The meaning of ‘Patriotism’



Today highlights the patriotic appreciation by Americans for their nation’s founding and freedom from the control by despots who claimed their positions through “divine right” or some other subterfuge of authority.

We enjoy fireworks and sing the Star Spangled Banner, symbols of that freedom and liberties won and reinforced through the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.

We fly and salute our flag, the symbol of our freedom and of the great democracy we have created and defended, and our emergence as the leading nation of the world. In few other countries will you find the national emblem so widely displayed and honored, from the classroom to gatherings of civic and government organizations.

Recently some good discussion was stirred up here over “Marriage,” and it continues in the Forum today. There are some real challenges in the fact that “tolerance” has many meanings, too. It has thus been so throughout the history of our nation. Tolerance has been important to our concept of freedom.

Today presents a good time to take a look at “Patriotism.” What is it and how does it fit as an important element of our culture?

As usual, we start with the dictionary. My Webster’s Collegiate (Random House) is succinct. It says patriotism means “devoted love, support, and defense of one’s country; national loyalty.”

A patriot is “a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interest.” The second definition is “a person who regards himself or herself as a defender, esp. of individual rights, against presumed interference by the federal government.”

Aye, there’s the rub.

Can one love and support one’s country while at the same time defending against government interference, which is often based on one’s individual view of life?

Consider, for example, the controversy raised by flag burners. In the eyes of those supporting law and order, this is an act of traitors, showing and disrespect for the country. But often in the eyes of the burners, it’s a legitimate (and supposed to be shocking) form of protest against government, not country. The Supreme Court has sided with the latter view, pointing out that the First Amendment covers such actions. A hard pill for the “true patriot” to swallow. Why would a person want to destroy the same symbol that protects its right to do so?

Wikipedia, The Internet encyclopedia in defining patriotism, points out that it has had different meanings over time, and that it is highly dependent on context, geography and philosophy. Among ancient Greeks, from which the root word “patris” comes, patriotism consisted of “notions concerning language, religious traditions, ethics, law and devotion to the common good rather than pure identification with a nation-state.”

Many contemporary notions of patriotism, says Wikipedia, are influenced by 19th century ideas about nationalism. That pretty well describes American patriotism, although its roots go back to the 18th century when patriots were those who rose up against the British.

Actually, patriotism is a religion of a sort. It contains all the elements of faith-based dedication to an ideal (“My country right or wrong”). The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution are the bibles of our faith in our nation and its way of life despite our feelings about individual governors.

Patriotic fervor reflects your good feeling about your country. It expresses the feelings of those who sacrificed family members or an important part of their own lives to fight for their country. Generally, it’s also a showing of appreciation for those who protect us, not only those in military uniform but those in police and fire services.

Some people wear patriotism on their sleeves, or lapels. Some keep it in their hearts. Many do both. Four days a year we outwardly celebrate our patriotism with others—The Fourth of July, Veterans (once Armistice) Day, Memorial (once Decoration Day, and to a lesser extent, Armed Forces Day and Flag Day.

Patriotism can be dangerous if misused, particularly when fear overcomes the desire for freedom. It can lead to discrimination by one sector of citizens against others, such as the detention of the Japanese-Americans in World War II, or against “radical workers” involved in the labor movement in the early 20th century.

It can pit one part of the nation against the other, as in the Civil War, where those who fought for both sides declared their righteousness. Even after their loss, citizens of the South continued their patriotic fervor for the Stars and Bars instead of the Stars and Stripes, and with “Dixie” instead of the “Star Spangled Banner.”

In America, patriotism should never be used to look down on others who have a differing point of view. That’s not patriotic. When combined with the proud beliefs and faiths of others among us, patriotism can be a mighty force in expressing our love for the national traditions that have made us both a great nation and a role model for all freedom-loving individuals.

(Copyright 2009 - Champion Newspapers - Published July 4, 2009)

Solstice potpourri

I almost forgot my end-of-spring cleanout this year, so after the season changed on Sunday (the summer solstice, the longest day of the year) I dug into my burgeoning collection of “things to be looked at later.”

