Original Definitions

LIBERAL: associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

CONSERVATIVE: advocating support of established institutions : progressive conservative, tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : marked by moderation or caution

PROGRESSIVE: believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action, tending to be optimistic yet pragmatic and practical.

RADICAL: very different from the usual or traditional : extreme, favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions : associated with political views, practices, and policies of extreme change : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs

ANARCHISM: political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups.

Okay- So, do you get how today's Democrats in Washington are actually more "conservative" than some Republicans? Can you see why i might think that the "Tea Party" is pretty radical ? Am I wrong to think of most Libertarians as anarchistic? Now, tell me again how liberalism and progressivism are bad?

Who Are We Dealing With Here?

Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail in New Hampshire 2012
In his column in this week’s Newsweek, former Clinton adviser and CNN commentator Paul Begala (whom I always thought was the model for Josh Lyman’s character on ‘West Wing’) absolutely hit the nail on the head when he explained the Republican party’s never-ending stampede to the right.

“The story of the Republican Party in the last half century is a nearly unbroken march to the right. Nixonwas more conservative than Eisenhower. Goldwater was more conservative than Nixon. Reagan was more conservative than Goldwater. Gingrich was more conservative than Reagan. And George W. Bush was more conservative than Newt.”

I for one, once thought of myself as a centrist, perhaps even a somewhat conservative Democrat. I supported deficit hawks like Paul Tsongas and Paul Simon in the 80′s and imagined my self a working-class, Midwestern Gebhardt-Democrat, but felt pushed further and further left by the extremist positions and outrageous abuses of the “Neo-Conservatives” during the last Bush administration.

A quick look at the current field of Republican candidates confirms that our rivals on the right have pretty much gone off the rails on a crazy train.

Front-Runner Mitt Romney obviously wouldn’t get the Occupy Wall Street crowd, as a bonifide billionaire who refuses to make his tax records public. This the same reason that a lot of Tea Party Republicans may not trust him (even though they’ll take money from Kansas oil billionaires like the Kock brothers). Meanwhile some Republicans SAY they don’t trust him because he “flip-flops. (also known as telling voters what he thinks they want to hear, which politicians have done as long as there’s been politics). Die hard conservatives, of course, can’t forgive him for having been a moderate governor of a liberal state. As I’m sure you’ve heard a million times already, he used to be pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and pro-health care reform.

Evangelicals (right-wing religious fundamentalists) don’t like him because he’s Mormon- As a former Arizonan, I can tell you that the LDS establishment can have a way of amassing, defending and wielding social and political influence that could rival any ethnic, religious, or immigrant group in history. Whether there’s anything any more insidious or conspiratorial I’m not sure. Whether or not being apprehensive about Romney’s Mormonism constitutes the same kind of religious bigotry that Know Nothings’ anti-catholicism did in another time, I’m also not sure.

If Rick Santorum doesn’t revive Protestant prejudices of Catholics, I’m not sure what would. He certainly makes me think about an old Monte Python number called “Every Sperm is Sacred.” Do you realize that he’s not just pro-life, he’s rabidly anti-contraception? I can respect someone who opposes abortion because they genuinely want to protect unborn babies (though I have issues with rape and incest that Santorum leaves no room for), but I just don’t get attacking birth control. For one thing, preventing pregnancies also prevents abortions. As a devout believer myself, not to mention a devoted monogamist, I appreciate more than most secularists that he thinks that people shouldn’t be having sex as casually as watching TV or poking each other on facebook. Be that as it may, not everyone in married committed relationships wants to have 12 kids and I say if some of the secular hedonists and nymphomaniacs out there want to prevent either unplanned pregnancies and/or sexually transmitted diseases, by God, we outta let ‘em.

