By Irving Leemon, Contributing Columnist

We are teaching our children and young adults that it’s OK to break the law and also to use violence when we don’t like someone or something. They are being constantly exposed to violence in video games, on radio, on television, and in the movies. If you don’t see that this constant exposure to violence is showing them that it’s all right to use violence to get attention, or against someone we don’t like, then we have a real problem. One of the latest examples is the teenager in New Jersey who is accused of attempting to fire bomb a synagogue and a Jewish community center.

In another instance, two teenagers in Utah are accused of plotting to bomb a school in Utah, then steal a plane and fly it to a South American country to avoid punishment. We aren’t supposed to destroy someone or something that we don’t like. But these kids don’t know that. They have been taught by the media and entertainment industry that they can create violence and death and that it’s OK if they can ‘get away with it’. The State of California is preparing to pass a law that allows local law enforcement officers to ignore requests from federal agencies to hold illegal aliens they have in custody until they can be transferred to federal enforcement officers. Regardless of the fact that they have sworn to enforce the law and help other law agencies. I guess we can disobey any law that we don’t like, or feel is not just, like killing another person we don’t like. We need to let Washington know that the immigration laws need to be changed now, and not let stupid politics get in the way. The Senators and Representatives swore to serve and protect the people, and at the same time they also swore to obey namely, Mr. Norquist who has an overly simplistic idea about national budgets and the ramifications they create. To me, PROTECTING AND SERVING AND THE PEOPLE IS MUCH, MUCH, MORE IMPORTANT AND MORAL.

A very interesting trend has appeared in the “conservative” and Republican (are there any left?) pronouncements. When they are against something they use the words “Right to…” as in “the right to life”. What they are really saying is that a woman should have no right to control what happens to her body even after a brutal rape and/or if her life is threatened by a pregnancy. The “right to work” really means that workers cannot form an organization to bargain for better working conditions and pay. It also means the right of employers to hire and fire at will, including firing a worker because of one’s politics, AND to pay workers less then than a reasonable wage.

It also forbids unions from giving to political causes and politicians. At the same time, corporations and companies (which really means the corporations’ boards and CEOs) can give as much of the corporations’ money as they want with out the stock owners’ knowledge or approval, and whether or not they agree with the causes. In theory, who owns the companies? What about the owner’s rights to say how their companies spend money? Do the “conservatives” want unlimited right to bear arms? Taken to its limits and logical conclusion I feel that violence and anarchy would prevail. This is not the 1700’s when there were fewer people and they were not living in such large cities. Agree? Disagree? Email me at

By Iving Lemon

Contributing Columnist

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *