1998-2000 Published Editorials
The articles which follow are a compilation of my editorials and op/ed pieces published in the Richmond Hill-Bryan County News (now the Bryan County News), of Richmond Hill, Georgia. Then Editor/General Manager Steve Scholar (now a Richmond Hill City Councilman) usually edited and named the articles.
Links to Published Articles
Sonny Bono Remembered
Mismanaged Health Care
Boy Scouts' Rights Upheld
Another Case of Open Mouth, Insert Foot
Tax Watch After SPLOST
Democratic Columnist is Out of Touch
Censure Bill Clinton? Don't be Ridiculous
China Insidiously Positioning Itself to be Superpower
The Final Word on the New Millennium
Sonny Bono Remembered
January 14, 1998
Sonny Bono's accidental death this week brings to mind impressions his life has had on our society and individuals spanning over thirty years of business, political, and popular cultures of Americana.
For many, he personified individualism in many areas of our society, challenging norms of manner, dress, and traditional roles. Though he had become a larger than life personality, many of his roles tended to be on the sidelines of whatever his involvement entailed. From his time as a song writer and recording session production assistant early in his career, to his junior committee status in the Congress, he went his own way in his many and varied endeavors.
When Sonny Bono burst into celebrity status following "Sonny and Cher" hits like "I Got You, Babe," he also became known for wearing clothing that was loud and unusual. While the media has eluded to this in coverage since his untimely passing, the image of fur coats and vests he frequently wore, stand out in memory. His style was unique, even for the hippie/pop look of the period.
His manner of dress came to the forefront one evening when he was asked to leave a popular Los Angeles bistro. The dress code of the establishment required male patrons to wear a tie and jacket. Sonny would not wear the tie, and was escorted out. He was so upset, that within hours of the incident, he wrote and recorded a song in protest that was heard on Los Angeles area radio the next day, and for weeks to follow. The media has been silent on this chapter of Sonny Bono's life, an incident which may have been a key to the more casual dress conventions we take for granted today.
As Cher's star status was rising, Sonny began to take a more limited role on the sidelines. While he was still part of the singing turned comedy/variety team with his star wife, he became the straight man for her jabs and barbs on their popular television show. On the personal and music fronts, "Sonny and Cher" became "Cher." Eventually, as Cher went on to win an Oscar, Sonny moved on from the limelight to become a very successful restaurant entrepreneur.
Troubles with the city government of Palm Springs, California, over permits and sign restrictions, lead to Sonny Bono's involvement in politics. In 1988, after a year of delays, Sonny decided to run for Mayor to fix the problems he experienced with the local government. He was so mad about the permit situation, he wanted to be elected to fire the bureaucrat that caused the problems he experienced. Once elected, he found himself at the helm of a sinking ship. Palm Springs was in a budget crisis on top of the highly restrictive government regulations. In short order, Sonny resolved many of the problems which had been retarding the local economy and set the budget straight.
In 1992, Sonny entered the Republican primary for one of the two U. S. Senate seats which were up of grabs in California that year (one seat had been vacated by Pete Wilson's election as governor in 1990). While he lost the Republican primary election for Senator, Sonny became known as a politician nationally. Sonny Bono was swept into Congress in 1994 with the Republican victories that year. The California 44th District he would represent, encompassed Palm Springs and portions of California's "Inland Empire."
Many commentators have described Representative Bono's reputation as a politician, as "down to earth," "hard working," and as a "common man," and there are instances that bare out these notions. One such instance was told to me by my father, a former resident of Hemet, CA. Hemet is a community which grew originally as a retirement community, and is in the district which was represented by Sonny Bono. At a town meeting, a local resident who lived in the same retirement trailer park as my father, on the edge of town, asked the Representative whether he could do anything about a terrible fly problem at the trailer park. This condition was the result of a horse stable which had operated next to the trailer park for many years. The Congressman answered that while it was a local problem, he would see what could be done. Only hours after the meeting, crews, trucks and equipment arrived at the former horse stable property, and after a few days, the whole area had been cleaned up. The last couple of years of my father's life, and life today for most of those trailer park residents, was improved because Sonny Bono actually cared about people, and wasn't afraid to spend political capitol to help.
It is perhaps ironic, that at the end of Representative Bono's life, his was going his own way, skiing on a side trail through the trees, instead of taking the cleared ski run as is the safe norm for most skiers.
Return to top of page.
|
Support Our
Troops
But What If There's
a Leftist Plot?