Liberal comedians have had a field day insinuating that Santorum’s homophobia and his pastel sweater vests suggest that the Senator himself is repressing some latent tendencies, but again, I think we need to respect his right to believe differently that we do. While Jesus Himself never mentions homosexuality in the Bible, both Moses and Saint Paul do. I don’t mean to excuse or condone Santorum’s tendency to obsess about gay marriage, I just think that rather than attacking religious beliefs or even social attitudes, Democrats need to focus on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the constitution. Whether your religious passions are aroused by the very thought of gay sex, like Senator Santorum, or whether it leaves you cold, we must all agree that ALL Americans are all entitled to due process and equal treatment under the laws of the land- that is as conservative as you can get as far as I’m concerned.

Then there’s Newt. Ah Newt. I think it’s ironic that he indignantly claimed to have maintained a positive campaign here in Iowa and was shocked, SHOCKED that Super PACs supporting Mitt Romney would stoop to demonizing his character and maligning his record in so many TV ads. I also think it was poetic justice.

I think it was ironic that his rivals all painted him as the Washington insider and someone who had been willing to work with Democrats, potentially compromising himself to get things done. Especially since this was the man who took the Reagan/Bush rhetoric about reversing 40 years of Liberal programs and turned it into a “revolution” to undo a hundred years of Progressive protections and advancements. The very guy who as Speaker of the House, gloated over the ridiculously petty and partisan impeachment of one of the most popular and effective presidents in recent time, Bill Clinton. The same guy who was one of the first to issue actual talking-points memos to keep his party members on message and in lock step- and in many of those memos taught Republicans how to manipulate language so as to make their opponents not just sound like they were in disagreement, or even incorrect, but to deliberately make them sound immoral- the guy who paved the way for all the radio and TV demagogues and gubernatorial despots of the last 14 years- THIS guy, responsible for so much of our polarization and incivility, this guy was actually referred to as part of the “liberal Republican establishment!” I not only think that’s ironic, I also think it’s poetic justice.

Do I even BOTHER saying anything about Texas Governor Rick Perry? When he first entered the race, I was indignant about the fact that he’s advocated Texas seceding from the Union. I thought that alone was too outrageous for him to be taken seriously. Certainly I’ve been appalled by his cynical abuse of religion to appeal to the basest instincts of Iowa voters. Most glaringly his performances in debates and at campaign events at best reveals him to be an inept imitation of George W. Bush or worst a pathetic addict of some sort.

Should we bother talking about Ron Paul? When you hear him talk about Iraq, you almost think he must be a democrat. When you hear him talk about the war on drugs, you wonder if he hasn’t been hanging out with Woody Harrelson and Willy Nelson. How could any Republican take him seriously? Perhaps Liberals and Libertarians have more in common than just a root word. But then he starts talking about Wall Street- here is where you’d think that the Tea Party and OWS could find common ground. Why bail out jerks who are just going to give each other a big bonus? It is at this point when you could fall under his charm, but then he starts talking about eliminating pretty much every thing about the Federal government that protects anyone or provides any structure or regulation to anything and you remember that this guy lives on what we all used to call “the fringe,” before the Republicans moved us all dangerously close to the precipice that the fringe isn’t even on any known maps anymore. Now anyone who’s done any digging at all has heard about how his newsletters have had their share of white supremacist and racist ideology in them. Hopefully whatever eccentric charm you saw in him is tarnished.

Yep. I’d say that if somehow God magically eliminated President Obama and the Democratic Party from the face of the Earth, so that I had no choice but to vote for a Republican, I’d have to go with former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman. Of course, you know why Republicans don’t like him, right? Not because he’s Mormon. Not because he was ambassador to China. Because he was willing to serve as an ambassador to China FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA!

New Year, New Opportunity

Recently a couple of Monona County Democrats invited me to contribute to the blog http://www.idp4.org/blog, twitter feed https://twitter.com/#!/IDP4th and facebook pages https://www.facebook.com/IDP4th for the Democratic Party of Iowa's new 4th District . I hardly feel qualified (I've only lived here for 10 years), but progressives are so rare in this side of the state that I agreed to help. I've felt strongly that the few of us here in Crawford County really need to be better about networking and communicating.

