Are Republicans the Party of exclusion?

            When issues regarding politics are discussed my views are not always in lock step with others in my party, Republican.

For the record, I am rarely in agreement with views of the Democrat Party. Philosophically, we are separated by a universe.

          I wrote my previous blogs more to vent my feelings than to change minds. However, I do hope to get some people who read them to think about why they believe as they do.

          Today, however, I am positive my view is 100% correct and those from my party who don’t agree are 100% wrong. In fact, I believe they do not really understand what being an American is all about or what the Republican Party stands for. Strong words, I know.

          The issue at question has to do with filing fees for potential candidates for public office.

          Requiring someone to post a certain amount of money just to file for office is a mostly southern tradition. The origins date to the days of Jim Crow and the era of the poll tax. The intent of filing fees was purely to exclude possible candidates the local powers did not want to run for office. Read that as “blacks” and other minorities, including low income whites from ‘the wrong side of the tracks’.

          In more recent years filing fees have become a major source of income for the political parties. And every election cycle they go up. I am not naïve. I know it is hard to turn off a faucet of free money. The practice is not likely to change anytime soon.

          As a long time member of the Baxter County, Arkansas Republican Committee I have always debated against our having filing fees. This happens every two years with our election cycles. And every two years I get voted down by many to one.

          This year, however, those who debated against me used arguments I never suspected I would hear from those who call themselves Americans or Republicans. Their words saddened me. They call themselves Americans and Republicans but their words say otherwise.

          From the dissenters I heard “Without a filing fee, just anyone could file and we might have a lot of people we don’t know anything about”, or “paying a filing fee shows a commitment” or unbelievably “if they can’t afford to pay a fee they aren’t qualified to hold public office”.

          And to all of those ‘anti’ people I can only say “So what?”  This is America, whoever wants to run for office should be allowed to without judgmental notions of Party members getting in their way. I know our party has members who are bigots and who sneer at those from the ‘other side of the tracks’. We should not make those ugly views an official stance of the Republican Party.

          By eliminating those views, I admit we could end up with some unusual people running for public office. Why, we might even end up with some of them even getting elected, like a rail splitter or haberdasher.

Oh, horrors!

          The Republican Party is viewed by many as the party of exclusion and populated by imperious people contemptuous of lesser folks not so fortunate as themselves.

          That view is what keeps the blue collar working class and minorities from voting for our candidates.

          That view is staunchly supported by the same people who dislike President Obama. And those very same people are keeping themselves blind to the reason Obama was elected President. He focused his campaign on those people while Republicans, not only ignored them, but shunned them.

          We Republicans have forgotten who we are and where we came from.

Filing fees are visible evidence of that.