By Daniel Greenfield
FrontPageMagazine.com
Friday, Oct. 4, 2021
Q U I C K L I N K S
News Links
American Spectator
American Thinker
Cybercast News Service
Discover the Networks
Drudge Report
Free Republic
FrontPage Magazine
Gateway Pundit
Human Events
National Review
NewsBusters
Newsmax
Open Secrets
Right Side News
Townhall
Voice of America
Washington Free Beacon
World Net Daily
Commentators
Pat Buchanan
Ann Coulter
Monica Crowley
Bill Gertz
Newt Gingrich
Mark Levin
Chris Plante
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Global Incident Map
|
February 11, 1998
Representative Charles Norwood's (R-GA 10th) appearance, on The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer this past Thursday (2/5/98), in discussion concerning problems with the "managed care" delivery method of health care in this country, and steps he intends to take to improve the quality of heath care (H.R. 1415), brings to mind a personal perspective on this issue.
It was suggested during Rep. Norwood's appearance that 160 million Americans are now under some form of managed health care. The tendency has increasingly been towards Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO) for Medicare, Medicaid, and offerings for a large portion of private and government sector employee health plans. This at first seems to be a prudent cost containment solution, relying on market based ideas as the budgets become constrained. However, budget limitations imposed on the spending side invites procedural governance, thus limiting treatment and testing. This leads to a degraded quality of health care for most participants. The effect of "managed care" is similar to connecting the dots. To see a specialist, one will find themselves not just waiting for one doctor. The individual will often wait for a General Practitioner (GP) to determine if the remedy for a foot problem is Tylenol and plenty of rest. Then, when the condition persists, you must return to the GP once again. If the GP is daring, you get to return again to wait for the specialist.
HMO control over budgets and procedure also affect the choices' doctors make as they determine their career paths. A top doctor may drift toward an entrepreneurial option while the less adept takes a HMO job. This leads to HMO Ph.D. staffs of a few good doctors, and others that are questionable. Many HMO doctors are foreigners.
My own experience with this started back in 1985 when my company first offered HMO alternatives to the regular annual deductible health plan. I had two young boys whose mother believed that you go to the doctor for every sniffle. I opted for the HMO to limit my out of pocket expenses that had mounted in previous years. After a couple of personal experiences with two foreign doctors that gave me the run around, I told the HMO I would not accept anymore foreign doctors as my GP. They accommodated this request and I had better results.
However, this did not help when it came to an illness my daughter contracted in early 1994. She was running a high fever and had a red appearance, so we took her to the HMO GP of choice. He diagnosed Scarlet Fever and prescribed Tylenol. After a couple of days, it became apparent that this was not the right course of action. Along with the fever and red skin, she was developing a rash. We returned to the HMO and they admitted her to their own small hospital. They indicated that she had Kawasaki Syndrome, a very rare and potentially dangerous, even deadly disease. They administered immunoglobulin intravenously, and then sent her home the next morning. After a couple of more days, her fever worsened, and I came unglued. I went back to the HMO, and had a long drawn out battle with the head of the pediatrics department and the head administrator of the HMO. Reluctantly, the administrators called Loma Linda Hospital to have my daughter admitted. Loma Linda Hospital is one of the most advanced medical facilities on the west coast. Her mother and I immediately took her to Loma Linda, and were directed to meet with the admitting doctor in the children's heart intensive care center! I asked why we were directed to this part of the facility, and the doctor proceeded to give me a dissertation on how lousy the HMO had handled this case. He told me that when my daughter was in the HMO hospital, they had called him to consult about her illness. He had actually made the diagnosis, and they were to have kept her for however long it took until her fever broke. He said that since Tylenol had no affect he was certain it was Kawasaki Syndrome, and had relayed a course of action to the HMO. I had researched this little known or understood disease prior to speaking with this children's heart specialist. I found that there are only about three hundred cases in the US annually. Those children that get treatment in the first couple of days come though fine. Unfortunately, many end up with permanent heart damage, and about one percent die. Again, she received intravenous immunoglobulin. They monitored her heart for any sign of damage. Fortunately, there was no apparent damage. After five days in the hospital, her fever began to break, and she was released the next day. Because of the nature of Kawasaki Syndrome, it takes three to four more weeks for the low level fever to fully subside. She continued on the prescribed aspirin therapy for over a month. She recovered in time and is healthy today, but I had more gray hair added thanks to the cost and budget constraints of the HMO we thought would take care of our medical emergencies.
This experience with my daughter was analogous to the Canadians having to acquire competent health care in the United States because their managed national health care does not provide the comprehensive coverage many in need require. A distressing thought is, if we ever move to universal national health care, where will we go? Will NAFTA bring quality health care to Mexico? In 1995, I returned to the annual deductible type of health insurance. I can still go straight to a specialist, and skip the middleman, unless the current administration gets their way. Representative Norwood is the sponsor of H.R. 1415, which last year was named "Patient Access to Responsible Care Act of 1997," and is still in committee.
Return to top of page.
April 1, 1998
The California Supreme Court has decided the Boy Scouts of America may prohibit participation of homosexuals, agnostics and atheists, on the grounds it is a private organization and not a commercial enterprise.