I'll add these links to the right-hand menu of this blog. I can't believe how much busier I've been this year since I started teaching 8th grade Civics, so my contributions may be few and far between, but as I told the IDP4th webmaster, at least I'm more likely to keep my posts below 700 words than I was back when I had a column in the Mapleton PRESS.

If you're of our rare breed ("Blue" in a "Red" district), I hope you'll caucus next week so that we can replace Congressman Steve King with former Iowa First Lady Christie Vilsack and State House (Dist.18) Representative Jason Schultz with someone like Kasey Friedrichsen. 

Who knows, I may even send up a political cartoon once in a while.

Van Jones on Meta-Branding and Crowd-Sourcing.

Watch the speech that Van Jones gave at Netroots Nation 2011 announcing the American Dream Movement and issuing a challenge to debate Glenn Beck. 


Progressives put all our eggs in the Obama basket. He's not as bad as the right makes him out to be, but if we have any hope of sharing our values, it has to be about principles and networking, not just hoping that just one personality. Dems in Western Iowa, we need to connect online.

Most awesome quote EVER!!!

"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy."

- Wendell Berry

When I think about all I've learned about Thomas Hobbes and Adam Smith and John Locke and Rousseau- and then I contrast Jesus' teachings to Machiavelli, holy cow but this Wendell Berry quote is phenomenal. It sums up so much of what I believe.

We're all in this together folks.

Don't you think we were put her to help each other if and when we can? Why is it immoral to help and be helped? All that authoritarian malarkey about making people dependent on you is an excuse to be selfish and competitive. You want to keep following Ronald Reagan and be rugged individualists or Ayn Rand and be greedy fascists and paranoid anarchists- go right ahead, I obviously can't convince you not to.

Me, I'm happier with Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt. I'd rather be positive, constructive, and interconnected than angry, suspicious and defensive. If you think I'm some kind of "Socialist" for believing that government is her to protect us from corporations instead of corporations being here to protect us from government- then I guess that's the way it's gonna be, but we're still all in this together even if you don't want us to be.

We're all in this together

Reagan's Budget Director David Stockman and former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich have both sharply criticized the budget proposed by Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan. Stockman was on NPR's "On Point" this morning explaining how we all need to share the sacrifice and essentially that supply-side economics won't work anymore (though he didn't actually admit it that blatantly). He admitted that we need to focus some on revenues (restoring taxes to pre-Bush levels). And he was pretty emphatic that we need to be realistic and pragmatic about austerity. We can't just continue to postpone/borrow our way into not worrying about deficits. He even recommended drastically reducing military spending.

Gingrich on the other hand started backpedaling after being chastised by fellow conservatives.

Stockman's still no Keynesian, but I have tremendous respect for his serious and mature take on the mess we're in. Bottom line, right-wingers are intractable on the dogmas (they've gone way beyond doctrine at this point) of opposition to taxes and insistence on cutting everything but defense. On the other hand, the establishment Democrats (that is, those in power, notice I didn't call them left, liberal or even progressive) keep saying that there's nothing really wrong and that all we need to do about the debt ceiling and the impending problems for entitlements is to bring in more smoke and mirrors to help us rearrange numbers. 

You might be surprised to hear me agree with a Reaganite, but I've been a deficit hawk long before it became politically expedient for Republicans to be. I say bring back PAGO (the pay-as-you-go rules in Congress). I may like John Maynard Keynes a lot more than Ayn Rand, but I'd almost go so far as to think of myself as relatively conservative fiscally. 

It's time for both sides to let go of tribal and partisan tenants of faith and hash tings out together. We're ALL in this together. Eliminating all the tax loopholes corporate and otherwise is a great place to start. 

I was talking to a friend about this kind of thing recently in regards to school funding here in Iowa. Sales taxes hurt consumers and renters (poor & working class), property taxes hurt home owners and  farmers (middle and upper-middle class), and commercial taxes supposedly hinder business and growth. Somehow we ALL need to share the burden. Before he backed down under party pressure, Gingrich characterized the Ryan plan as "social engineering," something that Republicans are constantly accusing Democrats as conspiring to do (Socialism- eek!). Gingrich was spot-on. If giving corporations the same rights as individuals while taking away the rights of organized labor, and dismantling the social safety nets isn't systematically maneuvering to establish a more oligarchical than egalitarian arrangement- then I don't know what it is.

