USA FREE PRESS - Tehachapi Edition - IndyCitizen's Blog - Tehachapi News

The Whales of August

Sorry folks, this ain't political...

The Whales of August; starring Bette Davis, Lillian Gish, Vincent Price and Ann Sothern; a film by Lindsay Anderson; 1987; 91 minutes.

Libby (Davis) and Sarah (Gish) are widowed siblings who have vacationed for half a century at a seaside cottage in Maine. Now in their eighties, the sisters have unexpectedly arrived at an impasse: while Sarah embraces change and the possibility of romance with a courtly Russian suitor (Vincent Price), the stubbornly bitter Libby rages at the inevitibility of death. As the summer months wane, Libby and Sarah rediscover the powerful bonds of memory, family and love.

I chose to watch this film the other night instead of the Obama-McCain debate. And since I have been vacationing here in Manzanita, Oregon, at my sister-in-laws beach house, I thought the film was a perfect fit for the occassion. I was not disappointed.

The photography is absolutely stunning, the actors even more so. The film evokes an otherworldly atmosphere that is at once timeless, slow-moving and filled with precious, loving memories. The character played by Vincent Price never once lets us forget the virtues of being a perfect gentleman.

I highly recommend this film to all.

WHY!?

Why do Americans feel the need to elect someone to our nations two top jobs just because they appear to be just like us? Who cares if they toss back shots or brews at the local tavern? Who cares if they hunt moose? Who cares if they ride the Amtrak train to work everyday? Who cares if they change their own children's diapers? Who cares if they burp, fart or cuss just like us? Who cares?????

What does this even remotely have to do with being able to manage the most powerful, greatest country on earth? Shouldn't we expect MORE from a national leader?

I for one want a President and Vice President who is smarter than me, more informed on world affairs and frankly better than I am in most every department of life. I choose not to blindly accept the lowest common denominator and mediocrity in my national leaders. This is probably why I have consistently voted for third party candidates on principle for the last many presidential election cycles.

I pride myself in being extremely well informed on events in my city and state, country and the world, and I'm just an ordinary, common nobody. [The continuance of a democratic society is tied directly to how informed a voter is.]

Sometimes I think there should be a bar association-style exam for any American that wants to be President or Vice President, to prove their leadership worthiness. Like the Bar Exam, we could have potential candidates sit for eight hours being tested on economics, American history, political science, world affairs, business, geography and logic exercises. This could be done at any major American university and the candidate would get a certificate of mastery that would last 10 years.

Maybe I am in the minority but I really think those wanting to run my country should be smarter, more ethical and all around better than I am. [This includes being successful in raising a family, running a business and making money.]

Am I just naive?

Donnie and Jean, An Angel's Story

Just got through reading this autobiographical novel by our own Sam Heath. It can be had at Amazon!

I actually felt a tinge of sadness and regret when the story ended. It is written extremely well and wallops you with one big emotion impact while transporting back to a more simpler time.

One doesn't have to agree with Sam's politics, religion or his occassional use of pejorative terms to fall madly in love with his writing. I highly recommend Donnie and Jean if you haven't read it already.

Way to go Sam!

A.I.G. & Tax and Spend Neocons

Let's say there are 250 million adults in the United States over the age of 25. Have the U.S. Government give every adult age 25 or older $1 million. With this million they must pay off their house or buy a house, condo, apartment, houseboat or some other form of living space. This would solve most of the mortgage problem.

Sound incredible!?? Sound stupid!?? Not any more incredible or stupid than an $85 billion bailout for a private company [A.I.G.]!!! There are no words to say how repugnant this is.

Yes, American International Group is a vast and complex enterprise and has been for a long time. This gargantuan, unprecedented manmade disaster should not have happened. A.I.G. took on too much risk. It invested in instruments it didn't understand.

What does the average American get out of this deal? Peace of mind knowing that the brightest financial minds in the world have brought us to this point? American taxpayers have been treated with reckless disregard.

A.I.G. should have been allowed to file bankruptcy and then the company sold off, piece by piece, at fire sale prices. That's what would happen in a free market. If A.I.G is too big to fail, it is too big.

I lay this whole disaster at the feet of the current Neocon administration in the White House! They could have avoided all this back in 2002 but the war was more important.

