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!

Fire Sale - The Free Market Fire Department

By Pat Berkheim
Contributing Writer

All products best serve people if they are privately run and controlled by the free market, not!

*The free market has ups and downs - not allowing consistent fire department services.


*The cost of duplicate equipment for competing fire departments would drive the cost of protection to extreme levels.


*Some fire departments would not be able to maintain a profit margin - they would cut services or go out of business leaving gaps in protection. The free market says this is the cost of doing business but before a new service could be obtained the risk is unacceptable.


*The rich would have excellent fire department service. The poor would have little or no service.


*Some fire departments would refuse to protect difficult costumers. There would be people unable to buy protection because of the high cost or flat refusal of any fire department to provide protection.


* Neighbors may opt for no coverage creating a high risk for those living around them. Driving the price higher for those wanting to purchase fire protection.


*The fire department would be motivated to provide service driven by a bottom line or profit for share holders.

If you concede that the fire department is a moral obligation for a government to provide in a not for profit setting, then the free market is not the solution for providing all products and services. The free market will always swing to benefit the wealthy. This is not acceptable for products and services that all citizens have the moral right to equally receive.



Editor’s note: If you doubt the accuracy of this, Just for kicks substitute Fire Department for health care services. See any similarities to reality?

The Three Musketeers of Capitalism

By Pat Berkheim
contributing writer

Capitalism needs to be "all for one and one for all". Capitalism as a total free market is unrealistic. Every man for himself produces winners and losers, an unjust two class economic society. Communism produces a two class society of powerful bureaucrats and unmotivated workers and therefore is also unrealistic.

"All for one" means the populace supports the efforts and success of outstanding citizens, encouraging them to produce and lead the way. Like the team being thrilled by the individual efforts of a star running back scoring and helping the team to victory. Also supporting the star's reward of publicity, popularity, and gratuity knowing that these will reflect well on the team.

"One for all" means the entrepreneur realizes his success was not totally an individual accomplishment. Both circumstance and group effort probably contributed to the final result. Like the star running back who gives credit and reward to the blocking and teamwork which make his touchdowns possible, the economic star recognizes a moral obligation to help the group. As the group is rewarded the star's self interest is also served because the workers are motivated to continue to produce to enhance the success of all. Like the linemen of a humble running back will give more effort than the blockers for and egotistical braggart.

Government is the third musketeer in capitalism ("all for one and one for all"). There are interests of citizens that are not served best by profit driven organizations. Examples are education, police and fire protection, national defense, transportation infrastructure, and health care. Citizens in a capitalist republic also deserve a social safety net to protect children and the elderly. The wealthy need to accept more of this financial burden, understanding that a stable society will benefit all. The government in the football analogy takes the role of coach and referee. The coach encouraging entrepreneurs to invest and support fair wages and bargaining rights. The referee protecting citizens from profit seekers willing to jeopardize our water supply, clean air and food sources. Also, helping to settle differences between business and workers. The coach encourages workers to make reasonable demands and loyally work for the success of the company.

What has happened in America is a swing to only valuing profit. Big business and the wealthy have been consumed by greed. The rich have been able to take control of government by buying politicians. The pendulum needs to swing toward workers rights and responsible government; not bigger government or no government but government that is responsive to all citizens, politicians not manipulated by the wealthy and small activist interest groups in their constant quest for re-election but politicians who believe America is "all for one and one for all".

Greed and Liberty

By Pat Berkheim
contributing writer

Some people care about money. Others care about people. The people who care about money believe if you take care of money the people will prosper. If you care about people you know love of money is not always enough to promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. People who care about others believe government has a role in both liberty and equality.

The people who believe government's only role is to insure liberty believe the wealthy will provide for all. Greed is a false prophet who has convinced many a follower that taxation is an evil demon. A representative democracy must balance equality with liberty. A progressive tax is fair and just. America can afford to help the disadvantaged and be solvent. The wealthy, motivated by greed, will attempt to scare the majority with cries of government control and loss of liberty, but they can pay more with no impact to their liberty.

