Don't You Make This Difficult For Me, Jon Huntsman

It's early, and my feelings are confused right now, but I think I'm starting to really like Jon Huntsman.  I mean, I liked him a lot when he was governor because we just never had governors like him in Utah.  He supported cap-and-trade legislation, he moved us forward on civil rights by supporting gay rights and civil unions, he supported immigrant rights, he called out those ridiculous congressional Republicans for being useless (his word was "inconsequential"), and he generally talked and acted like a moderate in a state where Republican politicians are almost universally crazies.  I even started to like that weird thing he does with his eyebrows.  He wasn't perfect, but he was pretty good.

Then he praised Obama and Clinton and went to work as the ambassador to China in the Obama administration, even when everyone knew he had national aspirations.

Now it is clear that he's running for president and he continues to talk like a moderate, reasonable conservative and, frankly, it's jarring.  Take a look at this article by the Deseret News and in particular the transcript of the interview he did with CNN's John King.

 When asked about the praise he has given Pres. Obama and Sec. Clinton he said:

"Well, occasionally you write thank you notes, which I think is, for a lot of people, an important tradition. I also believe in civility. I believe that we ought to have a civil discourse in this country. You're -- and you're not going to agree with people 100 percent of the time, but when they succeed and do things that are good, you can compliment them on it. I think we need to come together more on the issues that really do matter. I believe in civility and I believe in complimenting people when they do a good job."

When asked about his support for gay rights he said:

"Well, I'm for civil unions. I believe in traditional marriage. But I think subordinate to that, we don't do an adequate job when it comes to equality and fairness. And I'm going to say take a look at my total record. And like every person who's been elected to office and tried to do things, some things you'll like, some things you won't.  On balance, we hope you like us. But if you don't, there are always other alternatives."

When asked about his support for cap-and-trade and whether climate change is human-caused he said:

"Well, I think the science of the community would -- would suggest that to be the case. And I think in a world like we have, we should be deferring to the scientific community and not the political community to make decisions that are best left in the hands of scientists. . . . So by the time that, you know, in the years to come, people want to have this conversation in a serious way, because people care about their environment, they care about air quality, I think we're going to face a whole lot more in the way of options other than just a tax on carbon and a cap and trade proposal."

He also opposed sending our military to Libya.  He likes the idea of privatizing Medicare, which I think is a disastrous idea, but that's not ever going to happen anyway (knock on wood) so I'll overlook it.

These are not the types of things Republican nominees for POTUS say, though.  They typically stick with catchy soundbites and heated rhetoric (also, some Democrats, but we're talking about the current Republican field here).  They don't praise Pres. Obama for his successes, they call him a communist, anti-American, Muslim outsider who is hell-bent on destroying our nation (note: not exaggerations at all . . . for real).  They don't support civil unions and say we aren't doing a good job with equity and fairness (socialist buzzwords, people!), they say that gays are destroying traditional marriage and the very moral fiber of America and will bring our downfall as a Christian nation.  They don't admit that climate change is human caused and leave the door open to cap-and-trade and talk about love for our environment, they apologize profusely for ever admitting something so awful and talk about how scientists are just in a power grab to drag us down in a socialist plot.

But here is Huntsman being a mature, thoughtful adult addressing issues seriously and acknowledging that the other side has good ideas.  Which raises some conflicting feelings within me.

First, I don't consider myself particularly moderate in a lot of areas.  I'm pretty well fully liberal.  So your average moderate conservative isn't all that appealing to me in normal circumstances.

But second, I'm not particularly enamored with Pres. Obama, as I have written a few times before, for the reason that I'm fully liberal and the president doesn't seem interested in sticking his neck out for liberal positions.  I like that he plays the adult and compromises and gets things done, but I also want him to make strong cases for liberal causes along the way, which he doesn't seem to want to do.  If you're a Democratic president, you have to do both to impress me.

So, third, if you are going to have a president that is moderate and practical that isn't really interested in being a strong voice for liberal issues, what does it matter if she or he is a Democrat or Republican?  And who knows, Huntsman may well be even better than Pres. Obama on some key issues, in particular civil rights.  Maybe he'll support repealing the Patriot Act, ending indefinite imprisonment of detainees without a civil trial, and getting us out of wars we have no business fighting.

Finally, Jon Huntsman is Mormon.  I know he's been a little evasive about his Mormonism, but he is Mormon, saying "I believe in God. I'm a good Christian. I'm very proud of my Mormon heritage. I am Mormon."  I like how he describes the religion as "a very diverse and heterogeneous cross-section of people," which I believe is absolutely true.

Now, I'm on record as saying that I would never vote for a person just because of religion.  That is a very, very poor way to choose political leaders.  But at a time when the Democratic president isn't scratching my liberal itch, and when there is a very good Republican candidate who is somewhat iconoclastic and says some things I agree with on issues I think are important, I find that Huntsman being a Mormon I can be proud of adds a little extra luster.  It's a point, a single point, in his favor.  Tipping the scales, if I may mix my metaphors, in his direction just a bit.

But my potential enthusiasm is tempered by the fact that there used to be this other Mormon Republican ex-governor who took decidedly moderate or liberal stands on issues like gay rights and health care who all of the sudden when he wanted to become president started changing his positions and pandering to the please-don't-compare-yourselves-to-the-real-Tea-Party and became as unlikeable as possible.  His name, of course, is Mitt Romney.

So, if you want me to love you, Jon Huntsman, and I'm vulnerable right now and just might be able to, don't become another Mitt Romney.

Speedy and Public Trial by Jury

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, from The Economist

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."  -- 6th Amendment

This seems pretty straightforward, right?  I believe the historical impetus for this addition to the Bill of Rights was the fact that kings and rulers were accusing the people of crimes and convicting them without a trial by jury, without witnesses, without due process of law, essentially without any safeguards or protections whatsoever against corruption and unchecked power.  The founders wisely ensured that if government has the ability to deprive a person of property, freedom, or life (which it does) then the Constitution should require that the government has to submit to certain safeguards against the abuse of that power.  I believe those on both the political right and left can feel good about that.

