL since
early August with operations currently underway against targets in both Iraq and
Syria. President Obama has made repeated reports, as required by the War Powers
Resolution, detailing these operations. Now, after three months of presidentially-
directed airstrikes and other activities undertaken to “disrupt, dismantle and defeat”
ISIL, Congress must meet the obligations of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution
by deciding whether to grant the president the power to conduct this new war in the
Middle East.
The use of the 2001 AUMF as legal justification for current the military action
requires an extraordinarily broad and problematic reading of that measure. While
ISIL may share al Qaeda’s hatred for the United States and the West, the group did
not exist in 2001 and had no role in the 9/11 attacks. Nor is ISIL affiliated with or
aiding al Qaeda, having been expressly repudiated by the Zawahiri leadership, and,
despite reports of talks between the two groups, little evidence of an alliance between
them.
Vehement opposition to Bashar al Assad’s brutal government in Syria and the
harshly sectarian policies of Nouri al Maliki in Iraq, not 9/11 or allegiance to Osama
bin Laden, has fueled the rise of ISIL and allowed it to capture a huge swathe of
territory in those two countries. From this redoubt, ISIL threatens tens of millions
and the group’s extreme violence and barbarity, including the recent mass murder of
a Sunni tribe in Iraq’s Anbar province, cannot be underestimated.
I believe that the threat to core American foreign policy interests and our
national security from ISIL is sufficient to warrant military force as an element of a
multifaceted campaign. But, I also believe that no President has the power to commit
the nation’s sons and daughters to war without authorization from Congress. This is
not a decision that can or should wait until 2015; this action was begun during the
sitting of the 113th Congress and it is well within our ability to authorize it properly
before adjourning sine die.
In September I introduced a draft Joint Resolution (HJ Res 125) that provides for
an 18 month authorization for continued airstrikes and limited special operations
activities in Iraq and Syria and against ISIL. While I believe that my proposal merits
consideration, whether it, or some other form of authorization, is ultimately taken
up, the most important thing is for us to do our duty to American people and the
Constitution. I look forward to working with you on this most important issue.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) is a senior member of the House Intelligence
Committee.
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 80 W. Sierra Madre
Blvd., No. 327, 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
TOM Purcell
Exclusive Excerpt from: “Comical Sense: A Lone
Humorist Takes on a World Gone Nutty!” by Tom
Purcell available at Amazon.com
HOWARD Hays As I See It
“Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body
of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of
establishing a controversy.”
(Attribution for the above comes later.)
In his column last week, Greg Welborn expressed doubt about
President Obama’s greenhouse emissions agreement with China. He
had concerns over the “tsunami of new regulations” sure to come
from the president’s commitment to reduce our emissions 28% from
2005 levels by 2025. Those levels had already been reduced 10% as of
2012 – which means to reach the president’s goal we simply have to continue at the pace
we’ve been on the past several years.
Greg also doubts China’s commitment. Back in 2011, China surpassed the U.S. to take
the number one spot as the world’s top producer of wind-generated power. In 2012, China
unilaterally announced plans to quadruple solar energy production by 2015. It’d already
been a world leader in solar manufacturing; now it would turn more of its products over
to domestic use, no doubt spurred by the pollution choking Beijing and Shanghai.
In citing dismal poverty statistics in metropolitan areas of L.A. and San Bernardino
counties, Greg attributes them to the inevitable move of businesses to states with “lower
burdens and costs”. According to the U.S. Census, California’s poverty rate ranks a none-
too-impressive 34th worst out of the 50 states. Some of those states with presumably
“lower burdens and costs”, however, fare worse. There’s Texas (39th), South Carolina
(41st), Kentucky (44th), Arizona (45th) and Louisiana (48th), for example.
It’s hard not to doubt the sincerity of those interests fighting regulations, environmental
or otherwise, as they express concern over “poverty”. They will simultaneously fight
minimum wages and worker protections, while encouraging employees to avail
themselves of food stamps and local charities in order to survive at poverty incomes.
Their aim, though, is to raise doubts about businesses’ being able to continue providing
jobs at all under “excessive” regulations.
There were arguments fifty years ago which raised doubts about the ability of our
nation’s preeminent automobile industry to survive under additional regulations. The
concern was that cars would become so expensive consumers would no longer be able to
afford them, should seat belts, and later air bags, become mandatory.
The tobacco industry also warned of the demise of a legacy American industry in the
face of threatened government regulation. In doing so, its public relations firms developed
strategies that have since been adopted by the fossil fuel industry in its fight against
regulations responding to global warming. Indeed, some of the same parties making the
case for Big Tobacco by raising doubts about medical science decades ago later became
involved in protecting the profits of Big Oil by questioning climate science.
This week’s opening quote is taken from an internal memo of the Brown and
Williamson tobacco company from 1969, reflecting a strategy that had been in the
works since a decade earlier when the connection between cigarettes and cancer became
undeniably established.
As described in a 2007 report from the Union of Concerned Scientists, the strategy
originally developed by the tobacco companies, later replicated by the fossil fuel industry,
included: raising doubts about “even the most indisputable scientific evidence” and
shifting the debate to one over “sound science”; creating front organizations to put out
information favorable to the industry; recruiting members of the scientific community,
regardless of area of expertise, to give the propaganda an air of credibility; and establishing
close ties to government officials and members of Congress.