People who care believe that some elements of America are better served by not for profit entities under the control of the voice of the people. America's judicial system, highway transportation network, police and fire protection, education, social security and our military are examples of entities that would be ill served by for profit private control.

Striving for balance that promotes equality, liberty, and justice is not socialism but the duty of Americas' representative government as defined by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Why Am I A Liberal?

By Dennis McClatchey

My political awakening began in the sixties as I journeyed through high school and then into college. The political story of the day was civil rights. It was during this time that I became truly aware of the inhumanity of the Jim Crow south.

I learned that in the south if you were black you were told: Sorry, you can’t shop here. You can’t dine here. You can’t drink from the fountain here. You can’t ride on the bus here. You can’t live here. You can’t work here. You can’t go to school here. And, if you have the audacity to try to do these things we will bring out the hoses. We will bring out the dogs. We will bring out the clubs. We will bring out the rope. We will bring out the bombs and guns. We will beat and terrorize you into submission. And yet, many had the audacity to believe that this was America, the land of the free. They came out by the scores, by the hundreds, by the thousands. And, out came the hoses, the dogs, the clubs, the rope, and the bombs. Unbelievable pictures of this savage response to the exercise of freedom were thrust into our homes with the powerful visual intimacy of television.

And, during this period, who was it who championed civil rights legislation? It was the liberals. Who fought passage of the legislation? It was conservatives, many of whom were southern Democrats. Regardless of party affiliation, the liberal cry was for civil rights for all, while the conservatives decried loss of states’ rights. Notable conservatives such as William Buckley recognized the injustice but believed the marketplace- capitalism- would eventually solve the problem. Be patient. Eventually these shop owners will realize the color of money is all the same. Even the conservatives’ beloved Ronald Regan, while running for governor of California, proclaimed that if a home owner didn’t want to sell to someone for whatever reason he had a right not to do so.

 I immediately knew where my political soul belonged.

While the civil rights movement was a defining moment for my political arousal, it has not been the only moment. My liberal beliefs have been reinforced both by a reading of history as well as through contemporary events.

In 1935, as a part of his New Deal, it was the liberal Franklin Roosevelt who brought us Social Security including unemployment insurance. And who fought against this bold new initiative? The conservatives, of course, again many of whom were southern Democrats. In fact, a major embarrassment of this otherwise lofty landmark was the fact that Social Security when it was first enacted did not cover most women and minorities, another gift from the conservative coalition of the day.

 Roosevelt also signed the Fair labor Standards Act of 1938. The FLSA provided for a minimum wage, banned child labor and had as its purpose establishing minimum standards of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well being. Once again, it was opposed for the most part by southern conservatives.

It was liberals who promoted and passed in 1965 Medicare and Medicaid providing health coverage for the elderly, the poor, and the disabled. Once more, the conservatives pushed back hard to block this progressive move calling it “socialism.”

The liberal agenda brought us Title IX which established that: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

The liberal agenda brought us The Americans with Disabilities Act which “prohibited private employers, state, and local governments, employment agencies and labor unions from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities…”

The liberal agenda brought us the Consolidated Budget Reconciliation Act (C.O.B.R.A.) which allowed employees access to their employer’s health care coverage for eighteen months if they lost their job or were laid off.

The liberal agenda brought us the Children’s Health Insurance Program (C.H.I.P.S.) which made millions of children eligible to receive health insurance coverage if otherwise unavailable.

These are but a few examples that come readily to mind. Not too shabby of a record for a bunch of “elitists.”

 And, who fought this agenda for social justice? Why, our conservative brethren, of course.

 Now, I know the conservative retort: government is too big, too intrusive, and too expensive. Please, my taxes are too high as it is. Well, friend, if you are paying a chunk of taxes, then you are also making more than a chunk of money, so for you, life is pretty good. So, stop your complaining. “Oh yeah,” you say. “Well, it would be an even better life if my taxes were lower.” Perhaps. But how better would your life be if you lost your job and that liberal sponsored safety net wasn’t there to ease your fall.