I think that the right has gone so far toward the extremes of either corporatism and/or libertariansism, that those of us who used to be centrists are painted as "liberal." I've never advocated for Marxist revolution and I doubt that I ever will, but for God's sake, isn't it about time that we returned to a a little common sense? Should a Democratic president really have to stretch way over to the corporatist side just to appear as if he's trying to find some common ground? Whenever there are calls for compromise and bipartisanship it basically means that the Fraidy-crats are caving in to the Crazy-cans again.

Stockman's most important sentiment is that we all need to grow-up and get to work on fixing things instead of constantly seeing who can appeal most to voters' basest fears.

Quit yer bitchin'!

Some historical context on federal individual income tax rates can help us understand the gravity of this proposed budget plan:

• In 1945, at the end of World War II, the top marginal tax rate was 94 percent.
• In 1954, when Republican Dwight Eisenhower was president, the top marginal tax rate was 91 percent.
• In 1980, the year Reagan won his presidential election, the top marginal tax rate was 70 percent.
• By 1989, the year Ronald Reagan’s presidency ended, the top marginal tax rate was 28 percent.
• When Clinton took office in 1992, he raised the top marginal tax rate to 39.6 percent, where it stayed throughout his presidency.
• Clinton balanced the budget and left office with a surplus.
• Bush Jr. chipped away at the top marginal rate until it rested at 35 percent in 2003, where it remains to this day.

Americans (Republicans and Democrats) used to take pride in paying their taxes. Our contributions made this nation great. We lived on less and paid our fair share to make sure all of our most basic needs were met. That changed in the 1980s with the onset of Reagan’s “trickle-down” economics. Reagan slashed the budget more than any president before him and drastically lowered the top marginal tax rate. And we found the trickle didn’t go far. Most Americans never felt one drop.

Read the article I got this from at the God's Politics Blog: http://blog.sojo.net/2011/04/12/the-ryan-plan-a-declaration-of-war-on-the-poor

Progressives in Western Iowa?

Living in one of the most Republican saturated congressional districts in Iowa, Democrats may feel isolated and under constant scrutiny. Yet we're not alone. In spite of the fact that District 5 keeps electing Steve King, Democrats keep getting elected to county and municipal offices. This proves that we're not only not alone, but that many of our fellow progressives are committed to public service and to our communities- AND that they are trusted and respected by their constituents- our moderate and conservative neighbors.


I'd like to encourage other Democrats to be unashamed of their convictions, undaunted by the potential ridicule of right-wing ideologues in their workplaces and families, and make an effort to connect with one another and network with other progressives in Iowa and the Midwest so that we can remain informed and better organized.


To help us do this, I'd like to recommend three great resources in particular:


If you're like me, you've had people question the validity of your faith because you support Democratic candidates. Sociologist, Pastor, and author, Tony Campolo's latest book, Red Letter Christians proves that Christians not only can, but should consider liberal and progressive political positions in the light of Jesus' teachings, and examples.
Visit the Red Letter Christians Blog at http://www.redletterchristians.org. 


Opposing gay marriage, abortion, and evolution are NOT the only issues Christians should care about, Campolo addresses these as well as education, poverty, corruption, campaign finance, lobbying, foreign policy, war, gun control, immigration, tax structure and many more. 


Campolo's contention is that God is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, Republicans and the religious right have miss represented Christianity in the media and politics in the U.S. for decades, their positions are not necessarily always as supported by Scripture as they claim, and if we look at all of the Bible (and contemporary political issues and current events) in the light of Jesus' teaching (the red-letter portions of the Gospels, such as the Sermon on the mount in Matt. 5-6)- we will have a hard time seeing Republican and Tea Party attitudes as being very Christ-like at all. We should look at each issue individually for ourselves rather than assuming that one party or candidate is right on every issue just because we agree with them on one or two issues.