Dear Sam Heath

I went onto your bookpage website and found much to my dismay you are not currently offering the books I want to buy. I found a copy of the Lord and the Weedpatcher on Amazon from a small bookstore but they wanted $97.95 for it.

Are you going to offer them again soon?

Can I still buy back issues of the TAPS at $40 per issue? It was unclear whether they were still in print.

Thanks,

Ron

I HAVE MADE A DECISION!

I have decided to use my precious vote this fall and cast it for Mr. Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party.

Why?

1. I know that he will never be elected to the Presidency this time around but I decided to vote on principle and not who might win--this is what Representational Democracy is all about.

2. Mr. Bob Barr is the only candidate running who holds sacred our Constitution and the fact that this country was founded as a Republic.

3. The Libertarian Party holds dear the ideas of personal privacy, personal freedom, and the primary authority of states rights over the Federal Government.

4. Bob and the rest of the Libertarian Party hold dear the values of true progressivism:

a) Abortion being no ones business but the woman and her family and her doctor,

b) The abolition of the Unitery Executive that was created by Bush-Cheney,

c) The right to bear arms,

There are other good ideas but too many to list here.

Some may question why an old Liberal like myself would vote for someone like Bob Barr. It's simple: he's the only one today talking about taking our Constitution back from the Neocon shredding machine. Bob Barr is socially progressive, economically conservative and a straight shooter on the Constitution.

Who owes whom in Iraq?

I came across this short letter to the editor this morning while reading the Oregonian newspaper with my breakfast.

"Concerning your Aug. 6 report (Iraq banks billions while U.S. foots bill), stop and imagine for a moment that you're in your own home minding your own business. Outsiders have accused you of manufacturing deadly weapons. You protest your innocence.

Despite many reports showing you're not guilty, heavily armed people kick in the door of your house, destroy everything inside it and render the house itself uninhabitable. They kill members of your family in the process.

Others flee in terror. No deadly weapons are found. The strangers make themselves at home in the ruins of your home. You begin trying to make them leave, first by reason and then by force.

While the invaders are still camped in your ruined house, they complain that you are stingy because you are not paying to clean and repair the place fast enough to suit them, and that you are not grateful for their help. How would you react?

Gail Amara - SE Portland, Oregon

I could not have said it better myself. So what if Iraqi oil production has brought in $179 billion over the last several years? So what if they have hardly paid for their own re-construction? I am of the opinion that we Americans owe them (the Iraqi people) much, much more than we are willing to confess to.

This is where I split with my liberal friends and associates. I don't think we should drop everything and run. We owe it to the Iraqi people to help them get back to pre-invasion levels of functioning before we leave. The best way of course would be to draw down U.S. combat troops over a two year period while replacing them tens of thousands of re-construction workers that would stay in Iraq until the job is done, whenever that would be.

Americans are great when it comes to talking about personal responsibility, but profoundly lack that same value when putting it into common, everyday practice.

Be patriotic. Support the re-construction of Iraq.

REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT!

[The recent Supreme Court decision on the 2nd Amendment really doesn't change much, in fact, the situation is still quite muddled as far as I am concerned].

Recognizing that the need to arm the populace as a militia is no longer of much concern, but also realizing that firearms are a part of our history and culture and are used by many for both personal defense and sport, I propose a new 2nd Amendment--an amendment to replace the current 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. This proposed text is offered as a talking point to start discussion of the topic.

Section 1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The right of the people to keep arms reasonable for hunting, sport, collecting, and personal defense shall not be infringed.

Section 3. Restrictions of arms must be found to be reasonable to the common welfare of the public at large under Section 2 by a two-thirds plus one vote of Congress in two consective sessions of Congresses before they can be forwarded to the President for approval.

This proposed amendment is a truer representation of how our society views our freedom to bear arms. Because reasonableness can be far too elastic, the two-Congress restriction requires that two Congresses in a row pass the exact same worded bill--this allows both thoughtful reflection and for the opinions of the people, to be expressed between these votes, to be heard (both at the ballot box and in general).