Throughout our history it has been those “God-less liberals” who have stood for the poor, the weak, the disabled, the disadvantaged. It has been those “Godless liberals” who have fought for social justice. (Remind you of anyone from history, say around 2000 years ago?) The liberal mantra can be said to be: we are our brother’s keeper. The conservative chant, on the other hand, seems to be: what’s in it for me?

Why am I a liberal? I guess the question to me should be: why isn’t everyone?

Stop Calling it Socialism!

By Dennis McClatchey

We all have our little pet peeves.

For example, my wife goes bonkers when people seem to confuse a plural noun with a possessive noun. For example, you may see "the Smith's" when it should be "the Smiths." Unless, of course, the former is followed by the word "house" or "dog" or some other possession owned by the Smiths.

For me, I have always cringed at the incorrect pronunciation of the word, Zoology. It should be pronounced, zo-ol-o-gy. Not, zoo-ol-o-gy. Count the Os.

But I have a new irritant. And, it's driving me crazy. The word is socialism. And commentators on the left, right, and in the middle appear to have no idea as to what it means. Because I hear everything from Medicare to Social Security being labeled as such. And they are not, repeat not, examples of socialism. Not by a long shot.

Go to Webster, or any dictionary for that matter, and you will find a definition such as this. Socialism is "the theory or system of the ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution by society or community rather than by private individuals with all members of society or the community sharing in the work or products."

In other words, in modern political terms in order for an enterprise to be properly labeled as an example of socialism that enterprise must be owned and operated by the government.

In Great Britain, for example, the government owns the hospitals, employs the workers, purchases the supplies, and equipment. The doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, housekeepers, food service workers, janitors are all on the government payroll.

Great Britain has socialized medicine. America's medicine is not socialized. It is free enterprise.

There are exceptions such as hospitals run by the US Bureau of Veterans Affairs and county or city facilities operating to meet the needs of certain population groups such as the indigent.

We keep hearing the refrain from the right that "Obama Care" (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act signed March 23, 2010) is a "government take over of our health care." 

As I see it, doctors are still practicing their varied specialties privately, and mostly as for- profit businesses. The hospitals remain private non- profit or for- profit institutions. The pharmaceutical companies, medical suppliers, durable medical equipment distributors continue to operate totally within the free market system.  And, insurance companies are still doing quite well, thank you, especially considering the truck load of new customers the Act will deliver them. Some government takeover.

Okay, the Act does add some new rules for these insurance companies.

The PPAC Act will immediately...

 Eliminate lifetime and unreasonable annual limits on benefits

 Prohibit rescissions of health insurance policies

 Provide assistance for those who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition

 Require coverage of preventive services and immunizations

 Extend dependant coverage up to age 26

 Develop uniform coverage documents so consumers can make apples-to-apples comparisons when shopping for health insurance

 Cap insurance company non-medical, administrative expenditures

 Ensure consumers have access to an effective appeals process and provide consumers with a place to turn for assistance navigating the appeals process and accessing their coverage

 Create a temporary re-insurance program to support coverage for early retirees

 Establish an internet portal to assist Americans in identifying coverage options

 Facilitate administrative simplification to lower health system costs

Health Insurance Market Reform: Beginning in 2014, more significant insurance reforms will be implemented. Across individual and small group health insurance markets in all states, new rules will end medical underwriting and pre-existing condition exclusions. Insurers will be prohibited from denying coverage or setting rates based on health status, medical condition, claims experience, genetic information, evidence of domestic violence, or other health-related factors. Premiums will vary only by family structure, geography, actuarial value, tobacco use, participation in a health promotion program, and age.

So, that's "Obama Care" in a nut shell. Sound evil and un-American to you? No, doctors are not told how and where and when to practice medicine. There are no death panels. And, despite Rick Santorum's fear mongering to the contrary, citizens will not be forced to wear bracelets stating, "please do not euthanize me!" The program is simply designed to make health care more assessable and more affordable for all of us, regardless of our class.

