California Chronicle Blog :- Home Page

Monday, April 23, 2012

In November 2011 I had the pleasure of attending a large gathering of local residents who assembled to honor the people who had served in our nation’s military forces. The event was interesting to me from several points of view.

For the record, I am 83 and served in the Army during the Korean War (Police Action) in 1950-51. My experience was largely uneventful. The fighting had been stabilized along the “38^th parallel” at that point, so we were not fighting to take or hold territory, although there were some incidents in which Chinese units broke through the lines and threatened to overrun our position, which was close to the front line. And, there were a few air attacks, unfortunately sometimes by our own planes flying off nearby ships, when the pilots did not realize that they were bombing American troops. Many years later, I met a 2^nd cousin, who had been one of those American pilots.

That said, over the years I’ve noticed that, other than the end of WWII, there has been remarkably little attention paid to our service people, with the exception of the Vietnam War in the 60s, when many returning servicemen and women were reviled by a segment of the American public, including such indignities and spitting on them. At that point, I was working as a CPA in Los Angeles and admit that I was bewildered by the behavior of many of those who opposed the war. I still don’t understand their attitude toward the military.

Since then, until recently, little attention has been paid to our service men and women. When the Korean War ended, I returned to the U.S. on a troop ship and was sent to Fort Ord, California, where we were processed and discharged in three days and given a train ticket to our home town(s). There was no fanfare as we boarded trains, and no one in my family had been notified. When I arrived at the front door of the home where my family lived and rang the door bell, it was a complete surprise. From that point, I was expected to get a job as soon as possible, and the fact that I had been in the service counted for little or nothing with potential employers, who seemed largely unaware that we had been in a war at all.

Only about 20% of the military serve in combat, the other 80% provide the many functions that are necessary to keep them clothed, fed, equipped, transported, etc.

So, when did the American public begin to actively honor our service men and women?

My sense is that it started when the War on Terror was launched with the attack on the World Trade Center in September 2001.

I live in an area near an Air Force base (Vandenberg), and when my wife and I go shopping in the city where it is located, we often see personnel from the base, both men and women, I might add, and my reaction is generally one of appreciation for the fact that they are serving all of us.

It may be their chosen career, but I have a renewed respect for them and their service.

I also have a few friends who made a career of military service, for which I now feel a sense of gratitude. It’s something that crosses my mind literally every time I see them.

I have also noticed that some people have been meeting service men and women at the airports when they are returning home, which I find very encouraging. It’s worth noting, I think, that former president, George W. Bush and his wife, Laura, have been doing this, to the surprise of those service people they have welcomed home. More recently, we had a similar instance at the airport in Santa Barbara, when a highly regarded local dentist returned from duty in Afghanistan, for which he had volunteered and was greeted by a large group of local residents as he entered the terminal.

I’m pleased to see the change in attitude of many members of the public. From my perspective, it’s a welcome change.. Not everyone, mind you, but enough to make a difference, for which I am grateful.

To those who agree, thank you. To those who don’t, perhaps you should rethink your attitude.

Posted at 15:31 PM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Should We Abandon The Electoral College?

A Sacramento Bee editorial noted, “The way that the United States elects a president is broken, and has been for some time – actually, since the very beginning.”

The Bee further observed, “The American people do not directly elect their president. They vote for a slate of ‘electors’ (who are selected by the political parties) to an Electoral College, which then elects the president…it is long past time to elect the president the same way that we elect every other official from governor to senator to school board member – by direct popular vote.”

But, should the President of the United States be elected by popular vote?

In 1787, as the US Constitution was being drafted in Philadelphia, James Wilson of Pennsylvania proposed direct election of the president. But James Madison of Virginia worried that such a system would hurt the South which would have been outnumbered by the Northern population in a direct election system.

Thus the Electoral College was created. It was part of the deal the Southern states in computing their share of electoral votes, could count slaves (under the US Constitution, they were worth two-fifths of a vote), they of course were given none of the privileges of citizenship, (and could not vote....the slave owner voted for them). Virginia emerged as the big winner with more than a quarter of the electors needed to elect a President. A free state like Pennsylvania got fewer electoral votes even though it had approximately the same free population.

