For Our Grandchildren's Sake

by Pat Berkheim

Contributing Writer

 

I submit the following because of my concern for the country in which my grandchildren will grow up.

Guns in our country are a problem. Many other countries do not endure the gun deaths that the United States sustains because they greatly restrict ownership of guns. Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Japan, France, and Spain are examples of democracies in which the citizens enjoy the same freedoms as our citizens except for guns. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment allows an American to have a gun in their home. But the court has not ruled that there is a right to have any weapon, and any ammunition in any place you choose. If you own a gun, please have this conversation with yourself: Why do you own a gun? Guns are for killing.

Do you own a handgun? Why do you own a handgun? Handguns are for killing people. Are you planning to kill people or would you kill a person? You may use your handgun at a range but that gun is made to kill people. Is your handgun at your home? If that gun is fired in your home there is 95% chance that it will kill you, someone you love, or someone you know, not a stranger? Do you own an automatic handgun with a high capacity magazine so you can kill more people, quicker?

Do you own an assault or military style weapon? Why? These weapons are made to kill large numbers of people. Are you planning to kill a large number of people or think it will be necessary to defend yourself from an attack by a large number of people by killing them with your assault weapon? Do you own high capacity ammunition clips? Why?

The Supreme Court has not ruled that I must trust a gun owner.

Clint Eastwood

I Thought I Knew Ya

Dear Clint,

 Why? Why did you choose to speak for and on behalf of the Republican party at their convention? No, I'm not talking about the empty chair, the impolite references pretending Obama is telling you to "____ yourself." I'm not talking about why you chose to face the country with a performance that was not thought through clearly and for which you had not properly prepared. I'm wanting to know why you would stand up and say anything supporting this group of people and the political and social platforms they are espousing.

 Clint, I have been told that you are pro choice when it comes to women's health care decisions. And yet there you stood defending a Party that considers your position to be immoral. Not wrong, but flat out immoral.

 Clint, I have been told you are in favor of gay rights including the right  for gays to marry. Yet, this Party whose ascendancy to power you regal says your position here, too, is immoral.

 Not only that. Your Party enthusiastically endorses Tony Perkins and his Family Research Council who has stated that pedophilia is caused by homosexuality and who opposes anti bullying campaigns that target gay teens.

 It's okay to bully gays!? Really, Clint? These are your people?

 Clint, you criticized Obama for not getting out of Afghanistan more quickly. But, Clint, he has a timetable for doing so. Yet the position of your Party has been critical of his efforts in this regard referring to it as "cut and run." And, if they were to have their way we could easily find ourselves in more Middle East conflicts such as Iran.

 Not to mention that it was your Party that got us into Iraq costing precious dollars and even more precious lives in search of non existent weapons of mass destruction.

 Clint, why?

 
I thought I knew your values, Clint, from your movies.
 

In Gran Torino the message seemed to be one that fosters an openness to American immigrants and not the xenophobia often expressed by your Party.

 In Invictus the power of forgiveness was celebrated which seemed far afield from the speeches of hate coming from the Republican podium.

 In J. Edgar we saw how the dangers of ego and the overstepping of government can result in diminishing individual liberties in the name of national security. This has been a fear expressed often by the left and defended by the right.

 In Million Dollar Baby we saw how decisions concerning end of life are not painted in clear colors of black and white. Yet, here you stood proclaiming an alliance for a Party who insists that such is a certainty. And, it is their certainty. Is it your certainty as well?

 Clint, you stood before a cheering throng whose convention motto was: "We Built It", which was a counter point to Obama's assertion that we owe who, what, and where we are to not only our individual efforts, but also from the support and help of others.

 Clint, you come from an industry that requires the work of ensemble acting blended with countless crew members. You cannot make your films with out financing from others, distribution networks, and a myriad of movie houses.

 And yet here you stood behind a banner that is the antithesis of your life's work.

 So, Clint, I don't know what to think.

 I know you're very wealthy and the very wealthy will be benefited more by the Republican agenda than by the Democratic one. But I can't believe you would put personal greed over personal values.

 Perhaps you are simply unaware of the policies for which the Republican party stands. Perhaps it is just the fact that you have always been a Republican and, therefore, will always be a Republican. Perhaps you are unaware of how it has been taken over by the extreme right. Perhaps you were unaware of you Party's platform and assumed it reflected the Party of its past.