You remember the Preamble to our Constitution, "...provide for the general welfare..."

Yes, the free market health care system remains alive and well. And, trust me, I'm a fan of capitalism. Really. Well, most of the time.

You see when the free market is working properly it operates in a mutually beneficial way. For example, say I'm in the widget selling business. I want people to purchase widgets from me, not my competitors. To do so I must price my widgets below all others. Or, I must produce a superior quality widget. Or, I must make the availability of my widgets easier to acquire. Or, I must be more effective in the promotion of my widgets.

But ultimately, my goal must be to satisfy my customers. If I satisfy my customers they will return to me for all their widget needs. And, if they are really happy they will tell their friends, and they will come to me as well. The relationship between the business enterprise and the customer is symbiotic.

However, the insurance business turns this model on its head. In order for the insurance company to generate a healthy bottom line, it must avoid paying out claims. The fewer claims paid, the better. That's why such companies are always finding ways to either deny a claim, refuse to cover certain high risk people, and generally looking for opportunities to weasel out of their coverage commitments. This is not a mutually beneficial exchange.

Now, it's one thing to weasel out of fixing a car fender or covering stolen property (as bad as that might be). It is something else when the denial can literally have life and death consequences. As I see it,  we as a society have a choice on the question of health care. We can either socialize it and remove the insurance companies altogether. Or, we can continue to allow the free market system to operate but with certain protections. And, that's what the Affordable Health Care Act does. But for some it is still way too much. And, I'll bet these folks are fully insured and are doing quite well.

But let us return to our discussion on socialism. I must admit, that even within our capitalistic free enterprise free market system there does lurk some institutions that can be accurately identified as representing the true meaning of the word, "socialism." Are you ready?

Libraries, fire departments, city-county-state-federal law enforcement agencies are all examples of this derided conceptual model.  And, I hope you would agree, that is as it should be.

Let's take law enforcement, for example. The purpose of a city police department is to reduce crime. This is done, in part, through the enforcement of the city's laws by responding to and investigating violations of those laws. More resources and the greatest priority, we would hope, would be placed on those crimes that are the most violent and harmful to the welfare of our community:  rapes, murders, assaults, arsons, etc. In order to evaluate the success of a particular police department we would track and report the city's crime rate over time paying particular attention to those crimes that are the most pernicious.

Now let's say this enterprise were to be outsourced to a private for-profit business. Now its purpose has been altered a bit. Now, the goal is to generate a profit through the enforcement and investigation of crime. But, in order to evaluate it as a business, we would be tracking profit and loss statements. And, our priorities would shift to those activities that generate the greatest revenue while requiring the fewest resources (which is the definition of efficiency a goal of all business ventures).

So, if the greatest efficiencies result from, let's say, speed traps, that's where the priorities would go. And, if there are lesser efficiencies in investigating rapes, well, sorry there's just not enough money in it so it becomes a back burner activity.

Now, I know no one is arguing for the privatizing of police departments. At least I hope not. My point is, there should be some activities, some enterprises that are so vital and important to the community at large that it should not be subject to the priorities and needs of the bottom line. And maybe, just maybe health care would fit such a category.

Yes, I know the majority of America's hospitals are run as not-for-profit charitable institutions. But, I also know-having spent 20 years working in this arena-that the same financial pressures apply. I have attended countless board meetings of said organizations and I can report that more time and attention by the boards was placed evaluating the profit and loss statements and reviewing the age of the accounts receivables of the hospital than any quality of care indicators.

This is not to say that non-profit board members are greedy and heartless. To the contrary. Some of the most caring, selfless, and giving people I have met were those I met serving on our hospital's boards. And, they dutifully give of themselves voluntarily. There is really nothing in it for them other than providing a service. It's just that most of them are business men and women. They feel more comfortable examining a balance sheet than infection rates or morbidity and mortality reports. That, they feel, should be left to those trained and educated on the clinical side of the ledger.