The enemy is the ”’body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public”; accepted
realities such as that seat belts are a necessary safety feature, cigarettes cause cancer,
global warming is a threat demanding action, and sending Canadian crude through our
agricultural heartland to Louisiana for shipment overseas is a dumb idea.
Last week on Fox News, columnist Jonah Goldberg took a page from the tobacco
industry’s decades-old playbook by casting doubt on the veracity and motivation of
climate scientists; accusing them of being “deeply invested in the whole industry of global
warming”, and “financially incentivized to go one way.”
Goldberg appeared as a “fellow” of the American Enterprise Institute, a front group for
fossil fuels like those formed to protect tobacco interests half a century ago. AEI took $3
million from ExxonMobil from 2001 through 2011 and another quarter million in 2012.
The Guardian reported in 2007 that AEI offered $10,000 to scientists and economists
who’d write articles that would “emphasize the shortcomings” of the UN’s report on
climate change – to raise doubts.
The front groups backing the Keystone XL pipeline have apparently given up trying to
suggest it has anything to do with gas prices or energy independence. The “body of fact”
recognizes that oil is not a national resource, but a privately-manipulated commodity in a
global marketplace, with the Saudis now threatening to curtail production in response to
our low prices and record-high production.
But now doubt in the wisdom of letting it die has been raised, because we’d be
sacrificing much-needed jobs. First there were estimates of 42,000 jobs at stake. Then it
was down to 4,000 with qualifiers that this includes both “direct and indirect” jobs, most
temporary and lasting no more than a couple years. Finally, there’s the admission that
full-time permanent jobs will ultimately number about fifty.
It’s been part of my lifelong liberal DNA to “question authority”, to doubt. It’s also
clear that raising doubt has long been a strategy of those trying to discount basic science,
such as the link between tobacco and cancer and between carbon emissions and global
warming, and ignore basic history, such as the ideology and policies that brought us the
Great Recession as differentiated from those that brought us out of it.
There’s no doubt about that.
FOR THANKSGIVING -
PASS THE CIVILITY
It’s bound to happen at Thanksgiving
tables across America: A progressive liberal
Democrat discovers he's sitting next to a
conservative Republican.
There’s no need for mashed potatoes to fly.
Harry Stein, an author, columnist and
contributing editor to the political magazine
City Journal, offers advice on how to navigate
the situation.
Stein, an erstwhile ‘60’s radical who evolved
into a conservative, faced a similar dilemma
at a dinner party a few years ago.
When the guest next to him discovered his
conservative/libertarian thinking, the fellow
said loudly, "I can’t believe I’m sitting next to
a Republican!"
"It was," says Stein, "as if I was wearing not
only a white hood, but a Nazi armband."
So accustomed had Stein become to
such broadsides -- common experiences
for conservatives living in progressive
bastions -- he wrote a humorous book on
the subject: "I Can't Believe I'm Sitting
Next to a Republican: A Survival Guide for
Conservatives Marooned Among the Angry,
Smug, and Terminally Self-Righteous."
So what to do when bipolar political
philosophies are seated next to each other at
the Thanksgiving table?
Make a concerted effort to get beyond "straw
man" stereotypes.
"In theory, liberalism is predicated on
openness to varied perspectives, but talk to
lots of liberals and what you’ll hear is that
all conservatives are greedy, hardhearted
knuckle draggers," says Stein. "To them,
'conservative' is another way of saying
‘warmongering,’ ‘racist,’ ‘homophobic,’ not
to mention ‘aching to wipe out every last
polar bear for the sake of Big Oil.’"
Who wouldn't loathe a fellow with beliefs
like that?
The truth is conservatives, just as liberals,
come in all shapes and sizes; many are
as nuanced, complex and thoughtful as
anybody else.
The truth is
progressives and
conservatives agree
with each other
more than they are
aware.
"Discovering the common ground can only
occur when discussions proceed in a logical
and factual manner," says Stein. "If you
want to argue a point and demonstrate the
truthfulness of your position, be sure to have
your facts straight."
Stein gave one example pertaining to the
health care debate.
"Some progressives believe that conservatives
are simply dupes of the insurance industry
stampeded by phony propaganda, and, yes,
that we are racists," he says. "The fact is, it’s
a lot easier to name-call than deal with our
arguments, starting with the likelihood that
not only will a government takeover of health
care have devastating effects on the economy,
but it will not be good for health care."
Another example: Some progressives believe
that conservatives could not care less about
the poor.
"What we believe is that conservative polices,
such as tax incentives to hire, are a great
deal more beneficial to the poor than the
polices that came out of the Great Society,"
says Stein. "Such policies encouraged women
to raise children without fathers. Today, in
some communities, 70 percent of children
are born to single mothers."
Stein used to think it best to avoid such
discussions at the Thanksgiving table, but his
position has changed over the years.
"We are facing a lot of challenges in our
country and we really need to discuss them
in a civil and thoughtful manner."
Still, if you’re a conservative and fearful of
being discovered, Stein says, you may want
to plan ahead.
"You might want to sit beside a large liberal
behind whom you can duck in case the
mashed potatoes fly."
Mountain Views News
Mission Statement
The traditions of
community news-
papers 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.
Mountain Views News 80 W Sierra Madre Blvd. No. 327 Sierra Madre, Ca. 91024 Office: 626.355.2737 Fax: 626.609.3285 Email: editor@mtnviewsnews.com Website: www.mtnviewsnews.com
|