However, the Constitution had a pro-Southern bias. For 32 of the Constitution's first 36 years, a white slave-holding Virginian occupied the presidency. Thomas Jefferson for example won the election of 1800 against John Adams from Massachusetts in a race in which the slavery skew of the Electoral College was the decisive margin of victory.

The system's sex bias was also obvious. In a direct presidential election, any state that chose to enfranchise its women would have automatically doubled its clout. Under the Electoral College, however, a state had no special incentive to expand suffrage....each got a fixed number of electoral votes, regardless of how many citizens were allowed to vote.

After the civil war, the USA forgot about questioning the Electoral College system and continued its application in voting. The college favors a two-party system only and has no discretion for third or fourth political parties in an election.

So it seems that slavery or remnants of its philosophy is still with us today in the US elections.

I disagree. Not only is it not broken, but I submit that the election of our President is functioning exactly as the Founders envisioned it.

Reference: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Sunday, 12 November 2000, Section E, pages 1 & 4.

Posted at 13:09 PM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

Thursday, March 01, 2012

Why Is It?

What’s in a name? Everything, it would seem.

Words do have meaning. Consider the following examples of the impact that emotionally charged issues can have when associated with certain words or terms:

Special Interests: Why is it that “special interests” are groups we do not agree with, while those groups we support are like-minded people who have the right values? The tobacco industry is a special interest but the Sierra Club is not. The NRA is a special interest but

Planned Parenthood is not. Big business is a special interest but organized labor is not.

Agribusiness: Why is it that farmers are “agribusiness” (read corporate big business) when we want to influence public opinion, but they are just “farmers” when we buy their produce at an open-air market? Farmers are the “agribusiness” when they seek to limit government intrusion in their lives, but they are hard working members of society when they produce the food we eat. One man’s “farmer” is another man’s agribusiness “special interest.”

Environmentalism: Why is it that “environmentalism” is good no matter how it affects people? Those who want to curb the excesses of such laws as the Endangered Species Act are willing to destroy civilization in the pursuit of profit. Energy generated from fossil fuels and nuclear power is destroying the world and must be prevented, but it’s OK to drive or fly to meetings to protest their use. Is there any inconsistency or hypocrisy in that?

Developers: Why is it that real estate “developers” are unconscionable profiteers who want to rape the land, but contractors are just good folks who build homes for us?

Big Business: Why is it that the oil, pharmaceutical and auto industries, and business in general, are evil and steal and cheat for profit but most people want the highest paying jobs they offer and the benefits and way of life their products and services make possible?

Profit: Why is it that the word “profit” is synonymous with greed but demands for higher pay and greater benefits or government largesse are just simple “economic justice” or “fairness”? Profit is greed when it’s the other guy’s profit but justifiable compensation for hard work and sacrifice when it’s ours.

Free Speech: Why is it that “free speech” means I can say anything I want, but you can’t say anything I don’t like? My right to “free speech” is absolute, yours must be politically correct or you will be punished.

Segregation: Why is it that “segregation” is against the law and must be prevented, but African-American students on many of our college campuses have deliberately segregated themselves?

Racist: Why is it that discrimination against blacks is “racist” but discrimination against whites is not?

Double Jeopardy: Why is it that being tried a second time by the Federal government is not “double jeopardy” under the constitution but being tried twice by the state for the same crime is?

Loopholes: Why is it that tax “loopholes” are deductions someone else gets away with, but it’s not a loophole if we are able to claim the same deduction on our own tax returns? Why is a tax deduction that is written into the law a “loophole,” anyway? How has the meaning of the word “loophole” become perverted to mean tax deductions we don’t like while those we claim on our own tax returns are legitimate? Everyone claims tax deductions, from the simple “standard deduction” or “exemption” to itemized deductions and business expenses. So, why are many legal tax deductions now called “loopholes”? Perhaps loopholes are really just the deductions we cannot claim ourselves but that someone else can.