Of course, America isn't alone in guaranteeing a public jury trial for criminals.  Other countries have such requirements, and stick to them even in cases of terrorist attacks, as Glenn Greenwald outlined:

People in capitals all over the world have hosted trials of high-level terrorist suspects using their normal justice system.  They didn't allow fear to drive them to build island-prisons or create special commissions to depart from their rules of justice.  Spain held an open trial in Madrid for the individuals accused of that country's 2004 train bombings.  The British put those accused of perpetrating the London subway bombings on trial right in their normal courthouse in London.  Indonesia gave public trials using standard court procedures to the individuals who bombed a nightclub in Bali.  India used a Mumbai courtroom to try the sole surviving terrorist who participated in the 2008 massacre of hundreds of residents.  In Argentina, the Israelis captured Adolf Eichmann, one of the most notorious Nazi war criminals, and brought him to Jerusalem to stand trial for his crimes.

But not in America.  In America we are stricken with fear that our criminal justice system is suddenly inadequate and that the safeguards found in the Constitution regarding trials of criminals, which have served us well for a couple hundred years, fall short.  So we have a Democratic administration, which is daily showing itself to be nothing like liberal as to civil liberties, reversing its promise to close Guantanamo Bay and hold criminal trials for Khalid Sheik Mohammad and the 9/11 plotters.  Instead, the administration has decided to hold military tribunals (straight news story here) and eschew our time-tested criminal court system.  Tribunals without a jury, behind closed doors, in a different country.

We are allowing, some even demanding, that the government brush aside the important Constitutional safeguards against abuse for merely political considerations.  We are also setting up a system where different classes of criminals receive different levels of Constitutional protection.  All out of fear, and all backed by "liberal" Pres. Obama.  I like the guy, but his record on civil liberties is appalling.

In Which I Whine About Our Political Parties

Pres. Obama is certainly a better president that Pres. W. Bush was, and is certainly better than Sen. McCain would have been, not to mention the mediocre crop of hopefuls lining up to challenge him next year.  He's done some good things such as at least making an effort to end our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not starting any new wars (. . . yet, but we're keeping our eyes on you, Libya), making an effort to reform the health care and financial systems, and, importantly, changing the tone of discourse in the White House.  But it hasn't really been that great, overall.  Where he has tried to make some progress in areas of war and regulation reform, they have been meager and more or less disappointing.  I went over some of the failures before here.

Now we learn that Pres. Obama will not be shutting down Guantanamo Bay any time soon, like he promised, will reinstate military tribunals and not use our world-class criminal justice system, and will continue indefinite detentions without hearings.  He also fired the State Dept. spokesperson for criticizing the brutal detention of Bradley Manning, the Wikileaks leaker.  His record on civil liberties is no better than Bush's, which make me sick.

As a result of this frustration, and general political malaise, I've felt like I've been wandering a political desert for a while.  I've spent some time looking at the Green Party, which has a lot to offer, especially for someone like me with strong environmental and pacifist leanings.  I feel pretty strongly about social democracy.  When it's really time to think outside the box there is nothing like libertarian socialism.

The point is, the basic political struggle we all have is reconciling that space between what we really believe and our choices in the ballot box.  Many people, most I suspect, instead of embracing this problem do their best erase the distinction and become party loyalists, buying the party line and giving up critical thought.  I admit to falling into this trap from time to time.  This is where you find absurd contradictions like states' rights conservatives being pro-federal government when it comes to abortion and marriage laws, or anti-death penalty and anti-war liberals being extremely pro-choice.  To paraphrase John Stewart's book, America, (because I don't have it in front of me right now):  You believe in protecting the environment?  Congratulations you are also anti-gun.  You oppose gay marriage?  Great, you are also anti-amnesty for illegal immigrants.  The current political party system in America clearly doesn't add up to intellectual consistency.

Many other people simply choose to become one-issue voters, which is more dangerous than the party loyalists.  At least the party loyalists are vaguely aware of most of the issues that the candidates espouse, whereas a single-issue voter doesn't care.

So what is the correct response?  Continue to enable the bloated and intellectually dissonant existing political parties by choosing "the lesser of two evils"?  Reform from within?  Vote for the third party candidate and give the election to your ideological opposite instead of your ideological near miss?  Fight the beasts who will out-spend and out-everything you to try to create a multi-party system?  I feel like there aren't any good, practical solutions because of the power the two parties hold.

There is really no point here except to whine about how the two parties are failing us, which is a complaint as old as the nation, I presume.  But we worship in a religion that urges us to stay true to our convictions and zealously maintain and cherish our agency, and I feel like modern day American politics forces us, to some degree at least, to sacrifice both.

Democracy in Egypt and the Middle East

What you are hearing from Washington insiders regarding the uprising, or revolution, in Egypt is that Pres. Obama is in a very tough spot.  Republicans are surprisingly supportive of this view and are standing behind the president as he tries to figure out what to do.  It's tricky because we've been supporting, through billions of dollars in aid, Mubarak for decades, this despite the fact that he is an undemocratic autocrat who excludes his people from legitimate public debate and involvement.  But the US is okay with that because he has been friendly with Israel, he has been moderate in keeping fundamentalism at bay in Egypt, and the country has been stable under his rule.

This is the classic foreign policy realism point of view.  Realism is not concerned with right or wrong, moral or immoral, and the like.  Realism is concerned with who has power and how does that effect me?  The paramount concern for a foreign policy realist is one's own security and self-interest.  From the realist's point of view, Mubarak has been perfectly acceptable.  The idea of a revolution in Egypt, with the possibility of chaos or fundamentalism taking hold as a counter-weight to the possibility of real democracy taking hold, is a risk probably not worth taking.  So the establishment is treading very carefully, not really sure what to do about it.  Of course a stable democracy is the very best thing for America's self-interest, but the cost/benefit analysis is tricky.  This is why the Obama administration is making wishy-washy statements and being blamed for being one step behind the situation, and why Republicans are supportive.

And it's all wrong.

America's self-interest is second to the inherent right of all people to live under conditions of democracy, peace, and human rights.  This is called foreign policy idealism, that our foreign policy is led by our internal philosophies, and America was founded on the ideals of freedom, democracy, and human rights (well, we got there eventually, anyway).  These are, for the most part, peaceful demonstrations of people who are throwing off an oppressive dictator and they should have nothing but our full support, and should have had it from the beginning.  The same is true of the recent protests in Tunisia, Iran, Jordan, and Yemen.