There, underneath a marked article from the February 22 Los Angeles Times saying that one out of five Los Angeles County residents, 2.2 million people, are receiving public assistance, was a wonderful article about the smallest gadget in the world, which has become the center of our whole life.

It’s the transistor, the fantastic piece of electronics that gave birth to the semiconductor chip
The 2007 news clipping is an eye opener for those, like me, who take the computer world for granted. It should be basic education for students in every grade.

In case you didn’t know, this little electronic switch, capable of amplifying electronic current, was invented by three people, John Bardeen, Walter Brattain and William Shockley, in December 1947 at the Bell Labs in New Jersey. It was made up of a paper clip, some germanium (a basic semiconductor similar in chemistry to silicon and tin) and gold foil, which boosted electrical current a hundredfold. It was probably the greatest discovery in the field of physics since Thomas Edison developed the first practical commercial light bulb. Today’s silicon chips can carry more than a billion transistors each, according to LA Times science writer Saswato R. Das.

When I was in high school physics, information on the atomic bomb and what made it work was just being released. After I graduated and went for my BA, I shunned the sciences and this stuff about the transistor escaped me completely. Heck, Steven Jobs and Bill Gates weren’t born until two years after I left college.

Next in the pile was a page from a 2007 Claremont Courier with quotes for Independence Day, including “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves”—Abraham Lincoln. More of this next week.

Going to my computer, which holds more transistor-enabled piles of unused material, I found several of my brief movie reviews that got sidetracked. Call them DVD reviews now if you want. By coincidence, all three deal with deceit, with varying results.

“Duplicity,” released in March, is an opportunity to view a “maturing” Julia Roberts in something different. Here she plays a scheming private investigator matching wits with an equally scheming male counterpart (Clive Owen) in an effort to obtain commercial secrets for their respective clients.

The two start out as agents for two different government spy organizations. They cross paths abroad and experience a brief romantic encounter.

Later they seek information that will give their private employers an edge in patenting a product that will restore hair, worth millions to the winner. It takes two hours and five minutes of shenanigans to reach an unanticipated conclusion.

The first half was so confusing that I felt the theater should have handed out a synopsis ahead of time. But if you prefer love and clever double dealing to violence and destruction, you should like this.

“State of Play,” an April release, was a good old fashioned murder mystery wrapped up in a Fourth Estate cover. It involves a veteran hard copy news reporter (Russell Crowe) and a novice female electronic-specialist reporter (Rachael McAdams), a congressman (Ben Affleck) and a tough editor (Helen Mirren). All that newspaper drew me in and I found the bigtime newsroom nuances intriguing. The only unrealistic part was when the editor held up the presses a couple of more hours to get the story first. No newspaper in its right mind today would do that. It costs too much.

“State of Play” has kind of a Woodward and Bernstein theme in the shadows. It contains interesting film flashbacks featuring classic movie shots made by Garbo, Stewart, Mitchum, Monroe and a host of other oldies. Good stuff.

“The Brothers Bloom” is another of the con artist genre, but hard to locate in these parts, unless you go to Los Angeles County. We are victims of a distorted movie distribution system that keeps some “special engagements” out of the hands of Inland Empire show places, at least for a few weeks. We had to go to Claremont to see it.

In this one, two brothers learn their art as orphans, and become progressively adept and worldwide until the younger Bloom, now grown up, wants out. Then it becomes a brother vs. brother con. Oh yes, there is a woman involved.

I’m not movie savvy enough to know the top players, but they do a good job.

(Copyright 2009 - Champion Newspapers - Published June 27, 2009)

Revisiting Prop. 13


After the election, a Sacramento writer, Don Hoenshell, said: “People want to punish government for failing to control spending, to rub noses in it for not listening to them, to punish, and for once, control…It is a war neither side can win.”

A little déjà vu here. This wasn’t written after our May 19 special election. It was published after the election of June 6, 1978, when an angry and scared electorate passed Proposition 13, the “People’s Initiative to Limit Property Taxes,” by a 65% majority of a 69% voter turnout.

