Still thinking about that editorial I wrote

I know all of you are desperate to hear more about the hate mail I've been getting regarding that (tepid) Obama endorsement (if only because you want to revel in the great names I'm being called and agree with every one of them). But I'm not going to post anything particularly salacious. Instead, I'm asking certain people with whom I think I've had interesting exchanges whether they'd agree to have them posted here. Henry L. Homrighaus, Jr. CHS-V, DABCHS, is the first one who said yes. So here goes. First up is his first email to me, then you can read down: On 10/2/08 11:17 PM, "Henry Homrighaus" wrote: As much as I like your publication I think that I have decided I can live without it as have many of my colleagues as we find your editorial biased and based on flawed assumptions. As a business owner and operator for many years I can attest to the failed policies of increased taxation diminishing the incentives for independent businesses to expand, hire and grow their enterprises. Your thinly veiled enthusiasm for Barack Obama is not in keeping with the best interest of the security industry. Henry L. Homrighaus, Jr. CHS-V, DABCHS ProSecCon, Inc. --- From: Sam Pfeifle [] Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 8:04 AM To: Henry Homrighaus Cc: Subject: Re: Editorial October 2008 Hi Henry, First: Is this a letter to the editor that you’d like published? Second: I am, of course, sorry to hear that you are so upset with the editorial that you’ve decided to discontinue your reading of the paper. I wrote what I wrote, and I stand behind it, but I would ask just two questions: 1. Editorials are, by their nature, biased. That’s what editorials are supposed to do, express an opinion. I think my opinion is well argued and reasoned, and the question mark in the headline indicates that it was a difficult decision for me. So, is it possible to support a candidate other than one you support and not be “biased?” If so, help me understand how. 2. Which assumptions are flawed? Third: I’ve disagreed with any number of editorials in many newspapers and magazines that I respect, but have never denied myself valuable information because of it. My mother used to call that cutting off your nose to spite your face. Fourth: It is very unlikely that I’ll vote for Barack Obama, just as an FYI. I have long been a supporter of a multi-party system, and will likely vote for an independent candidate when it comes down to it. I think our political system is woefully broken and that neither major party actually has the interests of working people and business owners at heart. Cheers, Sam --- On 10/10/08 10:09 AM, "Henry Homrighaus" wrote: Hey Sam, Thanks for the offer and I will send you a letter for consideration. As you know for many years I have always supported Security Systems News as the best security trade journal because most of the time you guys get it right and usually first will has been very valuable to me in both my security consulting and Expert witness practices. I thought it unusual for your magazine to offer this view in an editorial fully understanding your right to support or express your opinion. An honest review of the Bush presidency would reveal that his tax cuts spurred the economy into action resulting in record federal income which was on the road to eliminating the deficit until we, the American people, voted the democratic congress in charge 2006 and if you recall gasoline was $1.79 a gallon. The democrats and Barack Obama would hold our current economic woes as a direct result of the Bush administration which tried to reform Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac in 2004 followed by an attempt in 2005 by John McCain who detail the results of falling to reform these agencies and behold. I am against any and all bail outs as they tend to increase the time for the free markets system to respond and correct the problems. This bail out plan is failing miserably and is costing the American people dearly especially in their 401K’s and Ira’s. Barack Obama, Christopher Dodd, Chuck Schumer, Hilary Clinton and Barney Frank benefitted from the largess of these agencies in political contributions repeatedly denying that they was any problem and now want more control to “Heal” the problems. Barack Obama would be disastrous for the small independent business man with his tax policies, health care plan and the interference in family life by mandating what a family would be required to do to insure their children. Roughly 50% of the American tax constituency pays little or no taxes and his tax policy would further increase their returns in a blatant attempt to solicit votes at our expense. His behavior is only consistent with a socialistic theology and has no place in America. Since when has owning a home or health-care become a right or a responsibility of the federal government? Our failure to secure our borders and control immigration is responsible for over burdening our hospital and educational facilities. Forcing our financial institutions to make bad and liar loans has jeopardized our economy and now the income producing tax paying segments of our society are burdened with the problem which is patently unfair. The unintended consequence of our welfare system has resulted in generations of American families growing up without a father in the house destroying the time honored concept of family and resulting in an ever growing and never ending burden on society Barack Obama is a bad choice economically for American. I will vote for McCain but he was not my candidate which was Mitt Romney because of his proven executive ability. It comes down to this I don’t find Barack Obama credible or forthcoming because he won’t be candid about his relationships or associations but I don’t believe McCain will lie to me. I also see McCain as the underdog because I sense a certain bias in the media coverage to the detriment of journalism as the fourth estate. Your mother’s good sense prevails and I will continue to enjoy your publication and thanks for allowing me to vent. Thanks, Henry --- From: Sam Pfeifle [] Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 9:30 AM To: Henry Homrighaus Subject: Re: Editorial October 2008 Thanks for your thoughtful response, Henry. Unfortunately, the November issue just shipped yesterday, so I won’t be able to get a letter into the paper before the election, but I’d like to post something on my blog, which is well read and in some ways better suited for a discussion of this sort. I could post this back and forth we’ve had directly, or I could post a response from you that would be similar to a letter to the editor. Let me know which you’d prefer, if at all. You and I agree on a number of points, and I think both parties share the blame for our current state of affairs. You talk about securing borders and dealing with immigration – that’s exactly why I’m so disappointed with our foreign policy and the war. I think we need to get our own house in order before we send hundreds of thousands of troops across the globe. You talk about the bailout being necessitated by bad loan policy – I’m very frustrated that this whole “ownership society” wasn’t lampooned when it was suggested. It’s very obvious that making loans available to people with no inclination or ability to pay them back is a very bad idea. Anyway, this email could get very long, but my essential point is that I’m glad to have you as a reader and I’m always interested in informed debate. I think it’s very important that these discussions are had so that people don’t just continue to always talk to the people they know agree with them. A good argument can do a great deal of good. Cheers, Sam --- Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 11:30 AM Yes by all means post it on your blog and send me the link. I’m okay with the back and forth as I think it provides some stimulating dialog that deserves to be in today’s political discussion. Thanks, Henry