"Stability in lieu of freedom," as a recent Wall Street Journal editorial stated, was the long-time realist approach to the Middle East, but that is changing now.  Even the realists are seeing some value in a democratic and free Egypt.  In this case, the realists are on the wrong side of history, flat-footed as they realize that the old conventional wisdom that democracy could not take root naturally in the Middle East was nothing more than haughty American exceptionalism at its worst.  The Bush Doctrine of spreading democracy through war has been trounced and we now realize, more than ever before, that peaceful democracy and Islam are not mutually exclusive.

I'm not saying that Pres. Obama's famous Cairo Speech prompted this organic revolution, but as has been noted, the president put himself in the best position possible to support it when he said these words: "America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them.  And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments -- provided they govern with respect for all their people."

Pres. Obama has not always backed those words with concrete actions, and he has been slow to react correctly to the political upheaval in the Middle East and North Africa, but he at least staked out the correct amount of foreign policy idealism and gave America the flexibility to reject a stable Middle Eastern dictator when the people chose to overthrow him.

For too long America has supported dictators in the Middle East, even Saddam Hussein at one time, in the name of foreign policy realism, and it has left us weaker and more vulnerable, and morally bankrupt.  It is now time for America to support democracy and human-rights in the name of foreign policy idealism.  Next stop, by the way, must be Palestine.

State of the Union Highlights

I was at scouts last night and couldn't watch the State of the Union Address, but as I've browsed through it there are several items that I believe are worth highlighting.  The theme was Win the Future, which I guess is the new Hope and Change.  In both cases, President Obama wants to exude optimism, which is something, as I've said before, we dearly lack around here.  So with optimism in mind, here are a few things worth looking at.

As some of you know, I'm a proud and moralistic environmentalist, so I appreciated the renewed emphasis on renewable energy:

Already, we're seeing the promise of renewable energy. Robert and Gary Allen are brothers who run a small Michigan roofing company. After September 11th, they volunteered their best roofers to help repair the Pentagon. But half of their factory went unused, and the recession hit them hard. Today, with the help of a government loan, that empty space is being used to manufacture solar shingles that are being sold all across the country. In Robert's words, "We reinvented ourselves."

That's what Americans have done for over 200 years: reinvented ourselves. And to spur on more success stories like the Allen Brothers, we've begun to reinvent our energy policy. We're not just handing out money. We're issuing a challenge. We're telling America's scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we'll fund the Apollo projects of our time.

At the California Institute of Technology, they're developing a way to turn sunlight and water into fuel for our cars. At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, they're using supercomputers to get a lot more power out of our nuclear facilities. With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.

We need to get behind this innovation. And to help pay for it, I'm asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don't know if — I don't know if you've noticed, but they're doing just fine on their own. So instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's.

Now, clean energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they're selling. So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: By 2035, 80 percent of America's electricity will come from clean energy sources.

Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all — and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen.

First, there is almost nothing so offensive, in my mind, as the billions of dollars in tax relief that we give to oil companies.  Those should end immediately.  Second, I've been contemplating a post about the world's population crisis, and one of the most important points in that discussion is energy.  Where are the billions of people we are going to be adding to our world's population going to get their energy?  How can we add billions more people to the Earth and not completely destroy the environment in the search for and consumption of cheap energy?  Renewable energy, of course, is the answer, and the longer we wait to make the President's goal a reality the harder it will be.  We simply have no choice but to invest aggressively in renewable energies.  And it will be good for our economy in the long-term, as well.

As to education, and to allay concerns that liberals are masked communists who want to destroy the family:

That responsibility begins not in our classrooms, but in our homes and communities. It's family that first instills the love of learning in a child. Only parents can make sure the TV is turned off and homework gets done. We need to teach our kids that it's not just the winner of the Super Bowl who deserves to be celebrated, but the winner of the science fair. We need to teach them that success is not a function of fame or PR, but of hard work and discipline.

As a parent of children who are starting to make their way through school, I simply could not agree more that the most important factor in determining whether our schools are successful is the efforts of the home.  We wouldn't be talking about failing schools and teachers if families bore more of the burden and responsibility of education.  That is nearly impossible, however, when parents are facing foreclosure, unemployment, insurmountable medical bills, neighborhood violence, and the like, and where the stresses of oppressive poverty crowd out most other concerns.  The stability of the family is one reason why it is so important to build and maintain a robust social safety net.

Finally, one point that I wish was hit more forcefully.  When the president spoke about reducing the deficit he spent quite a bit of time talking about reducing non-discretionary domestic spending, which he acknowledged made up only 12% of the nation's budget.  Then he blithely stated, concerning the deficit commission:

And their conclusion is that the only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it — in domestic spending, defense spending, health care spending, and spending through tax breaks and loopholes.

I believe I've linked to this before, but take a look at the a visualization of the budget found at the New York Times.  What jumps out immediately?  National Security and Social Security.  Those are certainly worthy of a lot of money, and we talk all the time about ways to control Social Security costs.  What we never talk about is controlling National Security costs.  It is virtually unheard of for a politician to seriously suggest bringing defense spending down in any meaningful way, which is a travesty.  Here are an assortment of charts to help put our military spending in context

From the Center for Arms Control:

From Think Progress:

From the Daily Mail:

If we want to seriously get the budget under control, we should cut defense spending, which is filled with corruptions, special interests, and waste.  Pres. Eisenhower correctly predicted this in his farewell speech where he warned:

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

I thought the State of Union was good.  I think it had the right tone and struck the right balance between government waste and government investment.  A focus on families, peace, and renewable energy, among other things, is the kind of liberalism I support.

Rant Time: Pres. Obama is No Liberal

And he's certainly no socialist, despite the popular conservative argument otherwise.  Here's what we have seen so far:

1. He gave away the public option before the debate even began.  Health care reform ended up being a huge win for the health care industry which will soon be flooded with new customers thanks to the mandate.
2. The stimulus was too small and included too many tax cuts for corporations at the Republicans' behest.
3. He has failed to follow up on, pursue, and prosecute Bush Administration illegal activities such as torture and illegal wiretapping.
4. The war in Afghanistan, which pretty much everyone agrees we can't "win" militarily, has been escalated instead of ended.
5. The financial reform bill was watered down in the face of the powerful financial lobby to the point of likely being completely ineffectual to prevent the sort of the economic meltdown we are currently working our way out of, over two years later and with no end in sight.
6. He is now backing down from his stance of letting the tax cuts for the super-wealthy expire and extending the tax cuts for the vast majority of Americans permanently.
7. And now, reports are that the administration is stepping up covert attacks in Yemen.