 Well, Clint, it doesn't. It is no longer the Party of Lincoln.

 Or, maybe I have been wrong about you. Those pictures and values I admired did not really reflect who you really are. On that point I hope I'm wrong.

 And, if I am wrong, then why, Clint, why?

 

Sincerely,

A Disillusioned Fan

Wouldn't it be nice

 

By Dennis McClatchey

Wouldn't it be nice to live in a country where striving to benefit the common good was seen as a virtue, and selfish greed was seen as a vice.

 Wouldn't it be nice to live in a country where "America the melting pot" was viewed as a positive metaphor and not a negative one. Where diversity of races, cultures and religions was seen as a strength not as an inconvenience or threat. Where "Give us your poor, you tired, your huddled masses longing to be free" was not just an empty cliché but was truly felt.

 

Wouldn't it be nice to live in a country where we tried to preserve and enhance a citizen's rights not strike them down just because some are different. Where we encourage voting and make it more convenient rather than building barriers preventing qualified voters from exercising this precious privilege.

 Wouldn't it be nice to live in a country where we really cared about the poor and disadvantaged instead of seeing them as lazy and undeserving? And where minority religions and people without a faith are considered just as patriotic as all others.

 Wouldn't it be nice to live in a country where certain rights were so important that they could not be taken away by the majority. Where judicial courts decided cases based on the law not political persuasion.

 Wouldn't it be nice to live in a country where those who chose public works as a profession were revered not demagogue. Where the less fortunate had equal access to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as do the most fortunate.

 Wouldn't it be nice to live in a country where science was greeted with marvel and was appreciated for providing greater understanding of the universe in which we all live, and not seen as black magic intended to destroy ones faith. Where intellect, education, and critical thinking are revered and not ridiculed as elitism.

 Wouldn't it be nice to live in a country where country does come before politics, where compromise was something politicians strived to achieve instead of refusing to meet the other party half way.

 Wouldn't it be nice to live in a country where we work to preserve our environment for future generations. Where we place as much importance on regulations to ensure breathable air, unpolluted drinking water, and untainted foods as we do in enhancing corporate profits.

 Wouldn't it be nice.

WWSD

By Pat Berkheim

Contributing writer

What would Superman do? What would the defender of truth, justice and the American Way do. Does truth, justice, and the American Way imply more than every man for himself? Would Superman support government help for those in need?

"Governments are instituted among men from the consent of the governed to secure for the governed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," The American way attempts to strike a balance between liberty and equality. Our government has a role in finding this balance. Extreme individual liberty creates inequality and a lack of justice. Patrick Henry cried "give me liberty or give me death" because he did not want government to infringe on his"right" to keep slaves. Extreme equality creates no incentive to pursue happiness and no justice of reward for the exceptional in our society.

The people of the United States established the constitution "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

The American Way provides our representatives with the authority and responsibility to make laws that provide justice for all, especially the poor, children and the elderly. Laws that promote the general welfare should aide the education and health of the citizens. Citizens disagree about what the laws should be but, as Jefferson said, "every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. To violate the laws' equal protection of the minority would be oppression."

John F. Kennedy said "if a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." I think Superman would support an American Way that includes social security, gender equality, and health care for everyone.

Dear Kirk Cameron: Homosexuality is Not Unnatural!

By Dennis McClatchey

Kirk Cameron, star of the 1980's sit com "Growing Pains," made news recently with his comments on homosexuality on CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight. According to Mr. Cameron, homosexuality is "unnatural"..."detrimental"...and "destructive...to the foundations of civilization."

 

To be expected, those words created a chorus of outrage and support from many quarters. To those of us who found his notions outrageous he blames Piers Morgan. You see, poor Kirk came on the show simply to promote his documentary "Monumental" not to discuss his personal views on social issues. Although he holds steadfastly to those views and has gone on the Today show and Fox and Friends to repeat them while blaming Piers Morgan for giving his insights a platform.

 

First, why should we care what Kirk Cameron says? Second, he has a right to his opinion and a right to express that opinion when asked about it.

 

True. But, when someone says something that I feel is wrong, detrimental, and destructive that same right prevails. So, I choose to exercise my right to speak out in protest.