George Lakoff's book, 'Don't think of an elephant' is something that every Democrat needs to read because we need to learn how to communicate our values: 

• a strong America
• broad prosperity
• a better-future
• effective government
• mutual responsibility
• empathy
• equality
• accountability.

We have to share our values and start couching every discussion we have about every issue in terms of these values. It's absolutely imperative that we work on counteracting or at least eroding the myths that our friends, families, and neighbors are being barraged with about liberals, Democrats, and progressives. We are not misled, we are not anti-American, anti-family, or anti-God. We are not NAZIs or Socialists as Glenn Beck would have people believe. We earnestly care about our nation, state, communities and families. I believe that if we internalize, personalize and start peppering our conversations with these ideas that Lakoff points out have already been our long shared values- our fellow Western Iowans may gradually become less afraid of us and less prejudiced against us.


Finally, 'You Have the Power: How to Take Back Our Country and Restore Democracy in America' by former Vermont Governor and DNC Chairman Howard Dean is an excellent book with lots of ideas for reinvigorating  our grass-roots. Like Campolo and Lakoff, he explains how Democrats have always held values of community and mutual responsibility, as well as equality and empathy. He presents a clear and easy to understand case for how the right wing has mismanaged the economy and abused political power- but have been more organized and deliberate about communicating their supposed values and appealing to the general population- inn spite of the fact that they really only represent a narrow group of interests. Dean isn't some kind of weird radical, his book is incredibly clear, concise, personal, practical and applicable. Those active in party leadership should especially enjoy and find use for this book.


If you're reading this, you could easily order any or all 3 of these books online. They're all reasonably priced.


I hope you'll all find ways to find out who your fellow Democrats are, especially here in Crawford County. get to know each other and support one another. Connect with blogs, facebook, twitter, email, and texting. And remember to make sure you're Republican friends, coworkers, and family members know that you're not only not the enemy, but that you care about Iowa and are intelligent and informed. Share your values sincerely and don't try to argue over specific policies, instead share your perspective on them in a nonjudgmental way, while couching your opinions (which they probably don't share) in the context of your values (which they probably do share).


Happy reading and Happy New Year.

More on Arizona's new immigration law

Pima County (Tuscon) Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, a Republican opposes the law. His Department already arrests and turns over to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) more illegals than any other law enforcement agency in the nation. I already told you that the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police opposes it, right? Dupnik's problem is that the law doesn't give public safety officers any tools to do this job but it does mean that more people will sue policemen and departments (keep that in mind when I tell you about the law's author in a couple paragraphs). He doesn't like the fact that this law also puts the economic burden squarely on local departments to hold/house/feed/care for/and prosecute illegals, where as currently they are handed over to ICE, a federal agency to deal with. Dupnik (again- a Republican)says that he believes the only reason this law was created was racism or possibly to create political division.

This law wasn't even written by Arizona legislators, but by Kris Kobach, a lawyer from Kansas, at the legal arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR),which the Southern Poverty Law Center has listed as an anti-immigrant hate group since 2007. Joe Arpaio had already been paying Kobach $1,500 per month, plus expenses and travel, plus $300 per hour to teach Maricopa County Sheriff personnel how to racially profile immigration suspects.

Kobach has a conflict of interest because he is also Kobach is senior counsel for the Immigration Law Reform Institute, which describes itself as representing “citizens experiencing injury resulting from illegal immigration.” In other words, he stands to profit financially from people who are hurt by the very law he helped craft!

Republicans should probably oppose it because Nationally Hispanics voted for Obama 2 to 1, in AZ it was something like 54% to 41% and that's over home state favorite McCain. Hispanics constitute the fastest growing minority group in the US., making up almost 15% of our population. 30% of Arizona residents happen to be Hispanic! This issue may activate the tea-party base, but it's bound to erase whatever gains the GOP thought it was making over health care reform.
I knew that the GOP had gone crazy, but I didn't think it had become so foolish that they didn't even CARE if they got back into power or not. Wouldn't a political party WANT to appeal to the fasted growing segments of society? They proved that they're the party of the rich by opposing Wall Street reform, now they're proving that they're the party of white racists too. Keep it up Republicans, you're helping the Democratic Party more than all the elitists in Hollywood ever could

Why are you so mad NOW, all off a sudden?