What makes these items so infuriating for liberals is that public polling shows that Americans supported the liberal position in nearly ever single one of this issues.  Americans wanted a public option, at the time a big stimulus was popular to drag us out of the recession.  Americans hate torture and our Middle Eastern wars.  Americans wanted tough new regulations for Wall Street to avoid another economic meltdown.  Americans want the tax cuts for the wealthy to expire.  They want Pres. Obama to deliver on his promises, but he appears to be politically gutless.  I can't think of an issue where he has drawn a line in the sand and stood up for what he believes is best for America.

Compromise is inevitable, of course, and I'm glad we have a president who is willing to compromise to get things done.  The problem is he never seems to compromise from a position of strength and vigor.  When he was elected America had given Democrats complete control of the government because they didn't like where Republicans were taking them.  Instead of taking that mandate and arguing with strong voices for the policies that got them elected, Democrats capitulated and seems to retreat at every possible occasion.  As Pres. Obama is the leader of the Democratic party it was up to him to set the agenda and the tone.  He has so far failed.

I don't expect or even necessarily want a victory on every major point above, but certainly a few victories would be encouraging for liberals.  A few moments of inspiring leadership would be much appreciated.  A mere occasional reason to gloat wouldn't be the worst thing on earth.  If the President and Democrats had managed just a couple big wins in those issues they may have had a base that was more energized for the election and more willing to work hard to defeat the tea party surge.  But since there does not seem to be either 1) any real and deeply-held liberal convictions by Democrats or, worse, 2) any real difference between the two parties and thus no real choice, liberals largely stayed home on election day.

Pres. Obama has two more years to show some real leadership, but I'm not convinced he has it in him.  And I know Congressional Democrats don't.  The liberal renaissance we thought was coming in 2006 and 2008 has flatlined.

Ending the Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy

The Bush tax cuts are set to expire at the beginning of the year and the bombs are starting to fall in the political war over this issue.  Democrats want to let them expire for those making over $250,000 while extending them for everyone else.  Republicans want to extend them for everyone.  So, essentially, the argument is whether or not to extend the tax cuts for the very wealthy.  The two top marginal tax rates would go from 33% and 35% to 36% and 39.6%, respectively.

A second area of disagreement also has to do with taxing the wealthy, this time in the form of capital gains, which are disproportionally slanted towards the rich.  Those rates would go from 15% to 20%, and eventually to 23.8%.

Read up on the issues from both sides here, here, here, and here.  Another excellent resource is the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which lays out the argument for how letting the tax cuts expire for the wealthy and extending them for everyone else will reduce the deficit ($300 billion per year), almost universally benefit small businesses, and spur the economy and job growth.

 President Obama has come out forcefully with a plan to allow the tax cuts to expire for the wealthy and to extend them for the poor.  Here is the best and simplest argument I've seen for his plan, from Salon:

Not only did the wealthiest Americans benefit the most from the anything goes Wall Street boom years, but they paid the smallest price for the economic collapse. While millions of Americans lost their jobs and their homes, they sailed right through. By calling for the repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, Obama is putting down a political marker, and declaring that the rich must pay their fair share of the burden. Here's a message anyone can understand: I'm going to raise taxes on the rich and spend money directly creating jobs through infrastructure investments.

Remember, even with the expiration of the tax cuts for the wealthy they will be paying a lower tax rate than during the Reagan years, so save the cries of socialism.  This country became great because of the work of the lower and middle classes.  If we want to regain some of that greatness we have to secure them first by creating jobs and opportunities for them, and this move is a way to do that.  We've covered this issue a little bit before here.

Over the past 30 years, however, after decades of convergence in income distribution, the gap between the rich and poor is getting bigger and bigger.  That means America is less free because those poor have fewer and fewer meaningful opportunities to make their lives, and the lives of their families, better.  It also means America is much less righteous.  That might seem like a statement out of crazy land, but look at these principles from the Book of Mormon:

2 Nephi 9:30 - But wo unto the rich, who are rich as to the things of the world. For because they are rich they despise the poor, and they persecute the meek, and their hearts are upon their treasures; wherefore, their treasure is their god. And behold, their treasure shall perish with them also.

2 Nephi 9:42 -  And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches—yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them.

Jacob 2:13-14 - And the hand of providence hath smiled upon you most pleasingly, that you have obtained many riches; and because some of you have obtained more abundantly than that of your brethren ye are ^alifted up in the pride of your hearts, and wear stiff necks and high heads because of the costliness of your apparel, and persecute your brethren because ye suppose that ye are better than they.  And now, my brethren, do ye suppose that God justifieth you in this thing? Behold, I say unto you, Nay. But he condemneth you, and if ye persist in these things his judgments must speedily come unto you.

Helaman 6:17 - For behold, the Lord had blessed them so long with the riches of the world that they had not been stirred up to anger, to wars, nor to bloodshed; therefore they began to set their hearts upon their riches; yea, they began to seek to get gain that they might be lifted up one above another; therefore they began to commit secret murders, and to rob and to plunder, that they might get gain.

3 Nephi 6:10-12 -  But it came to pass in the *twenty and ninth year there began to be some disputings among the people; and some were lifted up unto pride and boasting because of their exceedingly great riches, yea, even unto great persecutions; For there were many merchants in the land, and also many lawyers, and many officers.  And the people began to be distinguished by ranks, according to their riches and their chances for learning; yea, some were ignorant because of their poverty, and others did receive great  learning because of their riches.

There are many, many others just like this.  One of the overarching themes of the Book of Mormon is that when a society becomes stratified between the rich and the poor, the rich will become prideful and wicked and push the poor down further and further until they are ripe for destruction.  This is where we are inevitably headed unless we make the decision, as a society collectively, to narrow that gap voluntarily.  Extending the Bush tax cuts for the poor and letting them expire for the wealthy is a step in the right direction.