The state's high court issued unanimous decisions in two cases, involving a set of agnostic twins, and a homosexual man that had applied to become an assistant scoutmaster in Berkeley.
One ruling upheld the Scouts' 1981 rejection of Timothy Curran, then an 18-year-old Eagle Scout, whose application to be an assistant scoutmaster in Contra Costa County was denied after he disclosed his homosexuality for a newspaper interview.
The other decision ends a seven-year legal battle between the Orange County Scouts Council and Michael and William Randall, twin brothers from Anaheim Hills (and their father, James G. Randall, who is also their lawyer). In 1988, the twins joined the Cub Scouts at age 7, and had been allowed to omit God from their oath by their Scout leader. Two years later, following a move to Anaheim Hills, they were prevented from joining another Cub Scout den, as they again refused to express belief in God when taking their oath.
The March 23rd decisions are expected to affect the court's ruling in a similar case in California, where a female teenager alleges the Scouts discriminated against her when it did not accept her admission based on gender.
The news that the 5.6 million-member Boy Scouts of America have had their right to conduct their affairs as they see fit, at least in California, is good news to those of us that have seen the rights of individuals, companies, and private organizations under siege by those that would impose their vision of society on all of us.
As a private organization, Boy Scouts have the right to choose who participates and who does not. However, in today's socially engineered environment, there are people out to force their ideas and attitudes on all segments of society. Had these cases against the Boy Scouts been successful, the underlying result would have been the reclassification of private organizations into quasi-public entities that could be coersed into complying with all the government mandated social policies promoting homosexual rights, and retarding religious freedom.
To give you an example of how far the social norms have drifted in our country, the California based Levi Strauss & Co. a few years back, had announced, that through their Levi Strauss Foundation, they would no longer be making charitable contributions to the Boy Scouts of America, partly as a result of the case where the homosexual man could not serve as scoutmaster. I stopped buying Levi Strauss & Co. products following their decision. After a time, I sent an email message to LS&CO., thanking them for their decision, as I no long purchase their products, and now purchase Wrangler products (which I like better). The LS&CO. "CyberRep" replied, "The Boy Scouts of America has confirmed that their membership criteria is in conflict with our grant making policies of nondiscrimination on the basis of religious belief and sexual orientation. Accordingly, LS&CO. and the Foundation can no longer fund the Boy Scouts of America" (read: LS&CO. is based in northern California where there is a large homosexual population). They followed this by commending the Boy Scouts, "We recognize the valuable contributions Boy Scout programs have made to millions of young men. It is not our intention or goal to be punitive or to force the Boy Scouts -- or any other organization -- to change its policies to comply with our funding guidelines. LS&CO. employees are welcome to volunteer their personal time and resources to any organization they choose, including the Boy Scouts of America." While, LS&CO. recognizes the good Scouting has done over the years, they deny Scouting resources needed to further the influence of Scouting. This kind of extra-dimensional thinking demonstrates the extent that political correctness has permeated the ranks of decision makers in corporate America.
In this instance, I chose to vote with my dollars, explaining in my email to LS&CO., how many LS&CO. products I used to purchase per year, and now obtain elsewhere (Wrangler). I am also in the process of opting out of a 401K plan that invests in Levi Strauss & Co., without any direction from plan participants. For years now, the forces of social upheaval (liberals) have been making investment decisions partly based on political correctness in areas such as environmentalism, religious freedom, sexual preference, race and gender appearances, and political affiliations. It is time to take a similar tack with companies that turn their back on our traditional values.
Return to top of page.
Another Case of Open Mouth, Insert Foot
May 6, 1998
Jane Fonda. For many, mere mention of her name provokes mixed emotion, and divergent opinions. While strong opinions result from her many public displays and activities, the classifications of those opinions come down to two viewpoints. You either have pride in your country and where you live, or you do not.
Her political modus operandi is to provoke the sensibilities of the public, and then if public reaction builds up against her actions, she says she is sorry, without offering any compensation to those she has harmed. It's analogous to someone intentionally inflicting pain and suffering on another, and then when called on their action, only a simple apology is offered without atonement.
A cursory look at Jane Fonda's public activities, where there is a backlash, reveals a trend where she attempts to either discount the negative effects, or offers a simple apology.
A July 7, 1972, photograph, taken during her Hanoi, North Vietnam anti-American propaganda tour, pictured Jane Fonda sitting in the gunner's seat of one of our enemy's anti-aircraft guns. She is pictured wearing a NVA helmet, and pretending to take aim at American planes. Her response to this came sixteen years later on a June 17, 1988, ABC 20/20 interview by Barbara Walters. She thought that her manning an [enemy] anti-aircraft gun was merely "thoughtless."