Secret Service idiots

The recent White House party dinner crash incident has reminded me of several, very unusual, experiences I have had with the Secret Service in my life.
It is probably accurate to say that few ordinary Americans ever have contact with the Secret Service.
I have had five I can recall. Looking back, one can only conclude the SS is completely incompetent and unable to protect the president, or anyone else, from potential assassins.
My first experience with the SS happened when I was only ten years old. It was 1948 and Thomas Dewey was running against Harry Truman for the presidency.
My mother and I were taking a trip to visit relatives in Lincoln, Nebraska. To get there, we had to catch a train out of Union Station in Chicago.
We were a little late and as we walked on the platform our train began moving. We jumped onto the rear deck of the last car and went inside. To our surprise, the car was very elegantly decorated, much unlike a regular car. We saw two men standing with machine guns and one man sitting. The sitting man we instantly recognized as Tom Dewey. We spent the entire trip visiting with him, me sitting on his lap most of the time.
As unique an experience as this was, I look back now and wonder why the SS men even let strangers into the car. All they would have had to do to protect Mr. Dewey was lock the deck door but they didn’t.
In 1964, Barry Goldwater was running for president against incumbent Lyndon Johnson. Goldwater was making a campaign speech at the football field of Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois.
I was then the President of the local Young Republicans and greatly admired Goldwater. After the speech, I wanted meet him and shake his hand. I saw him walk behind the end zone after speaking. I hurried to the spot and saw him standing outside a limousine surrounded by SS agents.
I walked right past the agents without being challenged and introduced myself to Mr. Goldwater. I recall he was very cordial and not at all bothered by my intrusion. While we were chatting it started to rain and he invited me inside his limousine to continue our conversation which lasted almost an hour.
Several years later I was working in Chicago and had occasion to go to a hotel on South Shore Drive. I was walking through the halls when I saw a glass walled room with Richard Nixon sitting alone at a table. I waved to him and he gestured back indicating I should come inside.
I went inside and introduced myself. We chatted for a few minutes when a waiter brought a tray with coffee and cookies. For more than an hour we talked politics. At no time did I see a single SS agent who was supposed to be guarding him.
A few years later, 1967, President Lyndon Johnson was scheduled to visit Chicago. It had been announced he would be staying at the same hotel where I had my chance meeting with Richard Nixon.
I wanted to get a good photograph of him entering the hotel. To accomplish this, I, literally, convinced the SS agents inside the lobby I had authority to go up to a restricted floor and take pictures. I suspect my line of baloney was not unlike what the party crashers used. I got my pictures but, just as easily could have shot the President with a rifle. And with the friendly cooperation of the idiot SS agents.
The next night, Johnson was speaking to a very large audience at McCormick Place convention center. I wanted pictures there also. As I approached, I saw the front door was heavily guarded so I drove to the far south side of the building and parked. The door there was unguarded and unlocked. I walked into the back of the huge building only to find it empty.
I could see large curtains dividing the back part of the room where I stood from the front which had been converted to a dining room for the event. The theatre type curtains allowed me to see the President standing while giving his speech.
I walked to within about thirty feet of the President and took some pictures. I could just as easily have shot him and run outside for an easy get-away if that had been my intention. The SS was nowhere to be seen.
Historically, most assassination attempts have been from the attacker simply walking up to the President and shooting with a pistol. The SS has proven to be completely impotent in all instances of assassination attempts.
With the recent party crashers, if they had wished to attack President Obama they could have done so with impunity. The news is making much of the fact that a metal detector found no guns on them. What is not much discussed is the fact they were close enough to the President to shake his hand.
I own two non-metallic knives that would be very deadly in a close contact attack. Even lacking those, a knife snatched from a dinner table could be just as effective. And, in this day and age, there are many exotic poisons and chemicals that could have been used to commit assassination.
My opinion, from these experiences, is that the presidential protection team, known as the Secret Service is completely incompent and does little, if anything, that would save a president from a determined would-be assassination.

My views on the abortion issue.