Glenn Beck v. The Mormon Ethic of Civility

Can you guess which is which?

The political world is astir. Economies are faltering. Public trust is waning. Individuals feel vulnerable. And social cohesion wears thin. Meanwhile, stories of rage and agitation fill our airwaves, streets and town halls. Where are the voices of balance and moderation in these extreme times?

So here you have Barack Obama going in and spending money on embryonic stem cell research. . .  Eugenics.  In case you don't know what eugencis led to; the Final Solution.  A master race!  A perfect person. . .  the stuff we are facing is absolutely frightening.
 
During a recent address given in an interfaith setting, Church President Thomas S. Monson declared: "When a spirit of goodwill prompts our thinking and when united effort goes to work on a common problem, the results can be most gratifying."

You self-centered, self-righteous, socialist, out-of-control, dangerous, man-hating bitch. Shut your mouth. We might have bought into this crap in the 1960s because too many people were doing LSD. We’re not on LSD anymore. You need to start making sense.

Further, former Church President Gordon B. Hinckley once said that living “together in communities with respect and concern one for another” is “the hallmark of civilization.” That hallmark is under increasing threat.

Speaking to a Muslim Congressman:  "I have been nervous about this interview with you because what I feel like saying is, "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies". . .  And I know you're not.  I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans feel that way.

So many of the habits and conventions of modern culture — ubiquitous media, anonymous and unsourced online participation, politicization of the routine, fractured community and family life — undermine the virtues and manners that make peaceful coexistence in a pluralist society possible.

Mary Landrieu is "a high-class prostitute".

The fabric of civil society tears when stretched thin by its extremities. Civility, then, becomes the measure of our collective and individual character as citizens of a democracy.

Every night I get down on my knees and pray that Dennis Kucinich will burst into flames.
 
A healthy democracy maintains equilibrium through diverse means, including a patchwork of competing interests and an effective system of governmental checks. Nevertheless, this order ultimately relies on the integrity of the people.

Progressivism is the cancer in America and it is eating our Constitution, and it was designed to eat the Constitution, to progress past the Constitution.

Speaking at general conference, a semiannual worldwide gathering of the Church, Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles asserted: “In the end, it is only an internal moral compass in each individual that can effectively deal with the root causes as well as the symptoms of societal decay.”

[Hilliary Clinton] is the stereotypical bitch, you know what I mean?

Likewise, Presiding Bishop H. David Burton emphasized that the virtues of fidelity, charity, generosity, humility and responsibility “form the foundation of a Christian life and are the outward manifestation of the inner man.”

Person 1:  I don't hate women, they're very convenient to have around.
Person 2:  They just shouldn't be voting.
Person 1:  Of course not.

Thus, moral virtues blend into civic virtues. The seriousness of our common challenges calls for an equally serious engagement with reasonable ideas and solutions. What we need is rigorous debate, not rancorous altercations.

Cindy Sheehan "a pretty big prostitute" and a "tragedy pimp".

Civility is not only a matter of discourse. It is primarily a mode of engagement. The technological interconnectedness of society has made isolation impossible.

I think she is a racist.  I think she decided things based on race.  I think she says that a Hispanic woman, with the experience of being a Hispanic woman, can make decisions that a white man can't make.  I can't imagine saying that.  That's like saying Hispanics can't make money decisions like them Jews.
 
Of all the institutions in the modern world, religion has had perhaps the greatest difficulty adjusting to the reality of give and take with the public.

I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. . .  If you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another parish. Go alert your bishop.

Rather than exempting itself from the rules of law and civility, the Church has sought the path of cooperative engagement and avoided the perils of acrimonious confrontation.

These vampires are not going to be satisfied by just sucking the blood of GM's top guy, the AIG executives or any other business or businessperson. Their thirst for power and control is unquenchable and there are only two ways for this to end: Either the economy becomes like the walking dead or you drive a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers.

Some people mistakenly think responses such as silence, meekness, forgiveness, and bearing humble testimony are passive or weak. But, to "love [our] enemies, bless them that curse [us], do good to them that hate [us], and pray for them which despitefully use [us], and persecute [us]" (Matthew 5:44) takes faith, strength, and, most of all, Christian courage.

The most used phrase in my administration if I were to be President would be "What the hell do you mean we're out of missiles?"
 
The moral basis of civility is the Golden Rule, taught by a broad range of cultures and individuals, perhaps most popularly by Jesus Christ: “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise” (Luke 6:31). This ethic of reciprocity reminds us all of our responsibility toward one another and reinforces the communal nature of human life.


I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. . .  No, I think I could.  I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out.  Is this wrong?

The need for civility is perhaps most relevant in the realm of partisan politics. As the Church operates in countries around the world, it embraces the richness of pluralism.  Thus, the political diversity of Latter-day Saints spans the ideological spectrum. 

There are three reasons that an illegal immigrant "comes across the border in the middle of the night:  One, they're terrorists.  Two, they're escaping the law.  Or, three, they're hungry -- they can't make a living in their own dirtbag country."

Individual members are free to choose their own political philosophy and affiliation. Moreover, the Church itself is not aligned with any particular political ideology or movement. It defies category. Its moral values may be expressed in a number of parties and ideologies.

Good for you, you have a heart, you can be a liberal. Now, couple your heart with your brain, and you can be a conservative.

Furthermore, the Church views with concern the politics of fear and rhetorical extremism that render civil discussion impossible.

This president I think has exposed himself over and over again as a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture. . .  I'm not saying he doesn't like white peopel, I'm saying he has a problem.  This guy is, I believe, a racist.
 
Latter-day Saint ethical life requires members to treat their neighbors with respect, regardless of the situation. Behavior in a religious setting should be consistent with behavior in a secular setting.

You got to have an enemy to fight.  And when you have an enemy to fight, then you can unite the entire world behind you, and you seize power.  That was Hitler's plan.  His enemy: the Jew.  Al Gore's enemy, the U.N.'s enemy: global warming.  Then you get the scientists -- eugenics.  You the scientists: global warming.  then you have to discredit the scientists who say, "That's not right."  And you must silence all dissenting voices.  That's what Hitler did.

The Church hopes that our democratic system will facilitate kinder and more reasoned exchanges among fellow Americans than we are now seeing.