Then there is her summer 1972 Hanoi radio propaganda broadcasts. She made statements such as, "crimes being created--being committed against [NV people] by Richard Nixon," and "I think Richard Nixon would do well to read Vietnamese history, particularly their poetry, and particularly the poetry written by [communist] Ho Chi Minh." Making pointed remarks toward American aviators, she stated, "Use of these bombs or condoning the use of these bombs makes one a war criminal." When confronted on the 1988 20/20 broadcast, about her radio broadcasts from Hanoi, she claimed that she could not remember calling our soldiers war criminals. She apologized to Vietnam veterans for any hurt she may have caused, but still thought that her efforts had shortened the war and saved lives. It is the opinion of many people that the anti-war movement, and her involvement, emboldened the NV and prolonged the war.
Addressing the National Press Club, on September 26, 1979, Jane Fonda admitted that she had made some "off the wall statements" in the past. One of her admitted errors was a 1978 argument that Black Panther leader Huey Newton was the only man she would trust to lead this country; it was "naive and utterly wrong."
Now we have Ms. Fonda's remarks on the State of Georgia. On Wednesday, April 15, addressing a round table for the United Nations Population Fund, she indicated that her adopted home state of Georgia was in some ways like a developing country. She stated, "There is a lot of rural poverty. In the northern part of Georgia children are starving to death. People live in tarpaper shacks with no indoor plumbing, and so forth." When Ms. Fonda's remarks angered Georgia Governor Zell Miller, a native of the north Georgia mountains and often a political ally, Ms. Fonda quickly apologized. "I was wrong. I should not have said what I said. ... My comments were inaccurate and ill-advised."
Jane Fonda's apologies seem to be financially motivated. In 1988, she semi-apologized for her Vietnam activities. A consortium of shopping malls had denied her promotion of her products in their malls. Barbara Walter's husband headed the company which produced Jane Fonda's workout videos at that time. This time around, the apology came quickly, as husband Ted Turner (and now Time-Warner) has significant investments in the state of Georgia.
It seems as though Jane Fonda spends half of her time apologizing for insolent statements she has made during the other half of her time. Will this be her Georgian opprobrium, fitting for this arrogant, condescending, and self described "naive" individual? Will her comments about Georgia dissuade her rich left coast friends, and others, from investing in this state? If so, will her preemptive apology be enough?
The text of Jane Fonda's last 1972 Hanoi radio broadcast can be viewed at the Montclair State University College of Humanities and Social Sciences web site at:
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/fonda.html
Return to top of page.
July 22, 1998
For over a month now, I have had this nagging question ringing around in the back of my head. Along with the acknowledged benefits of the Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST), voted in last November and implemented this April, proponents proclaimed SPLOST as an enticing scheme for keeping property taxes leveled off for the foreseeable future. As an Engineering Specialist working in systems design (Radar), I naturally question how interconnected and interrelated components of any system, or in this case, a local tax scheme, work together and function over time.
Back in October 1997, prior to the vote on SPLOST in November, when the county property tax (millage) rate was reviewed and revised downward slightly, the perception was that property tax rates could be kept in check for the foreseeable future.
SPLOST was voted in on the expectation that the extra 1% sales tax would cover budget items that would normally be paid for by increasing property taxes. The extra 1% tax has added an extra $60 to $100 dollars per year to my average household expenses, depending on our spending patterns. This increase effectively wiped out any benefit seen from the minimal October 1997 millage rate reduction.
Only months after the 1% sales tax increase went into effect, June 1 property reassessments showed up in many of our mail boxes. I do not know about you, but the 6% increase of the assessed value of my house and property means that my annual property tax went up approximately $60 per year. Put this on top of the 1% increase on every product and service purchased in the county, and now the SPLOST, plus property tax increase, is costing me an additional $120.00 to $160.00 per year, or an additional $10 to $13 per month, depending on how much I actually purchase.
Many of you out there might say, "that isn't that much, what's the big deal?" By itself, it might not be, but heap this increase on top of your federal income tax and your payroll tax (Social Security and Medicare taxes). Add this to your state income tax. Then add in the federal, state, county, and local fees you pay on everything from entering parks, hunting, fishing, boating, driving, and those tacked onto utility bills. Don't forget to add those excise, tariff, and other value added taxes built into many products you may buy, such as gasoline, cigarettes, liquor, tires, and foreign products. And finally, you add all this to the property taxes, and the original 6% sales tax we were paying before SPLOST, and it becomes significant.
This is one of the oldest feints in government. First, dangle the carrot of a minor tax decrease out for the voters to assimilate. Then convince the voters that a new special tax will eliminate the future necessity of any increase in their property tax rate. Once the new tax is imposed, bump up the assessed value of their property, inducing a tax increase.