So, again,  the fiscal strains of the non-profits are the same as their for-profit counterparts. As one Catholic nun famously said, "no margin-no mission."

Perhaps some endeavors, such as police enforcement, should not be required to have "a margin" only a "mission." And, perhaps health care delivery fits into that category.

Here again, that's not what has occurred with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It is designed to protect the free market exchange of health care as much as it is designed to protect citizens from becoming bankrupt due to a devastating health catastrophe. But listening to the rhetoric on the right, it's hard to know that.

Yes, I have heard the argument. "Do you want the same people that are running the Postal Service running your health care system?" Well, here's one for them. Do you want the same people running your health care system to be the same ones who were once running Enron?

Give that some thought.

In Defense of the US Postal Service

Actually, the question raised by conservatives and libertarians, "do you want the same people who run our post office running our health care? " is worthy of further examination.

Think about it. For 44 cents you can write a personal note and have it hand delivered to virtually any house, apartment, or business in the country, usually within 2 to 5 days. Can you name any other service of equal or like value?

And, no, the USPS is not funded by our tax dollars. In fact, in 1970 the Postal Reorganization Act mandates that the Service  function as a semi-independent agency in a revenue neutral fashion. In other words, no losses, no profits.

Yes, the USPS is facing a major financial crisis. But it is not from poor management. The cause? In 2006, Congress passed a law requiring the Postal Service to pre-fund the cost of its retiree health benefits covering the next 75 years of obligation, but to do so in a mere 10 years. Trust me, if any other business was saddled with such a requirement it would be sucking air, too.

Fact is, the USPS is efficient. Ten years ago it took 70 employees one hour to sort 35,000 letters. Today, only two are required.

Fact is, the USPS is more reliable, more efficient, and less expensive than either UPS or Fed Ex in most categories of shipments.

And, did you know that each year UPS and Fed Ex pays the USPS to deliver over 400 million of their ground packages in residential areas and on Saturdays?

So, perhaps the answer to the question, "do you want the same people who run our Postal Service to be running our health care?" is a resounding...YES!

Here's a Novel Idea. Let's Put Christ Back into Christianity

By Dennis McClatchey

If you ask a Christian what it means to be a Christian, you are likely to get a response similar to this: having a personal relationship with Christ and knowing that he is the son of God and that he died for my sins. Further conversation would likely reveal the certainty that the only requirement for grace and salvation is in this belief. In fact, anyone anywhere not of like conviction will not be permitted to enter the Kingdom of Heaven regardless of his or her virtuous life.  

This, of course, means for the purist of this school of thought that if Hitler on his death bed asked Christ for forgiveness and he was truly sincere, Hitler would gladly be received into the Kingdom of Heaven. But for the millions of Jews who were gassed, tortured, starved, and ripped of their possessions by him...well, sorry, you're not in the club. To me, that alone disqualifies this brand of Christianity from being taken seriously. It certainly can't be described as a loving compassionate theology. But, that's just me.

To these followers, the price of admission for salvation is not complicated.

A recent conversation with a "devout Christian" stated it even more simply. She said, "I believe in Jesus because that's all he asks of us." Boy, that sounds really easy, doesn't it. It also sounds really wrong. As I think back to my younger days in the Methodist church, my Sunday school classes, and the church sermons that followed, to my undergraduate college religion courses which included classes in New Testament and the Life and Teachings of Jesus, I recall that being a Christian involved following the teachings of Jesus. And to do so was not all that simple. In fact, it seemed to be a rather daunting task.

So, what has happened? For me the answer is as simple and as it is puzzling. Many Christians do not follow the teachings of Jesus even though they seem convinced that they do.

What did Jesus teach?

Jesus taught that we will be judged by how we behave and how we treat others, not simply by what we believe. All through the Gospels (which translates to mean "the good news"), we find his ministry focused on the less fortunate, the margins of society. Jesus preaches that we should strive for universal compassion and selfless action.