Homosexuality is not unnatural. Anything that occurs in nature is, by definition, natural. And, even Cameron has to accept the fact that homosexuality does occur in nature. Perhaps, though, to a greater degree than he realizes.

Naturalists have witnessed and documented same sex behavior in: Bisons, Brown Bears, Brown Rats, Caribous, domestic Cats, domestic Cattle, Chateaus, Chimpanzees, Dolphins, Marmosets, Dogs, Elephants, Foxes, Giraffes, Goats, domestic Horses, Lions, Orcas, Raccoons, barn Owls, Chickens, Gulls, Emus, King Penguins, Mallards, Ravens, Seagulls, and the list goes on and on and on.

 You see homosexuality is not just a phenomenon among us homo sapiens. (That's right. We are all homos, homo sapiens, that is)

 So, we can easily prove, through science, that being gay is not unnatural. Okay, it is the exception not the norm. But where does it say being exceptional is bad?

 Oh, I'm sure Kirk and his minions would prefer the word abnormal when describing gay behavior. Fair enough. But, being left handed would be considered abnormal with right handedness being the norm. Does that make south paws evil? Of course not.

 In order for homosexuality-or anything for that matter- to be evil or immoral it must first be a choice. It must be part of our free will. While science is still trying to sort out the question of whether homosexuality is nature or nurture, it seems clear that choosing to be gay is as logical as choosing to be straight.

 

Now, I don't know about Kirk, but for me being straight was not something that required a great deal of thought. When I became sexually driven-a time not by choice but by hormones-I did not have to set out a piece of paper, draw a vertical line down the middle and jot on one side the advantages of being gay and on the other side of the page the advantages of being straight.

 Let's see, I can be straight. I can date openly. I can marry and enjoy all the rights and privileges that society extends to married couples.

Or, I can be gay which may require keeping my love partner a secret, become estranged from my family, church, and friends. I would not be allowed to marry, open myself up to ridicule, being called a deviant, labeled as immoral by a 1980's sit com star, and possibly being bullied, beaten, and murdered.

 Oh boy, that gay life is for me! Please.

 
I am straight because I am and always have been attracted to the opposite sex. And, I trust it is the same kind of urges and desires that drives a gay person to his/her desired partner.
 

But, as long as we have the likes of Kirk Cameron judging and denouncing a gay person's orientation, there will be those who find comfort in calling out and hurting a person based on who that person loves.

As long as we allow the uneducated and the uncaring to classify gays as "unnatural, detrimental, and destructive to the foundations of civilization" we will continue to see young people confused, ashamed, and suicidal.

And, to me, that is about as evil as one can be.

Hey Rush--Do You Really Want To Complain About Paying For Contraceptives?

By Dennis McClatchey

Okay Rush, let me see if I understand this. You are outraged if your health plan is forced to pay for some woman's contraceptives. Right?

 Poor Rush. Why should he have to pony up a portion of his health premium dollar so some college kid can have sex? And, oh yes, even if the contraceptive is used for non sexual but medically necessary purposes, that matters little. I mean, he doesn't have ovaries. Why should he kick in bucks to save some "slut's" sex organs?

 So here sits cigar smoking Rush Limbaugh who is clearly and considerably over weight, a habit and condition that can likely lead to diabetes (if it hasn't already), cardio vascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, wearing a Cochlear implant-- a surgical procedure costing north of $50,000-- required because of a hearing loss due to his abuse of prescription drugs.

Here he sits complaining that his health plan will be required to fork out money for contraception. Rush, is that really an argument you want to have given your sorry state of health resulting from your sorry lifestyle choices which will result in higher health insurance premiums to cover your soon to be experienced health problems for all those who share your health plan? Do you really want to go there?

Birth control pills cost between $160 to $600 annually. Hey, one Cochlear implant would pay for 80 to 300 years of contraceptives. What a deal. And, listen to this Rush, birth control reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies which reduce the number of abortions. Good, don't you think?

And, if access to these pills is only available to those who can afford them, then the poor will not have access which means more children will likely be born into poverty placing greater strain on our welfare safety net. Bad, don't you think?

 And something else, Rush. The more a woman has sex does not translate into a requirement that she take more birth control pills. Apparently you missed the film we kids got to see in junior high. But, I bet if you ask nicely and politely some female friend will be happy to explain to you where babies come from and how her reproductive system really works.