I am sure to take considerable flak from this discussion. Those strongly opposed to abortion will call me pro-choice. The pro-choice crowd will label me an absolutist. It is the individuals right to put whatever label on me they wish.
For the record, I had virtually no guidance on the abortion issue from my parents as I was growing up. It simply was not discussed. And not until I was almost thirty years old I even thought about the issue.
That was about the time of the famous Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade ruling in 1973 that made abortion legal. It was also about the time I had some personal experiences involving back alley abortions.
First, let us step back to my upbringing and teachings about religion and life.
When I was still very young we lived on the west side of Chicago and even at the tender ages of seven and eight, I would take a little pocket change and ride the street car and busses alone into the big city. I would usually go directly to one of the famous museums there. My favorite was Shedd Aquarium but the Field Museum of natural history and the Museum of Science and Industry were not far behind.
I could spend an entire day in the Science and Industry museum. Admission was free and lunch was less than a quarter.
In that museum was a display that endures to this day. It is a series of large sealed tubes containing fetuses at all stages of development. It starts with just the tiniest white dot and progresses through full term. The vision of all those ---take your pick: products of conception or babies---remains strong in my minds eye to this day.
Even though I had never heard the arguments that these represented “life” or were just “tissue blobs” I intuitively knew they were some kind of miracle of creation.
As the years went by I came to the belief that fetuses were not yet children. I believed that ones soul was not imbued until the first breath of life at birth. Where this idea came from is unknown to me. It is what I believed.
There are phrases in the Bible that may give credence to the breath of life belief. Reportedly, there is considerable belief among theological scholars, of many faiths, that the breath of life point of view is correct.
This is what some believe.
Nevertheless, I have always believed that, in most cases, abortion was wrong. Is it murder? I don’t believe so. Is it a sin? I believe it is even though I cannot point to a commandment that says it is.
When is abortion justified? My view is never or almost never. There may be exceptional circumstances and I hope I am never confronted with the decision.
In fact, that was a common belief until just after the famous Roe vs. Wade decision of 1973. Shortly after the decision we started hearing preachers saying that an unborn child was “life” and abortion was murder.
That argument has always rubbed me the wrong way. Using the word “life” is simply dramatic rhetoric.
If you disagree, look at it this way, whenever you go to a doctors office and have blood drawn for tests you are allowing some of your “life” to be killed. Killing animals for food is taking “life”. So is swatting a fly or mowing the lawn. The word is simply emotional rhetoric.
The real question is whether a fetus is a child with a soul and whether aborting one is murder.
When I was a hard news photographer in Chicago, I saw young women who had abortions because they believed bringing a child into the world they could not feed was sinful. Their belief was that allowing a child to be born into poverty was a greater wrong than aborting it.
In poverty stricken rural areas of the country, such as the Arkansas Ozarks and Appalachia, many believed similarly. Certain herbs could induce abortion and were used regularly as a means of birth control.
It was, and remains, a question of ones beliefs.
Today, the argument is whether public funds should be allowed to be used to pay for abortions. The absolutist anti-abortionists flatly say no.
Those who call themselves pro-choice say yes.
People of faith usually turn to their religion for answers to difficult questions. For Christians it is common to ask ‘What would Jesus do?’
Let us examine the question of whether public funds should, or should not be used for abortions.
Here is a pregnant and unmarried young woman seeking an abortion. Her reason is that her faith and culture say bearing a child while unmarried is a great sin. She also has been taught that the unborn is not yet a child and has no soul.
Problem, no doctor or hospital will accept her for the procedure. Her option is a back alley abortionist. I have personally seen the results of back alley (and they really are “back alley” locations) abortions in dead and dying young women.
OK, hospitals will not accept her and provide the procedure under proper medical conditions.
The back alley provider is a very undesirable, perhaps deadly, choice.
What would Jesus do?
I believe Jesus would tell us a hospital is the only acceptable decision for the procedure.
For the record, I believe Jesus, in his infinite wisdom, would reason with the young woman and convince her to not have the abortion. But, we mortals are not equipped with such wisdom.
When the decision has been made, whether you agree or not, an abortion will happen. What would you do?
Would you prefer to let her bleed to death in an alley or have the procedure done by a qualified doctor in a hospital?
(I have asked this question in person. At this point the strong anti-abortionist, without fail, changes the subject and begins shouting that abortion is murder. They never confront the issue.)
Where do I stand? To answer that, even to myself, I must decide if the unborn has a soul or must wait until the first breath of life to become so blessed. I would choose against the procedure.
However, we are dealing with someone who believes bringing a child into a world of poverty, or worse is the greater wrong. The decision has been made.
Would I send the young woman in question to a hospital or a back alley butcher? That’s easy. I would allow her to have it done in a hospital by a doctor.
Does that mean I still believe the unborn doesn’t have a soul. No. But the only honest answer I can give is that I don’t know. And, I believe no one knows. What one believes is simply a matter of unproven faith.
I do believe that your faith should not be allowed to dictate whether that young woman is treated properly or be allowed to bleed to death in an alley. I believe Jesus would agree.
Where is the answer? It is not on earth.