I haven't heard anyone responsible explain this ambiguous method of governance. How could they? This was a direct assault on many taxpayers of this county, and if the people here continue to be complacent about it, it will most likely happen again. This is precisely why I was against SPLOST from the beginning. I've seen similar tactics in action before. Why do you think the voters in California voted in Proposition 13 back in 1978? The games played between property tax rates and reassessments nearly crippled older people on fixed incomes and young people just starting out with their families. These individuals and families could not easily absorb heavy increases in this tax. Many older people literally lost their homes, as they could not make up the difference. While it is widely known that Proposition 13 limits the property tax rate in California to 1% of assessed value, a less known, though significant, component of that law is the limitation of annual reassessments to a maximum 2% of the previous assessed value, not market value. The only time a house may be reassessed to the market value is upon sale of the home, and then the limitations are reapplied again until the home is resold again.
The current 1997 Bryan County property tax rates, in terms of the both the millage rate* applied to 40% of the current assessed fair market value, and in terms of an equivalent property tax rate applied to the full assessed fair market value is as follows:
| Millage Rate* | Effective Property Tax Rate | | Unincorporated County Areas | 2.445% | 0.9778% | | Incorporated County Areas (City) | 2.6% | 1.04% | | Richmond Hill (0.6% + 2.6%) | 3.2% | 1.28% | | Pembroke (0.8% + 2.6%) | 3.4% | 1.36% |
Now keep in mind that this is July. The next review of the millage rates may be coming up in a few months. What will be the action taken at that time? Should the millage rate return to the pre-SPLOST vote level or higher, it would appear that a one year ruse had been completed. If there is not a change in the rate this time around, we will still have come up on the short end, just by a lessor amount. * Rates obtained by calling the county tax assessors office.
Return to top of page.
Democratic Columnist is Out of Touch
(Response to Steve Anthony's article of 12/16/98)
December 23, 1998
The partisan attacks on Republican Party candidates, elected officials and their viewpoints by Richmond Hill-Bryan County News "columnist," Steve Anthony, Executive Director of the Democratic Party of Georgia, have gone unchallenged long enough. I have read his columns for several months now, and quietly noted the increasingly condescending tone to his "regular guy" style rhetoric. But his December 16 column pushed me to speak out.
These quotes are directly from Mr. Anthony's piece published last week. "He (Representative Bob Barr) will do anything to anybody for personal political gain." "Bob Barr is the epitome of the politics of extremism." Mr. Anthony continues his personal assault when he attacks Representative Barr for holding religious views and family values, though having had failed marriages. Apparently, an individual may not hold opinions and beliefs if one has had to deal with unfortunate personal marital circumstances.
In Mr. Anthony's August 6, 1998 editorial, he states, "...I'm sick of hearing and seeing this degradation of the political process" and "I'm sick of the ego-fired 'politicians' who think the only ways to effect change is to denigrate the accomplishments and achievements of those who precede them." Last weeks editorial suggests that he doesn't live by these sentiments, or he would simply agree to disagree with Representative Barr instead of using smear tactics.
An element of last weeks article, which put forth the idea that Republicans are out of touch for ignoring the "political tea leaves," relative to the Articles of Impeachment, was a inane statement. House Republicans were following the guidelines set forth in the U.S. Constitution to "indict" the President based on evidence presented by an Independent Council who was authorized to investigate the Lewinsky matter by the President's own Attorney General and a three judge overview panel. The Independent Council operated under a statute this President reaffirmed into law in 1994.
Mr. Anthony is a representative of a political party that, from the top down, lives by opinion sampling and focus group outcomes. While this tack may produce some valid ideas and point to which ideas may satisfy a majority in the short term, it is the method of choice for politicians that have lost the ability to lead through their own vision and backbone. It is a perfect fit for a democracy, and a party named for such a form of government.
However, the United States of America is a republic that incorporates certain democratic principles. It is not simply a democracy. Our republic combines a chief of state, not a monarch, with democratic bodies of elected officials in the Congress representing the proportional citizenry in one and the states in the other, and a high court as arbiter of the application of law. All of these officials have taken an oath to uphold the rule of law and to the Constitution.
In our republic, elected officials are required to govern according to law, regardless of the popularity of particular laws. And, the Constitution provides a means to deal with those at the top that believe they are above the law. As the Representatives in the U.S. House were bound to a course that appeared to not be currently popular, there is a longer term goal that these Representatives were trying to achieve at the risk of over spending political capitol in the short term.
The Democrats are forever proclaiming that we should support this or that "for the good of the children." The obligation to the Constitution in this matter, lived up to by the Republican Representatives, alone, has been for the good of the children, and anyone else paying attention. Each day, our children are bombarded by mixed signals about right and wrong. The impeachment proceedings and passage of two articles will send a clear signal to our young, and others, about truth. That lying to the whole body of citizens, from which the power to govern is derived, is wrong. That taking an oath is an obligation, and there are consequences for violating that oath. That misusing your position and subordinate personnel for one's own benefit is wrong.