Recently there's been a great deal of talk (mostly from the right) concerned about the national debt and the budget deficit.

I've been a deficit hawk since Reagan doubled in 4 years what it had taken the previous 200 years to build up. I harped on the Bush deficit. For all the things I dislike about him, Bill Clinton actually eliminated the deficit and began to reduce the debt.

I was outraged by Bush Jr's ridiculous tax cut for the richest 2% way before I ever got angry with him about Iraq. Now I don't mean to let Obama and the Dems off the hook, but one of the main purposes of Health Care reform is actually deficit reduction.

I'm not crazy about TARP or the bailouts, but remember that it was the Bush policies and gross negligence in terms of financial regulation that got us into the mess we're in. Obama's not perfect and he's no savior, but how much worse would things be if it weren't for what action he did take (even as much as it's costing).

As an American and a Christian, I want a stronger America, broad prosperity, a better-future, effective government and mutual responsibility. Rush Limbaugh wants Obama to fail. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele seems to want to make money by taking donors to live sex clubs. Glenn  Beck and Sarah Palin want to get attention by makine people angry or scared.

I suspect that some people hate Obama just because he won and they're sore losers. Unfortunately, some people probably hate him because he's black, but they claim that he's socialist or that he's muslim or that he's the antichrist because they either don't want to admit that it's really because he's black or because they don't want anyone to find out.

 I didn't write the following but I agree with it. It's addressed to everyone excited about the tea party movement and Sarah Palin. You don't have to agree with it, but I hope you'll read it and I hope that it will make you think .Everyone who's so afraid of a government take over or the government violatinng their rights really ought to think about the previous 8 years. If you totally disagree, just ignore it. If you agree,  or copy-and-paste it and forward it.

Here it is:

You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.

You didn't get mad when Dick Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy.

You didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.

You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed, violating the rights of private citizens.

You didn't get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us. 

You didn't get mad when we spent over $600 billion (and counting) on said illegal war. Putting our sons and daughters in harms way and for what?

You didn't get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq .

You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people.

You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.

You didn't get mad when we didn't catch Bin Laden.

You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed. 

You didn't get mad when we let a major US city drown.

You didn't get mad when we gave a $900 billion tax break to the rich.

You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court recently passed a law allowing fat cat corporations and unions to back electorial campaigns.

You didn't get mad when, using reconciliation; a trillion dollars of our tax dollars were redirected to insurance companies for Medicare Advantage which cost over 20 percent more for basically the same services that Medicare provides.

You didn't get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark, and our debt hit the thirteen trillion dollar mark. 

You finally got mad when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick. 

Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, are all okay with you... but helping other Americans... THAT makes you mad? 

Check out these great links to social/political action Web sites

TrueMajority.org
From Jerry or Ben & Jerry's

AlterNet
Alternative News magazine with depth and insight

Change.org
The Internet way to get involved, sign petitions, write letters to public officials and media outlets.

Some quick religious/political comentary

IN POLITICAL NEWS

The Republican National Committee plans to raise money this election cycle through an aggressive campaign capitalizing on “fear” of President Barack Obama and a promise to "save the country from trending toward socialism."

The strategy was detailed in a confidential party fundraising presentation, obtained by POLITICO, which also outlines how “ego-driven” wealthy donors can be tapped with offers of access and “tchochkes.”

The presentation was delivered by RNC Finance Director Rob Bickhart to top donors and fundraisers at a party retreat in Boca Grande, Florida on February 18,

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33866.html#ixzz0hXhIFXx

It has been clear since 9/11 that fear has been a major GOP tactic.
"There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love." ~1 John 4:18


GAY MARRIAGE
Recently a student asked me to fill out a political survey for a story he was writing for the school newspaper. There weren't any questions about the deficit or Afghanistan, jobs or the economy. He did ask about health care and gay marriage.