the evil of censorship

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates claimed he was “outraged” that the photograph of a dying Marine in Afghanistan was published recently.
Gates denounced the Associated Press for distributing and publishing the photograph. Sadly, the AP crumpled under his criticism and withdrew the picture.
There are several problems with this scenario. First, even though they do it frequently, public officials have no right to force anyone, professional media or average citizen to not exercise their Constitutional Right of free speech. Second, the AP acted like unprofessional wusses by caving in to his threats to limit battlefield access in Afghanistan.
I have been a professional news photographer. I have always believed that pictures can tell a story in ways that words simply cannot do. I have photographed burned children, murdered nurses, murdered gangsters, horribly mangled accident victims, parents grieving over the death of a child and more. There was no joy involved in taking these photographs. But, there was satisfaction in knowing that reality had been presented and preserved.
Since the Civil War, photographs have shown us reality and preserved the humanness of both suffering and greatness. Think of the battle scenes from World War II and the Nazi death camps with thousands of dead and dying. Erasing scenes of freezing soldiers in Korea from the mind is impossible. A different kind of war in Viet Nam’s steamy jungles and swamps would never be understood without pictures. Can we ever forget the impact of the photograph of a burned and naked little girl running for her life in Viet Nam? That single photograph, perhaps more than any other, brought the stark reality of the horrors of war to the world.
But, today, America has a lesser understanding of the struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan because our Government has limited access to the battle areas and is restricting, not only what can be photographed and reported on, but shutting off transmission of “undesirable” material back to America. This is no different than what Red China did with the voices of dissenters in the days of Tiananmen Square by shutting off telephone and Internet communications.
Am I unmoved by a picture of an American serviceman who is dying from wounds? Of course not. Do I feel outrage? Yes, of course I do. I am outraged that war happens at all. Am I outraged that we are fighting in Afghanistan? No, I am saddened by the fact of life that we must be there to help protect lives and freedom from terrorist aggressors. I grieve for that Marine and his family but I would join the fight to protect the right to distribute that photograph.
That photograph of a dying Marine should serve as a catalyst for America to support, even more than we have, the war effort to stop the aggressors. His suffering and dying should be an inspiration and contribution to help us conquer evil and win the war.
Secretary Gates, you are wrong by trying to limit freedom of the press. Knowledge is America’s most powerful weapon.

Get it right.

I just received an e-mail from my state Republican Party. They made some errors, that unfortunately are very common these days. The folks that do this show, despite their paper education, they uninformed and uneducated. Dangerous for those in the political venue.
OK, here is what I'm talking about, titles for elected persons.
Lets start with the U.S. Congress. For the confused among you, the CONGRESS is composed of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. A Senator is a 'Senator', a member of the House is a 'Representative'. BOTH are 'congressmen'. Generally, however, that is reserved when referring to the collective. e.g. the whole bunch.
Another frequent error is to call one "Arkansas' Senator". Nope, never. They are UNITED STATES Senators from Arkansas, or whatever state elected them. They were elected to represent all of America.
The House Members are UNITED STATES Representatives from a particular district in their home state. Again, they were elected to represent all the citizens of the United States.
The situation is similar at state level. However, at state level it is not generally the practice to call the combined House and Senate a congress. Usually the combined bodies are referred to as the Legislature.
And, a member of a state house is a 'representative', never a congressman. A member of the senate is a Senator.
Just like at the federal level, they are elected to represent, and serve, the entire state but were elected from a particular district.
I will admit, though, that, in practice, all usually focus their voting decisions and other actions on the wants of the people who elected them. They are, in the final wash, home folks who are expected to serve the needs of those who elected them.

Just kill the old people.

Most Americans are confused by the contradiction that President Obama’s health care plan can do more and be less expensive for the country.
It is a conundrum seemingly with no answer. But, there is a way.
You just kill the old people.
This is not a new concept. Some of us can remember the 1970’s sci-fi movies Soylent Green and Logan’s Run. The foundation of both of these movies, classics in my opinion, was that the highly socialistic leadership could only afford to run their governments if the expensive to maintain old people were killed. In Soylent Green, people we would consider ‘elderly’ were killed in a pleasant ritualistic manner. In the movie Logan’s Run age 30 was considered “old”. One’s thirtieth birthday was referred to as the “final day”.
Already U.S. Senator Tom Daschle has said, “Health care reform will not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them.” Scary. Seniors will not receive treatment but will just be left to suffer and die.
President Obama said that seniors “…will just have to take a pain pill.” More bureaucratic dictated withholding of treatment and suffering for the sake of saving money. Our President, apparently, wants to kill old people.
This means that our Senators , may be voting to kill old people. Same with our Representatives. Next time you see one of these people ask them “Do you want to kill old people?”