 A good starting point for the ministry of Jesus can be found in Matthew chapters 5-7, referred to as the Sermon on the Mount, the longest piece of his teachings.

In Matt 7:21 it is clear that the simple way to Heaven claimed by many Christians is not the way seen by Jesus. "Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he that doith the will of my Father which is in Heaven." 

In fact, Jesus did not teach that the way to salvation was faith alone. He taught faith through works and deeds. His was a proactive behavioral ministry. It was not based simply on a belief.

Matt 19:16-17: "And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."

And, when it comes to obeying the commandments, here again, Jesus does not make it easy for us. Back to the Sermon on the Mount.

Matt 5:21-22: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment."

 Matt 5:27-28:"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a women to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

 Not only does Jesus expect us to follow the commandments handed down to Moses, he significantly raises the bar for their compliance.

Far from having faith alone, Jesus taught a ministry of love and compassion.

Matt 22: 35-40:" Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him and saying, Master, which is the greatest  commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all of the law of the prophets."

In Matthew Chapter 25, Jesus is asked directly how one is to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. He tells of judgment day when the Lord will separate us all as a farmer would separate his sheep from his goats. And then describes those who will be saved. His answer leaves no doubt that it is through action, not mere belief, that salvation is reached.

Matt 25: 35-36:. "For I was hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in; Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me."

And, when those receiving these words expressed their confusion of not having done this for him, he makes his meaning clear.

Matt 25:40:"And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

Jesus is telling us that, in the end, we will be judged by how we treat the less fortunate. To these we are to be loving, caring, and giving. Yet, I find it extremely curious that some who wear the Christian label most conspicuously protest the loudest against governmental policies aimed at the greater good. Welfare recipients are called parasites. Programs to help support the poor, the disabled, the sick, the elderly are denounced as evil socialism. Protesters hold signs reading: Christianity Not Socialism. I seriously doubt the protester could accurately define either term given the fact that what they call socialism is consistent with the ministry of Jesus.

Oh, I know the response...Jesus was asking of us as individuals, not governments. Please. I'm certain Jesus would have no objection to a government that follows his teachings (as well as individuals) particularly if such collective actions are the most effective way of meeting his goals. And, the sad truth is, the needs of the less fortunate can not and are not being sufficiently addressed by private efforts alone.

I suspect the real truth behind these protestations is not wanting portions of their earnings (taxes) going to someone else. We hear refrains such as: This is America, anyone can make it here if they work for it. After all the Good Book says the Lord helps those who help themselves (there is no such reference in the Bible). Why should my hard earned dollars go to these people, no one helped me? Sound to you like universal compassion and selfless action?

Perhaps this is one reason why many Christians have chosen the easy way to salvation, having faith only. The way outlined by Jesus requires some sacrifice. Believing in something is easy. Doing something less so.

Jesus was constantly preaching a message of giving.

Luke 6:38: "Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give unto your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again."

Jesus was constantly preaching a message of loving actions.

Matt5:38-39: "Ye hath heard that it has been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

 Matt 7:12: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." (the Golden Rule)

In the Beatitudes (Matt5:2-12) he extols the virtues of those who morn, the meek, the merciful, and the peacemakers.

He tells us how to pray.

Matt 6: 5-7: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy father which seeith in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathens do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."

And then Jesus instructs us as to the Lord's Prayer. (Matt 5: 8-12.)  Interestingly, in the Prayer he tells us that before we can be forgiven for our actions against others (our trespasses, our debts) we must forgive others who require forgiveness from us. Forgiveness requires a quid pro quo. Our forgiveness requires action on our part.

This view of forgiveness is stated again.

 Luke 6:37: "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: Forgive and ye shall be

forgiven."

Speaking of judgment, Jesus repeatedly expressed his disdain for those who go about casting their moral indignation at others.

John 8: 7: "So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Matt 7:3: And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considered not the beam that is in thine own eye."

Over and over Jesus teaches us that it is our actions, our behavior that matters most.

John 3: 19-21:  "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, nether cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."