Extremist: Why is it that conservatives and Born Again Christians are right-wing “extremists,” but liberals are not left-wing “extremists”?

God: Why is it that “God” cannot be mentioned in our schools but students can talk about Islam, atheism or witchcraft all they want?

Gun Control: Why is it that “gun control” is the answer to the excess of violence that has overtaken our society when there are already over 22,000 gun control laws on the books? Will removing guns from the hands of law abiding citizens cure the problem or do we need to change our “anything goes” mentality and cure the moral sickness that infects us?

Global Warming: Why is it that we can’t accurately forecast next week’s weather or when or where the next earthquake will hit, yet many people believe it is possible to predict “global warming” and its consequences far in the future?

Are we ever going to wise up to how we are misled and manipulated by the way politicians, special interest groups and the media use words? We are all members of special interest groups. Just different ones. Mine are good and yours are bad, right? But, that’s just my opinion.

Posted at 14:01 PM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

Thursday, February 23, 2012

FAT CATS AND PROSTITUTES OR “PITY THE POOR MALIGNED FELINE”

from the Rooster

Ever wonder what “Fat Cats” and “Prostitutes” have in common? The latter work in Cat Houses and Fat Cats just take your money. What’s what? You say?

I am talking about the striking difference between the present day progressive politician who lives high on the hog (there I go again with the animal thing) at your expense. What gave me the thought was an article I read about how Chinese Communist bosses steal from the coffers. Remember the Communist motto, “One for all and all for one!” It seems Party bosses drive around in $100,000.00 dollar cars and military officers drive $560,000 Bentleys, etc. Their motto is “All for me and none for you”. Then I read, in Italy, members of Congress rip off the people with salaries of over $200,000.00. That is just the tip of the ice theft, with expenses covered for office, staff, travel, health care, families on the payroll, and inside trading. There is no end to their theft. Remember, Italy is broke. Progressives really like change. Well not so much… bills are better.

Politicians in Asia, Europe, and here, are actively stealing wealth from the taxpayers and it is not considered theft. On the other hand, a Prostitute, in most countries, is a criminal. Right? You see, if you pass the law, you have the power to exclude yourself from the definition of theft. But do they? Maybe it is just that no one wants to prosecute politicians for theft. After all, most prosecutors are politicians as well. Oh! It’s easy to find a District Attorney who will joyously prosecute a hapless lady or young lad who gives pleasure for money, but that same District Attorney will not even begin to bring to justice a Senator or Congressmen, etc. for dipping into the treasury far in excess of their worth.

In most States and Countries, theft is a simple crime. You take value from someone else, without their consent, and the law says you are thief. It can be by force or not. Not a complicated concept. What about when a politician who passes a law sucking up money, he or she is not worth. Isn’t that doing the same thing? Eureka!! Taxpayers have never given consent to have their taxes pay for something of no value. Taxpayers vote politicians in office, but not so they can steal from the treasury. Excess pay and benefits are things providing no value and are taken against the will. Where is the prosecutor who will demand an honest hour for an honest dollar? Not in my community.

No where in the Constitution of the US, Italy, or any of our States, is there a law which gives anyone the right to take, for their own benefit, money (directly or indirectly) from the Treasury. You have to go to the Criminal codes for your answer. What these selfish, self-centered politicians are doing fits the classic definition of theft. Why then do they get away with it? First of all, politicians vote for their own wage and benefits. Taxpayers only relief is to vote them out of office. Another reason is these politicians pay bribes to the voters, in the way of gifts (food stamps), stimulus packages for this group or that group etc. This puts their voters in the rip-off mode as well. A final reason is that their taking has snuck up on us. If your assemblyman/woman simply grabbed the money and ran, you would scream “theft”. When they take it by little pieces, everyone is hood winked. The same occurs when the bookkeeper embezzles from a trusting employer. The taking should be a crime, but few understand it or care. Well, I do and so should you.