There are good Muslims and bad Muslims.  We need to be the first ones in the recruitment office lining up to shoot the bad Muslims in the  head.
 
In his inaugural press conference President Monson emphasized the importance of cooperation in civic endeavors: “We have a responsibility to be active in the communities where we live, all Latter-day Saints, and to work cooperatively with other churches and organizations. My objective there is ... that we eliminate the weakness of one standing alone and substitute for it the strength of people working together.”

When I see a 9/11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, "Oh shut up."  I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining.

Moderation In A Crowded World

In 1800 just after the United States was formed and the Constitution ratified, the world population was about 978 million, just under 1 billion.  North America had about 7 million people.  If you had suggested to them at the time that they really should consider moderating consumption and conserving natural ecosystems, they probably would have laughed you to scorn.  "The world has more natural resources and available land than we ever could possibly develop," they would say to you with a condescending chuckle.  "Why on Earth should moderate anything?"

Today the world population is approaching 7 billion and North America has about 340 million people.  In a hundred years we'll be pushing 10 billion people.  It is a crowded world we live in now and it is not difficult to imagine running out of oil, chopping down the Amazon rain forest, and polluting our entire atmosphere and oceans to near sterility.  For thousands of years leading up to now humans have never had to moderate because the world was so big and we were so small.  So it is not altogether surprising, then, when so many people today, Americans in particular, continue to scoff at the idea of moderation, at the idea that we have to pull back in order to preserve what we have.

The oil gushing into the Gulf Coast at a rate of 210,000 gallons a day, which we are apparently powerless to stop any time soon, is a fitting example of how we are failing to be proper stewards of the Earth because we are not willing to moderate our thirst for oil.

But the idea of moderation in an ever more crowded world doesn't just pertain to the environment and consumption of goods.

As world population increases so does our proximity to other people.  As infrastructure increases and improves information is more easily shared, goods are more easily shipped around the globe, people travel more easily and are not confined to their ancestral land, and divisions based on ideology, race, national origin, habits, ways of life, and religions are no longer easily maintained.  We are forced to live and interact with people and ideas that before were easy to avoid.

It was easier to take more extreme positions because we could easily insulate ourselves from the consequences, but that is no longer the case.  In order to survive we have to find common ground.  We can't elevate the rhetoric against immigrants like we used to because there is no longer any buffer between Us and Them.  We can't demand that our government be Christian because there is no longer any buffer between Us and Them.  We can't demonize people of other political ideologies because there is no longer any buffer between Us and Them.  We are crowded together on the same subway train now and it does no use yelling at the person standing next to you to make more room because more room doesn't exist anymore.

Which brings us to two things:  Pres. Obama and the Gospel.  As for the president, he has been a liberal disappointment.  The far-right wing wants to paint him as a dangerous liberal, a socialist, a communist, a fascist, extreme in every way.  The reality is much different.

His newest nomination to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, is a safe choice meant to avoid any sort of conflict or strong statement about what liberals believe.  Liberals wanted a single-payer health system, or a strong public option at the very least.  Universal health care was never on the table and the public option was bargained away before the bargaining even started.  Instead we got a bill that amounts to a give-away to private health insurance companies.  Liberals wanted Guantanamo Bay shut down, full light shed on the torture issue, the Bush Administration torturers prosecuted, and the end of executive power overreaching.  Instead Guantanamo remains open, torture was swept under the rug, and the president is not letting go of unconstitutional executive powers like the right to indefinitely detain terror "suspects" without any evidence.  Don't Ask, Don't Tell has not been repealed.  The energy bill is going to be another give-away to private industry instead of hard choices in reducing climate change.  And I could go on.

I let this bother me for quite a while, but I'm starting to come around.  It's okay to hold liberal and conservative views, but it's not okay, in my opinion, to hold them at the exclusion of compromise and mutual respect.  Our nation is simply too big and diverse to cling to extreme ideas.  Partisanship is good and healthy, America needs to debate the different positions and fully explore all good ideas, but in the end we have to move towards each other and work together.  Despite what the anti-government movement and other far-righties might try to tell us, I think Pres. Obama is doing a good job trying to bridge differences and moderate.  He'll never hear that from those groups or Washington politicians, but it's true and I think America sees that.

And I think the Gospel is the perfect vehicle for this sort of moderation and is more and more relevant as the world grows more and more crowded.  It teaches us that all people are children of God and have a common divine heritage.  It teaches us to love and respect everyone, regardless of race, politics, age, sex, religion, or any other Earthly distinction.  And when we are able to love and respect anyone, looking beyond arbitrary differences, we are able to find common ground and moderate our more extreme impulses.  I think members of the church need to employ the Gospel to bridge differences instead of widen them and to promote peace instead of conflict.  I don't think polarization, whether it be my country against yours, my politics against yours, or my religion against yours, is in line with what the Savior taught.

Lets Take the Government Spending Rhetoric Down a Notch

In the wake of the recent Tea Party Convention, I infiltrated the Tea Party Nation website by obtaining a username and password. My life may or may not be in danger if I am found. You have to be a member to poke around and see what they are up to. I've made my feelings known before, and I renew those sentiments now, that I will not sully the good name of the original Boston Tea Party with this movement. I fully support the current government protesters' right to organize and protest, but don't equate it with the original Boston Tea Party, they are not similar.

One of the things that I don't understand about the government protesters is how they were overwhelmingly likely to support huge government expenditures to rebuild a foreign, non-threatening nation, but protest like mad against government expenditures to rebuilt our own nation in the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. The Iraq War has now cost over $700 billion, with much of the cost deferred to where the total cost will end up in the trillions. And yet when a similar amount is spent by our government to shore up the financial system, assist the millions that have lost their jobs, and spur new growth, Sarah Palin has to show up and read off her hand that government is destroying our liberties.

It may surprise you to learn, though, that I am concerned about the spending and debt of the federal government. I don't think this is an ideological concern, I think most Americans are at least uncomfortable with our national debt. Some Americans are downright angry about it, which I don't understand, but I think it is important to understand the problem and react appropriately. Unfortunately, the government protesters, with all the vitriol and hyperbole, have made it difficult to discuss the issue intelligently.