It is an unusual, but not unprecedented, way of passing legislation. Finally, the courts would have the ultimate authority in determining if a restriction is not reasonable, providing a final layer of protection (after the two pairs of debate in the House and Senate and the President's own agreement).

The militia is removed from the equation, greatly clarifying the purpose of the amendment.

[These are not my words entirely but others have contributed to this statement.]

Why Do They Hate Us?

Pick up any daily paper, turn on any radio station, thumb through any news magazine, surf the Internet, listen to the speeches of John McCain, or read the press releases from the Bush White House, and you get the same message loud and clear: Iran is aterrorist state that is getting close to nuclear capability and must be stopped at all costs. Most critics also condemn Iran for not being democratic.

Let us remember just who created this present day terrorist state called Iran. It was the United States who deposed their last democratically elected leader (Mohammed Mossadegh) and replaced him with the brutal Shah (Pahlavi of the Peacock Throne). For what reason you may ask? Oil my dear reader...oil!

During the reign of the brutal and secular Shah the United States exported blue jeans, coca cola, pornography and other such Western decadence. What it didn't export was democracy, social justice and humanitarianism. The Iranian people finally revolted and fell under the sway of the powerful and theocratic Mullahs.

After the Shah was finally overthrown, we helped Saddam Hussein strategically and militarily kill millions of Iranians in his 8 year war of aggression against Iran. If Iranians hate us today and their current leadership calls us the Great Satan, it is not without reason and they appear justified in doing so.

If we want an improved relationship with Iran, if we want to eliminate it as a source of terrorism, we must once again earn the respect of the Iranian people. This will not be done by axis of evil talk, by rattling the saber or by threatening them with nuclear surgical strikes, but by respectful diplomacy.

THOSE DAMN IMMIGRANTS!

"Those damn immigrants!"

This is what I heard my receiving clerk say to one of our waiting truck drivers. The trucker was more than happy to agree with him and proceeded to offer his own opinion on how "all immigrants are nothing but welfare cheats, living off our taxes we struggle so hard to pay."

The above scene probably takes places a million times a day in this country at workplaces, pubs, parks, churches, strip malls, and between neighbors. And this is what I find so frustrating about the current debate on immigration reform in this country. Not only have provincial minds been made-up long ago but the manner and style of the debate has taken on an entirely wrong-headed assumption from the start.

An "immigrant" by the very definition of the word is always a legal bona fide resident of this country. Even the phrase "illegal immigrants" is an oxymoron and useless to the debate. Whereas the phrase "illegal alien" is just what it implies - someone who sneaked into this country against the law in order to receive compensation of some sort.

During the present debate we in our provincial ways tend to paint every immigrant and illegal alien with the same stroke of the brush. Not only is this sad but brings down the debate to an us versus them starting point. From that point onward it just gets uglier and uglier.

This debate takes on a life of its own when people of color are the focus of so-called immigration reform. Here in Oregon we have just as many, if not more, illegal aliens from Russia, Romania, Canada, Great Britain and Australia. But you will never hear my receiving clerk and the many truckers talking disdainfully about these particular aliens. Why? Could it be that they are from European stock and mostly get illegal work at much higher wages? If we are to be equal in our disdain of others outside the United Sates, then the whole debate must take a big wide turn and bring these other illegal aliens into the conversation.

Let's re-start the conversation by first of all taking the word "immigrant" out of the debate when we discuss United States policy on illegals in this country. Secondly, lets spend more time in conversation on why illegal aliens come here to begin with, and some rational counter measures to make sure they stay in their own country, wherever that is.

In my own humble opinion illegal aliens from all over the world come to this country because employers big and small keep breaking the law and hiring them. Everybody from the President, Senators, Representatives, all the way down to Governors and Mayors, need to grow some backbone and start enforcing the laws we already have on the books. We don't need borders walls, more military troops or voluntary minute men. What we all need is national resolve!

If all employers were under extreme and direct threat from the government for hiring illegal aliens the problem as we know it would disappear overnight. What I mean by extreme and direct threat from the government is this: A first offense of hiring illegal aliens would be a monetary fine equal to ten percent of the employers profits. A seconf offense would be a fine that equals twenty-five percent of the employers profits. A third and final offense would be the forteiture of the company to the government for sanitization and re-sale to the highest qualified bidder.