Given Jesus' antitheses for public praying and those poking their disapproving figure at others, I can't help but wonder how he would react to today's television evangelists who, when they are not asking for money, are pointing out all the many sinners (homosexuals as one example) and praying at the drop of a hat in front of millions of viewers. I'm sure they have an answer. And, I'm equally sure it won't come from accurately quoting Jesus.

Faith only requirement

So from where did this prevailing Christian belief that faith is all that is required for salvation? The answer is simple: Paul.

It is true that "Christians" who choose the easy road to salvation can find ample New Testament references supporting this view. The problem, though, such instructions are found in books reported to be authored by the Apostle Paul (Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1st Thessalonians, 2nd Thessalonians, 1st Timothy, 2nd Timothy, Titus, Philemon ) and not from books representing the story and teachings of Jesus. And, they are not in harmony with one another.

(It should be noted that Biblical scholars have questioned whether Paul was the author of all these books, or portions of some of these books. Because they are described as Pauline books and have been represented as Paul's works, for the purpose of this discussion I have attributed the Apostle Paul as their author)

It is clear that Jesus followed the law of Moses and preached constantly that one was to follow and uphold these Jewish traditions and beliefs.

Matt 5: 18-19 (Sermon on the Mount):" For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach them so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of heaven."

Paul, on the other hand, sees the road to salvation much differently.

Romans 3:28. "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Gal 2:16: "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

Gal 3:11: "But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith."

Romans 9: 31-32:  "But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone."

Eph 2: 8-9: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God: Not of works, least any man should boast."

And while Jesus was constantly reaching out and ministering to the sinners of the day (the unclean, the whores, adulterers) and expressing love and compassion, Paul would have none of that.

1Cor 5:11: "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man is called a brother be he a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one not to eat."

And when Jesus was asking of us to care for the least of us who go hungry, Paul, again, would have none of that.

2Thess 3:10: "For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."

Does this seem Christ-like to you? To me Christians need to make a choice: follow Jesus (faith through works and deeds) or follow Paul (justification through faith alone). You can't have it both ways.

Who was the Apostle Paul?

Much of what we know about the life of Paul comes to us in the Book of Acts, believed to be authored by the same person who wrote the Book of Luke.

In his early days, Paul (formally Saul of Tarsus) could be described as a religious zealot and extremist. He found the teachings of Jesus to be blasphemy and did all he could, including violence, to persecute those who followed the ways of Christ.

Acts 8:3:  "As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison."

The conversion of Paul is described in Acts 9:1-22  On his way to Damascus in his angered pursuit to put more Christians into prison, Paul is struck by a blinding light from Heaven and hears the voice of Jesus asking why does he persecute him and his followers.

From here we are told Saul receives the Holy Spirit, becomes baptized and begins his ministry for Christ. This mission takes him to Jerusalem (where he meets the disciples Peter and James) then onto Cyprus, Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe. Ironically, Paul begins to receive the very same gruesome violence that he had previously instigated.

Aside from his vision on the road to Damascus, Paul never met Jesus. Never heard him preach. And, with the exception of Peter and James never met any of the disciples. And, based upon the Book of James, it is doubtful that James would embrace Paul's faith-only road to salvation.

James 2:24: "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith alone."

And yet oddly, it is Paul who is considered the founder of Christianity, not Jesus. Perhaps this is because we have actual writings from Paul, and only reported stories of Jesus. And, much more of the New Testament is devoted to those writings.

So, is that how we choose which path to follow? Do we go the way of Paul because he has the luxury of having been more literate than Jesus? Do we choose Paul because he seemed to be a master at marketing this new religion? Or, perhaps, Paul is our choice because he enjoyed a longer life than Jesus and, therefore, a longer ministry?

Or, maybe your choice is Paul because his is a much simpler road to salvation. But such a path makes us free of moral obligations. Because in the end, we are all saved if we just believe and ask for forgiveness.

If that is your theology of choice, fine. But do me a favor. Don't call it Christianity.