Now some politicians would like to take a crack at modifying Proposition 13 to help balance the state’s disastrous budget. They receive complaints from new homeowners who say their property taxes are two to four times what their neighbors pay. They see large commercial properties still enjoying low property taxes because, despite changes in operators, they have managed to stay under the shell of the same pre-13 ownership.

Time has dimmed the reasons that Proposition 13 passed so handily. But not for many senior citizens who were able to hold on to their homes despite occasional waves of inflation which hit the housing market, particularly after 2002. And the children whose elder parents avoided losing their homes because of the way property tax rates were set before Proposition 13 came along.

Back in 1977, every local government set its own tax rate—the school board, city council, county supervisors, water board, etc. In San Bernardino County, assessed valuation was 25% of real valuation, and even that didn’t necessarily reflect market value. Statewide, elected assessors tended to favor the homeowners who elected them. In some cases they were rewarding friends even better.

Boards and councils were elected, too, but often had to offset lower assessed valuations with higher tax rates.

Before 1966, there was no uniform valuation practices among the state’s 58 county assessors. The basis varied from one county to another. A new law made assessments uniform by connecting them with market value. The result was large tax increases in some places. Still, assessors usually revalued property just every two or to four years on a rotating basis. The computer revolutionized the process and property owners could be reassessed annually.

In 1977, because of growth and of price increases of 20% or more in real estate, Chino’s total assessed valuations rose 38%, but the city fathers didn’t lower the tax rate. The school board considered a 38-cent per $100 assessed value rate increase, the maximum allowed. The Chino Basin Municipal Water District added a dime to its tax rate. Only the county board of supervisors lowered the rate—for the first time in six years.

Multiply this by the 58 counties and you can see why the homeowners were angry.

Enter Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann, and the revolt was on.

Proposition 13 brought some sanity to the property tax process. It specified that the ad valorum (based on value) rate on real property would not exceed one percent.

Base property values were rolled back to 1975-76.

Increases in assessed values thereafter could not exceed 2% unless the property was resold.

It required a two-thirds vote in local elections to raise the tax rate.

The result was a lowering of property taxes statewide by an average of 57%.

The concept of Proposition 13 spread to other states. The law passed muster with the U.S. Supreme Court.

It changed state tax policy and the way local government operated. Without the power to determine local income and expenditures, school boards lost decision making power to the state.

Cities and counties were forced to rely more on the sales tax to produce revenue. The competition for retail and big box stores became intense. Good land use planning went out the window. For instance, Chino Hills’ dreams of pleasant rural living have been scrapped. Traffic producing big stores are allowed, along with gaudy signs that puncture the gracious living goals that the community proclaimed.

The legislature sought to forestall passage of Proposition 13 by placing a less dramatic Proposition 8 on the same ballot, but like other such compromise measures tried earlier, it failed to get the support given the Jarvis-Gann measure and its emotional appeal.

The Champion warned readers that Proposition 13 threatened to take away the power of the voters to control their own destinies, the “right of the people to increase revenue for local government.”

As the budget crunch increases, politicians see some hope in breaking open the application of Prop 13 to commercial property, seeing that many such owners have used subterfuge to escape increases due to ownership changes. But the likelihood of modifying the homeowner protections of Prop 13 is almost nil. Looking back to 1977, you can see why.

Copyright 2009 - Champion Newspapers - Published June 20, 2009

Car safety slow in coming

By Al McCombs

In 1955 and 1956 Chino lost its mayor and its most prominent citizen to auto accidents. In both cases they were thrown from their vehicles. But such accidents still didn’t convince drivers of the value of seat belts.

Fifty years ago most people grumbled at having to wear seatbelts—and those were lap belts only. But then, motorcycle helmets, baby seats, and smoke alarms in the home met resistance as infringement on personal rights.

Seat belt laws were slow to take hold, and met with much resistance from auto manufacturers. It took court action and discounts by insurance companies to get the requirement rolling. It wasn’t until 1986 that California made seat belt wearing mandatory. Deaths and injuries dropped. Things changed for the better.
Now, for most people, buckling up is as natural as turning on the ignition.