Just to give you a homegrown example. In the early 60’s, a California Assembly person got $9,000.00 a year, an allotment for an apartment in Sacramento, and a meager travel allowance. ($9,000 today would be some $60,000). The apartment was to lessen the travel needed. It was a wash. He/she also got a meager staff. An office and maybe three people. One for the home district and two in Sacramento. That Assemblyperson was in session about 6 months of the year. Today, he or she gets a base salary of $95,000 plus and a per diem when in session (now, you know why they stay in session so long). Ok, let’s say they stay in session for 200 days. They get $141 plus a day or $28,000.00 plus a year. This is on top of the $95,000, for a total base pay of $123,000.00. Add to this a staff of some 5 to 10, offices, and stuff paid for, gifts from lobbyist, medical care, free travel, and on and on, and the real expenditure, each year, for a low rung Assemblyperson is close to $200,000.00 a year. Don’t forget extra pay for temporary duty. Compare that to the 1964 price and you can see we are being ripped off by about 60% . Don’t tell me they are worth it. Pay nothing and you will have candidates standing in line. It does not take a high IQ to figure out we are being ripped off. That, Amigos, is a synonym for stealing.

Posted at 13:46 PM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

Thursday, February 23, 2012

the Ninth Circuit Court… Gawd save us!!

from The Rooster

This week the Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco ruled against a provision of the California Constitution, which banned Gay folks from Marriage. When that law was a baby it was called Proposition 8. Mind you this law did not condemn Gays, it did not say they were disenfranchised from the vote, or any such thing. It simply said “Marriage” is reserved for people of the opposite sex. It did not prohibit gays from establishing, as they had, another form of legal union. It simply recognized history, that marriage was developed as a concept for the union of opposite sexes, to make a family. The two judges who voted to invalidate this law, violated their oath of office and should be disbarred.

The reason I quit the law business, after some 34 years, was just this. So many men and women have taken the oath to be a Judge and then ignore their oath and do as they feel. Let’s not forget that the California Judge, who ruled proposition 8 was unconstitutional was himself gay, and retired right after making his opinion. His conflict was so obvious it must have weighed heavily on his mind. Ignoring the law was not the way we did business, when I started back in the 60s, but that is the way it ended up. Especially in California, and more especially in the 9^th Circus Court. Ruling on feelings destroys the concept that we live under laws and must obey laws. It is part of anarchy.

The Oath each of these judges took is as follows:

“I …Stephen Reinhardt (the judge who wrote the opinion) …_do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as judge under the constitution and laws of the United States. “

Simply stated, when looking at the law, a judge should apply the law without feelings and partiality. He or she must do this recognizing the laws of California are part of the laws of the United States. Now these two judges applied their feelings and were partial. Exactly what they swore not to do.

Here is what they said which are their personal feelings and violated the “respect to persons” part of the oath. Remember they did not act as trial judges.

1- “Proposition 8 serves no purpose…” That is their opinion. Not law.

2- “…has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians..” That is their opinion. Others disagree and is not law.

3- “…officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples…” That is their opinion. Not law and others disagree.

The part of the US Constitution these two appelate judges used is the much abused 14^th amendment. This amendments original purpose was to do nothing more than to prevent States from denying citizens rights the Federal Constitution and laws guaranteed. In the final part of the 14^th’s first provision, it says.’

“ …nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”

Most Civil rights rulings have used this provision as if it stood alone as brand new law. It does not and did not. The problem is that the Federal law is not equal and there is no mandate that it be equal. I rest my case on the graduated Income tax, affirmative action laws, and subsidies for this person and company as congress sees fit. All the 14^th was doing was nailing down the cure for Slavery, just as the 13^th did and as the 15^th did. It took three amendments to get it right.

So for these judges to rule, on their opinions, and to apply equality when the US Constitution does not require it, is like their saying they do not like bathrooms because they smell, and especially that any law allowing them should be un-constitutional because they do not treat the sexes equally. At its best their action is legislative, not judicial. At its worst, they ignore their oath, and for that reason I say they should be impeached as a warning to others, not to stray from what they swear to do.

Posted at 13:42 PM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)