Now that two of the Articles of Impeachment have been passed to the Senate for a trial, the era of truth, what is right, and what is wrong may not yet be over. Had all four Articles of Impeachment been defeated, law would have mean nothing to the young that would have grow up with this tilted knowledge. Oaths would have meant nothing to those that would have learned from that example. They would have learned that if a majority think a violation of a law is OK, then it is OK. For now, these scenarios were not played out with the passage of the articles containing the grand jury perjury and obstruction of justice charges.
Mr. Anthony's chuckling assessment of the Republican slip at the polls in November seems to suggest that the course the Republicans have pursued in these matters cost them a stronger majority. Maybe, but many of the Republicans that lost were moderates that emulated the Democrat model of reading "political tea leaves." He is right, that most voters based their choices on information from candidates instead of the spin of media and party apparatchiks. And, I agree with his sentiment that individuals did what they wanted to do instead of what they were supposed to do. Which is why most Republican candidates with conviction of principal were retained and why the Republicans won a majority of House seats in November.
Return to top of page.
Censure Bill Clinton? Don't be Ridiculous
February 17, 1999
Now that one of the more anomalous processes in American government has concluded, the subsequent course for many involved with the impeachment trial are "censure" motions to be directed at President Clinton. Arguments by politicians and pundits swirl around the various effects censuring the President in the Senate would have on the Constitution, the Congress, the Presidency, and the country as a whole.
Censure is used by separate bodies of Congress to reprimand one of it's members through the implementation of its own rules. In the Senate, there have been several Senators censured. Examples of what brought on censure have ranged from reading classified material on the senate floor, to fighting in the senate chamber.
Timothy Pickering (Federalist Party-Massachusetts) was censured in 1811 after reading classified documents in open session while an injunction of secrecy was in force.
A censure for a 1902 fight in the Senate chamber between Benjamin R. Tillman (D-South Carolina) and John L. Mc Laurin (D-South Carolina) went beyond simple reprimand or rebuke and imposed penalty. Along with censure, each was retroactively suspended for six days.
The current Senator Dodd's father, Thomas J. Dodd (D-Connecticut), was censured 1967 for converting campaign funds in to personal funds.
Other Senatorial censures were imposed on Herman E. Talmadge (D-Georgia) in 1979 for improper financial conduct and David F. Durenberger (R-Minnesota) in 1990 for unethical conduct.
Censure proceedings have also resulted in condemnation in two cases. In 1929, Hiram Bingham (R-Connecticut) was condemned for hiring a Senate staff member who was employed a the same time by a manufactures association. He was condemned for bringing the Senate dishonor and disrepute. And in 1954, Joeseph McCarthy (R-Wisconsin), was condemned for his 1952 abuse and non-cooperation with the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections and abuse of the Select Committee to Study Censure (his).
Most, though not all, of the Senators receiving censure or condemnation, either were defeated for reelection or did not run again.
When it comes to the avenue Congress may take when seeking to assert it's displeasure or disdain for actions by members of other branches of government, the only course of action delineated in the Constitution is the passage of articles of impeachment by the House and the conduct of a trial by the Senate. This applies to the President and Vice-president, as well as, federal judges. Now that the impeachment process has concluded, most defenders of President Clinton and others that voted to acquit, would like to see censure used to at least go on record as not condoning Bill Clinton's affairs. As censure is neither constitutionally prescribed or prohibited, the argument for this action seems, on the surface, to be valid.
The act of a Senatorial censure of the President is not without precedent. The one time this occurred was in 1834. During the summer of 1832, prior to the his reelection that year, Andrew Jackson vetoed a renewal of the charter of the Second Bank of the United States. Though the charter was not due to expire until 1836, the push for renewal came early as "Old Hickory" had announced his contention that the bank, a private corporation established in 1816, had favored privileged individuals, caused currency instability, and that it's charter was unconstitutional. In 1833, Jackson ordered federal deposits withdrawn from the bank, as he believed funds from the bank had been financing his political adversaries. When two consecutive secretaries of the treasury refused to comply, Jackson removed both, and ignored the opposition of the congressional majority. They were incensed by Jackson's decision to deposit federal funds with banks, mainly under the direction of Democratic bankers. That action earned him the censure of the Senate. Guided by Henry Clay, the Senate voted to censure Jackson for dictatorial and unconstitutional behavior. Many historians now conclude the actual effect of Jackson's banking policy was to destabilize the nation's currency and to aid friendly bankers. These policies eventually led to the "Panic of 1837." That same year, 1837, Jackson's political allies, with control of Congress, physically expunged all evidence of Jackson's 1834 censure from the record of the Senate.