Over the years as better construction and safety features were added to our vehicles, some by legislative fiat, we have forgotten the collisions like those which took the lives of the two prominent citizens mentioned above.

As traffic collisions increased along with speed limits, the tremendous toll on victims, insurance payers and medical facilities began to be felt by enough people to allow new regulations to take hold. Auto safety features suddenly became a selling point as well as engine power. If they had been riding in today’s vehicles, Jimmy Fisher and Harry Newman might have lived to be 60 or more. And Chino’s history might have changed some.

Mr. Fisher, 59, local businessman noted in the Champion report as the city’s most prominent citizen, died when he was thrown from his stationwagon after he collided with a truck full of bricks at Holt and Central in the present Montclair.

Mayor Newman, 53, was thrown from his car when it collided with another vehicle which failed to stop at Central and Arrow in Upland. Howard Cattle was named by the council to succeed him.

Serious collisions on early roadways didn’t begin with the advent of the automobile, which started to become popular here around 1910. People driving horse-drawn buggies got in serious and even fatal mishaps occasionally, but it took newly experienced auto drivers a little while to realize that yelling “whoa” was no substitute for good brakes.

In 1910 an 8-year-old Chino girl, dashing across Sixth Street with friends near D Street, became confused and ran to her death by a Cadillac driven by Levi Vredenburgh, head of the local Puente Oil Company operation. The distraught driver was not blamed.

In the 1920s and 1930s agriculture grew in the areas outside the city. Country roads were usually narrow two-laners with intersections often obscured by crops such as corn.
The Champion listed a number of bad traffic incidents in 1933, starting in February when bike-riding Enoch R. Galbreath, 49-year-old member of a prominent business family, was killed in the dark on Central Avenue north of Riverside Drive when he was struck by an auto driven by a well-known local young woman.

In July, a prominent Chino dairyman, Arie Reitkerk, 64, died on a Sunday morning after being forced off the highway and his car overturned in a ditch near Redlands, where he was going to attend church services.

In August, a Riverside man died instantly when his car hit a light pole on Central Avenue south of Francis. Investigators said he probably had a seizure before he ran off the road.

In September an Ontario woman was thrown from her car and killed in a collision with a dairy manager at Schaefer and Bon View.

Four days later a Chino youth and another were killed when their car collided on Valley Boulevard in east Ontario. All five occupants were thrown out.

Postwar 1947 was a bad year also for Chino motorists. In February a 28-year-old Chino professional golfer was killed when thrown from his car in a collision at Mills and Foothill in Claremont, while his family was headed for the Tournament of Roses parade in Pasadena.

In February a Chino girl was one of four killed, and two others from Chino injured, when their vehicle hit the side of a freight car blocking the road in La Verne. They had apparently been racing after a dance.

In May, Mr. and Mrs. John Whittington of a local nursery family and their stillborn daughter were killed in a collision at Chino and Pipeline. The other driver was badly injured and his expectant wife killed.

In June two Pomona residents died and two others were injured at the railroad crossing on East End Avenue north of Walnut when a backing train hit them while they were passing another car which had stopped.

In August, a 22-year-old Carbon Canyon resident died when his car careened across Central Avenue near Edison and rolled over after 2 a.m., throwing him out.

A month later a Chino woman was killed when she was thrown out after two cars collided at Los Serranos and Pomona Rincon roads. In October a 49-year-old dairyman was hurt at the same location, described as a partially blind intersection where there had been several other crashes.

In October a Chino High grad and World War II veteran died in the early morning when his heavy “torpedo” sedan rammed a tree on Valley Boulevard near Sierra Avenue in the Fontana area. He apparently went to sleep.

Winding Carbon Canyon Road took a big toll, particularly when a tavern was doing business in Sleepy Hollow. Most of the bad curves have since been eliminated. Many victims were motorcycle riders.