And as far as I'm concerned, here is the problem: Americans don't want to pay for what we demand. As a result, politicians from both parties promise the benefits of government without requiring the requisite sacrifices from the public. This is no shocking revelation, of course, but consider the following facts, taken from a Washington Post article from last year:

• The average family pays only nine percent of its income to taxes (down significantly from previous decades).
• The middle fifth of taxpayers pay only three percent of their income to taxes (again, down significantly).
• A majority of Americans considers their tax burden either too low or about right.
• About a third of all taxpayers pay no taxes at all (excluding Social Security and Medicare).

Here is a nifty image from wikipedia which shows the marginal income tax rate over the years, demonstrating that it is about at its lowest since the years leading up to the Great Depression.

Also note that, contrary to popular belief, corporations in America actually pay less taxes than in the average developed country (average 16.1%, US 13.4%), largely due a graduated tax rate and generous business deductions.

I am among the many Americans that want health care insurance for all Americans, programs to help low and middle income Americans pay for college, Social Security for low income retirees, a safety net for the poor that cannot find any work or cannot find work that pays for the basic necessities of life, etc. I'm a liberal, therefore I want programs that help level the playing field. That is not to say that everyone should make the same amount of money or that we should pay for people to be lazy, but that everyone should have equal opportunity to get ahead if they so desire.

Remember, as we've pointed out here many times in the past, only a very small, minuscule fraction of Americans are intentionally lazy and living off the government for years on end. Most Americans are hard-working and have self-respect and pride, and try their best to survive on their own. But the system (i.e. market) is set up for poor people to become more poor, no matter how hard-working or talented they are, and for the rich to become more rich, no matter how lazy and incompetent they are. The rags to riches story is a heart-warming exception to the rule. So we turn to the government to make some new rules which are more equitable.

But we stopped paying for it. We give corporations huge tax breaks and promise the middle and upper classes lower and lower taxes until they are hardly paying any at all. And then we borrow money to pay for the things we want. So we have two choices to lower the debt: we eliminate those playing-field-leveling programs or we require more taxes from Americans.

Liberals and conservatives alike can agree that we should require more accountability and efficiency from the federal government. Pres. Obama has said that he is going through the government now and looking for ineffective programs to eliminate, and I hope that this is true. There should absolutely be pressure on him, once the economy is righted, to balance the budget and eliminate waste, like Pres. Clinton did. But Pres. Obama is right that we first have to stabilize the economy, and that requires spending. Then, in prosperous economic times we should have every expectation that government will scale back its spending, again, like what Pres. Clinton did.

We shouldn't let the government protesters hijack a meaningful and important conversation about government spending and deficits by injecting vitriol and absurd arguments about how government spending equals a lack of personal liberties. Everyone can agree that fiscal responsibility is best in the long term, but right now is the time for the government to build our country up again after a terrible economic disaster. If we are committed to doing it in Iraq and Afghanistan, we should be committed to doing it in America.

The State of the President Part 2: Reality Bites

Change and hope. Hope and change. These are the reasons America elected Pres. Obama. The aughts constituted America's worst decade for quite some time. There was 9/11, which exasperated an already ailing economy, two wars, one of which was sold to us on false pretenses, the seeming breakdown of the rule of law amongst Washington insiders, cynicism, hyper-partisanship, torture, the bursting of the housing bubble which lead to the worst economy since the Great Depression, bank and auto industry bailouts, global warming, and a complete loss of trust in our government.

This on the heels of the 90s which saw record growth in the economy and no wars. Peace and Prosperity. That's all we want. But in a post-9/11 world it was beginning to seem as though that was no longer possible.

So Pres. Obama came along with ideas that made us have some hope again. He said we'd end that awful war in Iraq. We'd close that symbol of American arrogance and torture, Guantanamo Bay. We'd ensure that every American, not just the wealthy, had access to humane health care. We'd invest in green jobs and renewable energy, fighting the dual threats of global warming and a weak economy. We'd reward people that volunteer. We'd raise the bar for our teachers and schools. We'd make government more efficient by reviewing the individual agencies and programs. We would no longer be beholden to special interests and lobbyists. We'd do it all as a united America, not red and blue, Republican and Democrat. Oh, and he'd be the our first black president, showing the world, and ourselves, that America had finally put to rest our shameful history of race relations. Yes, he sold change and hope.

And now, reality.

The reality is that, like every politician that ever campaigned in the history of America, he simply could never fulfill all that promise, and especially after only one year. But America was so worn down after the aughts and Barack Obama was such a new, interesting, charismatic political force, that we invested a little too much of our hope in him. We expected a little too much change too fast. This Modern World sums up pretty well how we became enamored with our ideal of Pres. Obama.

All this is not to say that America was hoodwinked or believed naively in some sort of American Savior. There is good reason he won the election: he was the best choice. And he has made changes that we absolutely needed. He's closing Guantanamo (albeit slower than we'd like). He's withdrawing from Iraq (albeit with an ugly escalation in Afghanistan). He's committing to reducing greenhouse gas emissions (albeit with major concessions to industry). He's committed to reforming health care (albeit with major concessions to industry).

Things are changing for the better, but without the stark break from the past we were expecting. If we had come into the Obama administration with more tempered expectations I suspect we'd be pretty pleased with what we saw, and I suspect that after four years we'll look back and see more progress than we realized while in the middle of it. But there is no denying that reality is a lot less appealing than the ideal.

And the most stark reality is that America is in a hyper-partisan mood right now. Conservatives impeached Pres. Clinton, liberals went after Pres. Bush hard, and now conservatives are going after Pres. Obama hard. We are willing to put party before country. There was never any dispute, for instance, that the health care system is broken and shameful, but no matter what was proposed conservatives were going to oppose it. It is hard to blame that strategy from a political perspective because it seems to be working pretty well. But that's not to say that it is good for America.

In this party before country atmosphere the group that has gained the most is lobbyists. They use the partisanship to exploit their relationships with the Washington insiders and thus create gridlock. The lobbyists want nothing more than status quo. As long as the system stays the same, a system where bankers and insurance companies can ruin peoples' lives without consequence, the lobbyists have won. So even in a world where Pres. Obama was actually disposed to fight hard for every ideal he embodies, the system is set up for him to fail.