This leads me to an attempt to physically represent the effectiveness of a censure. Please grab your wallet or pocketbook and take out a $20.00 bill. Who's portrait is on the front of that bill? If censure is such a punishing blow, why is Andrew Jackson one of the few Presidents honored with his picture on our currency. I think the proof of the Presidential defenders desire for censure is right there in your hand. The next time they control the Senate, and the House should that body also pursue censure, the damage can be undone. And to compensate for such unfortunate treatment, honor may be bestowed on the formerly censured to make up for a tarnished image. I believe censure is at worst a ruse, and at best a waste of time.
Return to top of page.
China Insidiously Positioning Itself to be Superpower
September 8, 1999
Just in case your mass media news outlets have failed you over the last few years, please consider the following selected excerpts from articles released in the press over the last few years:
"XICHANG, Sichuan Province, China, July 1, 1996 -- A Chinese Long March 3 rocket is being prepared to launch a U.S.-built communications satellite Wednesday that will cover China, eastern Asia and India."
March 13, 1997 - Rowan Scarborough in The Washington Times - "The president himself worked to bring Cosco (China Ocean Shipping Co.) to Long Beach in 1995 and 1996. During this time, foreign Asian sources -- possibly including the Chinese -- were making illegal campaign contributions to the Democratic Party."
March 26, 1997 - Georgie Anne Geyer in the San Diego Union-Tribune - "...word got around that Cosco, which is a creature of the People's Liberation Army of China, had last year been busy smuggling 2,000 automatic weapons into the United States for use by Los Angeles gangs."
March 26, 1997 - Georgie Anne Geyer in the San Diego Union-Tribune - "When the United States agreed in 1977 to give the Panama Canal and its hundreds of millions of dollars in related properties to Panama by 1999, who would have imagined that a Panamanian government would award the two former American ports that guard the Pacific and the Atlantic entrances to the canal -- Balboa and Cristobal -- to a Hong Kong firm (Hutchison Port Holdings Ltd.) closely tied to the Chinese government? No one seemed to make much of the fact that Hutchison and Cosco are leaders in the global shipping industry and have worked together on projects in China and Asia. Indeed, members of Hutchison's board of directors consult regularly for Cosco, which is totally controlled by the Chinese government."
June 23, 1997 - The Washington Weekly - "In response to an inquiry from Chairman Gerald Solomon, R-NY, the Clinton administration has admitted that the China Ocean Shipping Co., COSCO, was caught shipping 87 pounds of heroin in 1993."
May 1, 1998 - Bill Gertz in The Washington Times - "A new CIA report says that 13 of China's 18 long-range strategic missiles have single nuclear warheads aimed at U.S. cities. According to an intelligence document sent to top policy-makers in advance of Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright's current visit to Beijing, the 13 CSS-4 missiles aimed at the United States -- with a range of more than 8,000 miles --indicate that China views the United States as its major strategic adversary."
May 16, 1998 - Eric Schmitt and Don Van Natta Jr. in The New York Times - "Here is what federal investigators have learned so far about the Chinese government's actions: China's Military Intelligence Department provided more than $300,000 to Ms. Liu between July and September of 1996. She sent the entire amount to Chung, in the United States. Chung then funneled nearly $100,000 of that money to Democratic causes, including $80,000 to the Democratic National Committee, several U.S. officials said Friday."
April 30, 1998 - The Investors Business Daily - released a chronology of recent changes in trade security rules which follows:
April 1, 1999 - Reuters - PANAMA CITY - The U.S. Army deactivated its jungle warfare training unit in Panama Thursday, taking another step toward fulfilling its obligation to dismantle a century-long military presence here. At a small ceremony of U.S. military personnel at Fort Sherman, which lies at the Atlantic mouth of the Panama Canal, Army officials rolled up the flag of the Jungle Operations Training Battalion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the nation was caught up in the Presidential Election in 1996, the continuing Alan Greenspan command and control economy, the "Wag the Dog" events of the moment, and the endless air of personal scandal through 1997 and 1998, the Chinese were busy on a multitude of fronts improving their position in the world by, what appears to be, illegal political contributions to various influential entities within our federal government, outright espionage at our technology labs and universities, and the more subtle approach of getting our agencies and companies to go beyond their authorized bounds, in cooperative endeavors, to provide information that would otherwise have to be developed by the People's Republic of China (PRC) on their own.
While U.S. citizens have continued to display apathy in relation to the various Chinese encroachments, and ignore warnings by individuals that are alarmed by the obvious "Cold War" nature of their activities, the Chinese have managed to propagate their influence worldwide.