In May, 1954, three from Los Serranos were killed and one critically injured when their car hurtled off the road before midnight and plunged into a ravine.

Nine years later four Downey area teenagers died when their 1957 sedan left the same road on the east side of the summit. They were found after an all-night search by one of their fathers. That one made front pages in Los Angeles and San Francisco.

I have a photo in my office which I took years ago at a collision on Highway 71, around Chino Avenue, of a Highway Patrolwoman carrying a one-year-old strapped in a car seat, showing his injured mother that her child was all right, before the woman was loaded into the ambulance.
To me, that picture says a lot.

Copyright 2009 - Champion Newspapers - Published June 13, 2009

‘Marriage’
By Al McCombs

On page one of my daily newspaper last week was the big news that the California Supreme Court had upheld Proposition 8, which engraved in the state constitution the simple legal statement that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Turning to the top of page 2 I noticed the titillating item that Mel Gibson, entertainment icon and no doubt role model for many youth, announced on the Tonight Show that his girl friend is expecting. Mr. Gibson is still married to the woman he exchanged vows with 28 years ago, a union that produced seven children.

What a fascinating conflict of our social mores.

So just what did the court rule on Proposition 8? It said that the amendment to the state constitution by a majority vote of the people through the initiative process was, in this case, a valid action which did not cause a revision to the top state legal guide as far as personal rights are concerned.

The court did not rule that marriage between a man and a woman is the only valid definition for the word. It had ruled otherwise in 2008, but in this case it bowed to the will of the people. It did reinforce its now-deposed 2008 opinion by indicating that marriages performed among single gender couples were valid before Proposition 8 passed. The court thus established two levels of rights, contrary to constitutional protections regarding equality.

Left dangling is the question whether a majority of people can modify the rights of a minority. Over its history, both the federal and state courts have said yes, then changed their mind. This issue will probably be up to the U.S. Supreme Court for the ultimate decision, which then will be uniform for all the states.

Meanwhile, the California justices, having passed the buck, may lose some sleep over a ruling that does not live up to their status as the state’s supreme decider of legal issues. And well they should, in bowing to a socially explosive issue comparable to former issues of slavery, Chinese exclusion laws, internment of Japanese-Americans and exogamy (marrying outside one’s social group).

Right after World War II the federal courts ruled that schools could not be segregated, even if the majority of people approved it. The state changed its segregation law, and in Chino the D Street School was no longer just the “Mexican school.”

So what about “marriage?”

It’s an interesting word.

I turned to my Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (1999) for a specific definition, to wit: “The social institution under which a man and a woman live as husband and wife by legal or religious commitments.” There is another less prominent definition: “Any intimate association or union.”

State Senator Bob Dutton, who represents Upland and Rancho Cucamonga, responded to the court’s ruling on Proposition 8 by saying that he supported it because “marriage is a sacred commitment between one man and one woman.” His belief delves to the heart of the issue. My same dictionary defines “sacred” as “devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purposes.”

Sounds to me like religious values played a key role in the Proposition 8 vote. This is why the issue is a long way from being settled, because there is supposed to be a separation between religion and government. The state court did not pay heed to this, ignoring the opinion of the lone dissenting justice, Carlos R. Moreno, that “the aim of Proposition 8 and all similar measures that seek to alter the California Constitution to deny a fundamental right to a group that has historically been subject to discrimination on the basis of subject classification, violates the essence of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and fundamentally alters its scope and meaning.”

As for “marriage” as a concept, its going to take a lot more work to save it than passing a shaky constitutional measure. Everywhere you turn, marriage is being disregarded by people who are producing children. The rate of marriage ending in divorce is rather appalling, actually. Considering that 70 percent of marriages are performed in church, there’s a high dropout rate despite vows to the contrary.

$83 million was spent to get Proposition 8 passed. Many more millions will be spent to defend it. Marriage needs so much protection in so many areas, I wonder why so much time, effort and money is being spent on the man-woman aspect.