Can he find a second wind and change the system? Doubtful. Is that our ideal of him? It is. Hope and change? Prospects diminishing. But let's see what he's got in store for 2010 before making any final judgments.

Firing Too Soon

This is a thought I've been having over the last few days. There were several times during the primaries when I felt like the Obama team wasn't doing enough. They seemed to just sit back and let things play out. At the time this unnerved me; although I like Hillary Clinton, I was still very supportive of Obama and I felt like doing this would let her get the upper hand. However, as we now know that didn't happen and Obama won the primary and the general election.

I think the same thing might be happening with health care. In some sense it's a good idea to draw out your opposition (especially when they're as numerically weak as the current Republican party) and let them take their best shot. August is over, and the memory of the town halls (or, rather, the minority that drew the most attention) will fade. I've noticed my more liberally-minded friends have now started to be more vocal about their support for a "public option" in whatever bill is finally passed, and whether they know it or not I think now is a good time to be more involved. One nice thing about the network news cycle is it doesn't last very long, so if you can ride out these media "waves" then you're likely to end up in a stronger position.

I don't claim to be a prognosticator for the Obama folks, and for all I know they're scrambling trying to figure out how to "respond" and not playing offense (the normal sort of reaction to these sorts of things). Nevertheless, I hold out hope that there is something of a larger strategy at work, and in my mind something like what I've described above could be effective against the Karl Rove-ish strategy of whisper campaigns and winning news cycles. If so, then I can't help but thing those who oppose the "public option" have fired too soon.

Is President Obama a Socialist?

Shaking my head in despair.

I can't believe I have to right these words, but: Pres. Obama is not a socialist.

Go ahead and Google Obama + Socialist and you will come up with over 7.3 million hits. This is the duly elected POTUS, and we have to have a discussion about whether or not he is a socialist. The unfounded hysteria, I suppose, is based on the bank bailouts (TARP), the auto-industry bailout, and the stimulus bill.

Am I really writing this?

Socialism is state ownership and control over the means of production and distribution. Socialists, like the Socialist Party USA or the Socialist Party of America, call for nationalization of all or most of: the financial system, the health care system, the transportation system (including the production of cars, airplanes, and ships), factories, media, etc. They call for absolute income inequality and the abolition of classes. All of this to be achieved by militant action, if necessary, which they believe it almost always is.

I'm dreaming, aren't I? This can't be real.

The first piece of evidence that Pres. Obama is not a socialist, and I'd say its the biggie, is that socialists disavow and want nothing to do with Pres. Obama. They don't think he is a socialist. And they are not an especially humble or an easily embarrassed crowd. Nor are they the types to shun the spotlight. They appear to be absolutely giddy with all the new-found publicity they are receiving, but still don't accept the president as one of their own.

Now why is that?

As for TARP, a socialist would have used the financial crisis caused in large part by a lack of personal responsibility and regulation, coupled with immense greed and pride, to completely restructure the financial system and put government in permanent control. This is clearly not the case. The banks came asking to be bailed out, the government did so. The reason was because businesses and banks rely on short-term loans that are borrowed and paid back nearly daily, day in and day out. Because the banks had gambled and lost on the mortgage bubble, they had no money for these short-term loans which businesses need, as in have to have, in order to function. The government stepped in and guaranteed the loans and got credit flowing again.

Hey, that sounds like the capitalism! It is. There are basic regulations and oversight which dictate how the banks can use that bailout money, but there is no complete government control and the whole system is temporary until the economy turns around. Socialists would like to see complete control of the banking system, or something akin to the public utility system. This ain't that.

Every word I have to waste on this subject kills a puppy.

As for the auto bailout, I don't know what to say. They received an infusion of cash, again with them on their knees begging, to avoid catastrophic collapse that would have resulted in hundreds of thousands of lost jobs. It is not just the workers for the Big 3, but the workers of every industry that is supported by the Big 3, such as all the parts manufacturers. The government, again, has no real control of the companies and no permanent control whatsoever. Again, the government propping up capitalism until the economy recovers.

Is this what hell is like?

The stimulus gives the government control of nothing. It was federal money, mostly to states, for things like infrastructure and schools. It was a lot of money, and it is still unclear how effective it will be, but no threat of socialism. In fact, just about every Congressperson, Democrat and Republican alike, put pork in that bill. No one has clean hands on that one.

So what we see so far is that the federal government has just transferred millions of dollars into private hands. They took money from the masses and transferred it to the select few bankers, mostly. Does that sound like socialism? Sounds a little like bizzaro-socialism to me.

Please someone kill me.

That leaves us with health care. In that I want universal health care, which I laid out ad naseum on this site previously, to the degree that I want that certain industry universal-ized, I guess I am a health care socialist. Pres. Obama's plan is not a call for universal health care. It is not complete government control of the health care apparatus. That is what is needed, frankly, but he isn't willing to go that far yet.

So does anyone who wants government control of an industry a socialist? What about the police force? The fire department? Schools? Public transportation? Public utilities? TV and radio airwaves? The military? Does the public control of these industries stifle capitalism? Is anyone that supports government interference in these services a dreaded socialist?

We make decisions all the time that the government is best suited to control certain services and industries. Is health care so different from schooling and public safety?

Merciful, this is almost over.

I will say this again: Pres. Obama is not a socialist. He's not even close.

Suggestions to the contrary are conservative fear-mongering at its worst. Republicans have been out of office for a little over 100 days now and they are already acting like the ruin of America is upon us. They think that Americans are so dumb that they can't even see a socialist Manchurian candidate staring them right in the eyes.

They remind me of a Simpson's episode (Steve M. can help me out on this) where Marge kicks Homer out of the house for some indiscretion. Homer is forced to live in the kids' treehouse. Within less than a day, when he and Marge reconcile, his clothes are in tatters, the beard is full grown and unkempt, and he basically is a hysterical homeless man. He can't live without Marge for even a few hours. Republicans had unchecked power in Washington for such a long time that they are now not able to live without it for even just a few months, let alone years, and have turned to the sensational to help reclaim that power. Americans just are not buying it.

* Know that when I am talking about Republicans, here, I am mostly referring to the Washington and media elite like Boehner, Cantor, Gingrich, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, etc. I understand the average Republican still has his or her head on straight.