Good luck!

Libertarian--Just Another Word for Selfish!

By Dennis McClatchey

If you search the Internet in an effort to discover the core principles of what it means to be a Libertarian, you are apt to find the following as a representative sample.

The Libertarian Party web sit. “maximum freedom-limited government.”

The Libertarianism web site. “Libertarians strive for a free, peaceful, abundant world where each individual has the maximum opportunity to pursue his or her dreams and to realize his full potential.”

Boy, that sounds great, doesn’t it. I mean who can fault the pursuit of freedom and liberty. After all, it’s the American way. Sounds simple, right? Yes, and that’s exactly the problem. Because simple it’s not.

First, this philosophy is founded on the notion that the larger government becomes, the less freedom each of us enjoys. That certainly can be true for some forms of government. But what if the government is established to protect the liberty and freedom of all Americans? I would argue that the smaller, and therefore weaker, a government becomes, the less able it is to protect, maintain, and ensure our individual freedoms and liberties.

But let’s get to what is really at the heart of what it means to be a Libertarian by examining some motives and positions of a few of its stalwarts.

Tom Delay, the former U.S. House Majority Whip, is legendary for many things. But of interest here is what motivated him and drove him into politics in the first place. As well as being known as the “hammer” through his rough and tough dealings as Whip, he was first known as “the Exterminator.” You see, Tom owned a Texas pest control business. And he didn’t cotton to the government telling him what poisons he could and could not use.

So for Tom, the dilemma of choosing between what’s best for the common good and what was best for him, Tom chose, me, me, me. And he did so in the name of liberty.

Rand Paul, freshman Senator from Kentucky and a Tea Party darling, as well as avid Libertarian was interviewed by Rachael Maddow on MSNBC where he not only criticized parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he said if he had been in the Congress at the time he would have worked to defeat it as it was written.

In explaining his position he made reference to laws restricting people from entering certain establishments carrying concealed weapons. His logic went like this. If a business owner can be allowed to prevent a gun carrying customer into his establishment, then he should be allowed to prevent anyone from entering for any reason, including race.

Of course the obvious problem with this argument is, the gun owner can still enter the establishment if he leaves his gun at home. It is a bit more tricky for one to leave ones ethnicity at home. The comparison does not present equivalent circumstances.

For Senator Paul the liberty dilemma is seen thusly. Liberty of the business owner to restrict service for any reason including race versus the liberty of an American to access services regardless of race. The answer: the business owner’s liberty trumps the individual’s liberty.

His views are not that surprising considering the views of his father, Ron Paul, U.S. Representative from Texas, professed Libertarian, and perennial Presidential candidate.

On the 40^th anniversary of passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Rep. Paul rose before the chamber to declare that the Act did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Rather, he proclaimed that it increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

To me this comment is most revealing as to the true nature of the Libertarian character. Yes, federal integration laws produced increased tension as minorities began exercising the freedoms promised them by the constitution because many white segregationist wanted Jim Crow laws to remain. This resulted in tension. Tension bad.

So, for Rep. Paul his liberty dilemma is seen thusly. The freedom of all Americans regardless of race to exercise the freedoms guaranteed under the constitution versus the freedom of white racists to discriminate against these very Americans thereby decreasing tension. For Rep. Paul the call goes with the racist. But, only as a matter of principle you understand. You see, he personally doesn’t care for racists.

Rep. Paul has some problems even with the core of the Libertarian principle. You see, Paul is a pro lifer. That’s fine. He is entitled to oppose abortion and considering his previous career as an obgyn physician, it is an understandable position.

But, to favor restrictions in a woman’s right to choose her health care reproduction decisions is not a Libertarian position. Oh, I know his reasoning. He believes life begins at conception. So, for him it is a moral issue. But, for many women, the right to make these decisions is a moral issue, as well. So, for Paul, it’s a question of whose morals we choose. His answer: mine, mine, mine.

Apparently Rep. Paul is opposed to the government interfering in our personal lives except in those instances where he feels the government should interfere in our personal lives. You call that being principled?

The problem is, it is not liberty these people are promoting. It is only their liberty on their terms when it conforms to their moral beliefs that defines their position.

And that is selfish. And, that is not the American way!