Copyright 2009 - Champion Newspapers - Published June6, 2009

Not to be forgotten

Today should have been Memorial Day, like it was originally, at least in the northern states, a tribute to soldiers who died in the Civil War. Back then it was called Decoration Day. Memorial Day now honors members of the military who have died in all wars, as well as being a day when family and friends remember those close to them who have passed on.

Unfortunately the observance has been demeaned by being juggled around to become a three-day holiday. Thus we celebrated Memorial Day a week early this year, on May 25. The only two significant patriotic holidays we now observe on their actual date are the Fourth of July, on Sunday this year, and Veterans Day, November 11, which will be on a Wednesday, a date which stands for the day of the World War I Armistice. Originally Veterans Day was Armistice Day.

Whenever someone of note dies, or a special event occurs involving some reflections on the past, I earn my keep at the Champion. Last week was one of those times.

The passing of former councilwoman Eileen Carter brought back memories of the community’s growth over the past half century.

Our first meeting was somewhat strained, because I felt she represented forces opposed to the economic growth of Chino.

It was the later fifties, in the middle of an economic slump, and the chamber of commerce was seeking revitalization. A proposal was made to move the Vernon stockyards to Chino. I was president of the chamber, and supported the idea.

Mrs. Carter, a junior high school teacher in Pomona who had a hand in the formation of the Chino Valley Advancement Association as well as a League of Women Voters chapter for western San Bernardino County, and opposed the idea, feeling it was not suitable for Chino’s future. She had been appointed chairman of a revamped planning commission, which shot the proposal down.

Probably nobody in town did their homework as thoroughly as Mrs. Carter. In this instance, she went to Phoenix to photograph a slaughterhouse near the metropolitan area, to show what Chino might get. They were convincing. She spent 14 years on the commission, nine as chairman, steering the development of a new general plan with an eye to making Chino look nice.

Mayor Carl Anderson, a rather rustic but canny politician, appointed me to the same commission, probably to shut me up, and it was there I grew to respect Eileen Carter, her vision and her dedication. Later she was elected to the city council for two terms.

She was behind the original Central Avenue planters that replaced the double line from north to south. She had a hand in new sign regulations to keep the streets from becoming gaudy, community directional signs, trash cans at bus stops, the revamping of the rose garden at the community building and other projects to make the city more attractive.

And trees—she was a great promoter of trees in parks and other public places as well as in new developments.
It is fitting that a grove at Ayala Park, on the northwest corner, is dedicated to her.

Right on the heels of Mrs. Carter’s passing was that of Sam Maloof, child of Lebanese immigrants, who grew up here as Sammy Solomon. He probably leads the list of prominent people to have a Chino background. Sam learned carpentry and mechanical drawing as a member of CHS Class of 1934. His first job after graduation was with an automotive air cleaner firm. It wasn’t until he was 32 that he put his self taught skills in woodworking and furniture design to work. To own one of his productions today would indeed be wealth.

Despite the fact he eventually settled in Alta Loma and became known worldwide, he never forgot his Chino roots. His family, including nine children, lived just south of Riverside Drive on Sixth Street. His mother and father ran a dry goods business and dressmaking shop in the old downtown.

Sam attended Chino High reunions and spoke to the historical society in 1991, brining samples of his work with him. He was always modest and cordial with old friends and people like me who knew him only casually.

Last week ended on a happy-sad note when I spoke at the last open house at El Rancho school, where my wife had been a long-term substitute teacher around 1961. El Rancho was the first new elementary school built in Chino since 1923, the result of the post World War II spurt in homebuilding and the arrival of the Baby Boomers. Built in a farmer’s pasture at C and Oaks, it opened with eight classrooms, kindergarten unit and administrative office in September 1950. Eight more classrooms and the multipurpose room were completed the following year. The first fulltime principal was Leonard Collins, who had stepped down as superintendent of schools.

El Rancho’s name was chosen by a committee of students and teachers to recognize the historical importance of Rancho Santa Ana del Chino. It’s opening allowed the district to get off double sessions and close a temporary school for primary age students from the farm area at the old Cal Aero flying academy at Chino Airport.