Consider that in 1977, the last Democrat President arranged to give away the Panama Canal. The canal and the land that we used for our military presence will all be turned over to Panama at Midnight, December 31, 1999. Howard Air Force Base will officially close in December, but runway operations ceased June 17, 1999, thus eliminating the southern most military presence we had in this hemisphere. Until a couple of months ago, the military presence around the canal zone provided stability deemed necessary to enhance hemispherical commerce with the more cost effective, quicker route through the Panama Canal from each side of our Western Hemisphere. Now we have, essentially, evacuated the area and allowed a competing influence to gain a significant presence. What does this mean to have a "commercial" ally of the People's Republic of China, a communist nation, at each end of a major conduit of commerce in our hemisphere? Time will tell.
As far back as Summer of 1997, Senator Fred Thompson was intent on looking into the rumors and allegations that were unmasked due to the inquiry into the questionable campaign contributions during the previous year's election cycle. The hearings were, however, muted due to stonewalling by Senator John Glenn and other Senate Democrats. It is hoped by this writer that similar high profile hearings will again be taken up to determine the extent we need to go to guard our security and national assets, as related to China and any other country which is working against our national interests.
When President Nixon went to the People's Republic of China with the intention of opening up relations between our two countries and cultures, the promise of vast opportunity was one of the key objectives for pursuing that course. And we have heard the same discourse from each successive administration, as each sees China as the new economic frontier. But when do we stop and reassess the extent to which we have committed to this aim. Has the "it's the economy stupid" notion grown to such a magnitude that nothing else matters?
Return to top of page.
The Final Word on the New Millennium
January 12, 2000 (revision of original written December 27, 1999)
With the new year on the way, and the Y2K bug looming out there in what ever form it takes on, we have all heard too often that the year 2000 is the start of the new millennium. Ad agencies have made loads on promotion of "Millennium" shows. CNN keeps advertising that we are on the brink of a new millennium to advertise their "Millennium 2000" show. And the same goes for all of the other networks. Governments have spent fortunes on displays, towers and bridges in the name of the new millennium for the year 2000. At the February 1998 launch of their Millennium Dome, British Prime Minister Tony Blair must have failed to first check with their Royal Greenwich Observatory before he indicated that both the new millennium and the start of the 21st Century will begin as "The eyes of the world will be on Greenwich as the clocks strike midnight on December 31, 1999."
I started wondering about this the first time I heard some COBOL programmer spreading the seeds of doom and gloom about the "Millennium Bug." You know, where all computer programming based on older two digit year software modules will crash what ever it is running on when the date should change from 1999 to 2000, but are either fixed at 19xx or does not exist. As predictions of problems ranged from minor to apocalyptic, it has been a prudent activity of business and government to go through and inspect and change the obsolete code and chips. However, it seemed to me, that the programming companies promoting the notion of "Y2K" disaster were also inferring that the year 2000 was the beginning of the new millennium. Since then, we have all heard that "Y2K" is the beginning of the new millennium many times. Now I have been hearing that the year 2000 is also the beginning of the Twenty First Century.
We currently live in the Twentieth Century, you know, that century that is the twentieth block of one hundred years since 1 B.C. We live by the Gregorian calendar which has no "0" year. The first block of one hundred years, or First Century, went from 1 A.D. to 100 A.D. The Second Century went from 101 A.D. to 200 A.D. Notice the 2 in the hundreds place in 200? Now let's move to our time. The calendar date we have been living with for most of our life times has had a 19 out in front of the tens place and ones place. But we have been living in what is known as the Twentieth Century. The current century is named for the last year of the century, or the twentieth block of one hundred years! Therefore, as 2100 will be 100 years from January 1, 2001, the Twenty First Century will begin January 1, 2001.
Similarly, the Third Millennium will begin that day as well. Same argument, one number place further out. Yes, the millennium is also named for the number of it's last year. It's that same explanation again, where from 1 A.D. to 1,000 A.D. was the First Millennium, 1,001 A.D. to 2,000 A.D. is the Second Millennium and the third starts January 1, 2001.
(This paragraph was edited out from printing in the paper) OK, so why are so many people claiming that January 1, 2000 is the beginning of the new millennium and start of the 21st Century? Perhaps, in their haste for the immediate gratification of celebrating the perceived important timeline milestone or for profiting from it, they neglected to verify when the end of the current decade, century and millennium would be. Your tax dollars have provided a means for this purpose. The official keepers of all time measures for the U.S., The U.S. Naval Observatory, states that the Third Millennium and Twenty First Century begins on January 1, 2001. Their web sites have addressed this question in depth. By the way, these are the people that operate the Atomic Clock(s).
Now that you know this, get prepared to go through all of the hype again in 2000. At least there is time to work out those four digit "Y10K" bugs. Happy New Year.
The U.S. Naval Observatory millennium information can be found at:
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/millennium.php
Royal Greenwich Observatory (British) millennium information can found at:
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.17912
Return to top of page.
© 1998-2023, Michael N. Kelley. All opinions expressed in these articles are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of the Richmond Hill-Bryan County News or the Bryan County News.
|