Copyright 2009 - Champion Newspapers - Published May 30, 2009

When will my GOP learn

Republican politicians in the state are in Seventh Heaven. Having unsuccessfully blocked a legislative move to pass the buck to voters, marked by a defection of key GOP legislators now blacklisted, they were successful Tuesday in drawing enough from all parties to shoot down a group of propositions which would have extended higher taxes and borrowed from designated funds that had been approved by the voters.

They thumbed their noses at their own governor, and now can enjoy watching the state pay out millions in higher interest rates to borrow short term dollars to keep from going bankrupt. However, they also succeeded in forcing the state to cut back its bloated programs, although the poor, the meek, the sick, the bewildered and the jobless will have to suffer through it.

Having voted early in favor of the propositions by absentee ballot, I changed my mind later and decided that the state is just going to bite the bullet, as it should have done two or three years ago. I agree that if the line isn’t drawn in the sand somewhere, we’ll just have to go through this trauma again in a couple of years. So I joined this newspaper’s suggestion that the politicians be sent back to work out a better deal. Only it was too late to change my ballot, which didn’t matter, as it turns out.

I also found it amazing how many people I know didn’t even bother to vote because they didn’t understand the proposals.

I’m not the kind of Republican that pleases the Chaney-Limbaugh branch of the party. To many of those p people are selfish, cater too much to moneyed or religious interests and have little feeling for those not as fortunate as themselves or who have other feelings about what “rights” means. On the other hand I have no sympathy for the parasites who live off of hard working people by taking drugs, having children they can’t support, stealing from others including their own families and neighbors, finding ways to get more government handouts and cheering for candidates who cater to their way of life.

The trouble is, in the middle there are too many good citizens who are being burned by both extremes, and deserve to acquire better education, assistance with horrendous medical problems and help with finding work and a chance to excel. They’re the ones that are paying the price for Republican indifference and Democratic overindulgence.

I’m tired of hearing such myths (assigned to Reagan) that “The nine most terrifying words in the English Language are” ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

One of the reasons the economy is in the shape it’s in is because the Republican administration turned its back when big business capitulated on its responsibilities. It’s the small, hard working people who are crying for help, and when they get it the GOP claims the new administration is turning the county socialist.

Another myth is that California’s financial woes are all the fault of political dominance by hard-left liberals. We’re where we are today because of hard-headed Republican opposition to doing away with the two-thirds requirement for passing a budget. Do you think for a second that if the positions were reversed, the Republicans would have supported that requirement? When one-third of a government can dictate to the majority, the political functions of our democratic system break down.

I received a mailing from the Republican National Committee the other day and it was hard to know whether to laugh or cry. Apparently Michael Steele, RNC committee chairman, hadn’t learned of my rebel Republican nature, and thought I would fall for the stupid “2009 Obama Agenda Survey” enclosed that permits respondents to only agree with the party line. Such as “Do you agree with Barack Obama’s budget plan that will lead to a $23.1 trillion deficit over the next ten years?” Where do I have room to reply “only as much as I agreed that we should go to war in Iraq which helped put us in the miserable shape we’re in.”

Of course, Mr. Steele had to go and insult me in his opening by saying “You know that the liberal media elites and Obama-Democrats are hoping you will put this letter down right and do nothing…they want you to give up, desert your Party and walk away from your Conservative principles.”

Darn right this “liberal media elite Republican” will not only put it down but toss it. The survey is really only a hypocritical front for sending a contribution to the Republican National Committee. And why do Republican principals have to be just conservative anyway? Seems to me plenty of us asked the same thing last November, but the party moguls weren’t listening.

It’s tough for those hard rock conservatives to get used to the idea that a Democrat won the last election because he was a 21st century man who gave hope to people badly disillusioned after eight years of an administration which shut out Republican centrists and spouted hard right platitudes that they easily ignored in the way things were run.

Now if Mr. Steele had asked me “Would you join your fellow Republicans in helping the Grand Old Party move into the 21st Century?” I might have sent him a few bucks.

Copyright 2009 - Champion Newspapers - Published May 23, 2009