Ordinarily I try to avoid forming opinions (let alone sharing them) on this issue, but that morning my devotion had been on Matthew 22. In  Matthew 22:30 and Mark 12:25 the Sadducees, a group of religious teachers who didn't believe in the resurrection and Heaven, challenged Jesus. The custom was that if a man died without any children, his brother was supposed to marry his widow and have children for him. The Sadducees gave Jesus a scenario where seven brothers all marrying and dying in turn. They asked Him who's wife she would be in Heaven. Jesus knows it's a trap and corrects them, "For when the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage. In this respect they will be like the angels in heaven."

This got me thinking- mind you, I am not condoning homosexuality or promoting gay marriage, but good grief, it seems to me that what Jesus is saying (in part) is that marriage is a temporal, human, perhaps even a civil institution, not necessarily something quite as perfect and Divinely ordained as many of us seem to think. Don't get me wrong, besides my salvation, I personally think that my wife and our marriage is one of the greatest things God has given me. I try thanking Him for Bethany every day. But if marriage is in fact, a covenant, a contract between two people, the 14th Amendment prohibits states from denying everyone equal treatment under the law.

I do not think that church bodies should be forced to perform, recognize or "bless" same-sex unions, however, marriage licenses are issued by the state, not churches. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's" (Luke 20:25, Matt 22:21, Mark 12:17).

Both of these "mini-editorials" are probably enough for some people to want to burn me at the stake as a heretic- guess that's why I'm posting them here on my main blog instead of on my religious blog. Because pretty much no one ever reads this one anymore since I stopped writing a weekly column for my local newspaper. And because the other one is programmed to automatically post on facebook. And I don't feel like having to listen to the negative feedback. Guess I'm a coward. Sorry Gay people. I think you have rights, but I'm too much of a wuss to argue on your behalf. 

Chemo Therapy Sucks, but we seem to need it

Cancer (malignant neoplasm): is a class of diseases in which a group of cells display uncontrolled growth (division beyond the normal limits), invasion (intrusion on and destruction of adjacent tissues), and sometimes metastasis (spread to other locations in the body). These three malignant properties of cancers differentiate them from benign tumors, which are self-limited, and do not invade or metastasize.

Capitalism is not bad, it can be pretty good. Unfortunately, what Ayn Rand, Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan's philosophy of absolute libertarianism for big business has brought us is not free markets, but "cancer-capitalism."

It meets the definition of having three malignant properties. Derivatives schemes began as uncontrolled growth on Wall Street, it invaded mortgages, financing and credit, which effected our entire economy and most aspects of our lives and culture, including health care and unemployment.

We need regulation. We need it on Wall Street to prevent wild speculation, and we need it on K Street to prevent the unfettered influence of special interest groups on Washington.

This is not Socialism, Communism, or Marxism. It's common sense. Some people seem to think that the Revolutionary War was just about King George III, but it was also about the abuses of mercantilism, monopolies like the East India Company, and the super rich in Parliament. America used to be about fairness, equality and justice. Its time to stop being afraid of government and start using it to restore balance to the system and protect the little guy again.

You don't play a football game without rules and referees, how can you expect to have competition in the markets without regulation? Where's Teddy Roosevelt when we need him?

---

Read more or watch the Frontline documentary about Brooksley Born, head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission who tried to warn us back in the 90's. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/etc/synopsis.html

Krauthammer seems to be yet another either a victom of or purveyor of fear

The other day a neighbor and former column reader forward me an email they'd received and asked me what I thought about it. What follows is that forwarded email, followed by my reply.

Dr. Krauthammer is on Fox News. He is an M.D. and a lawyer and is paralyzed from the neck down. A friend went to hear Charles Krauthammer. He listened with 25 others in a closed room. What he says here, is NOT 2nd-hand but 1st. The ramifications are staggering for us, our children and their children.

Last Monday was a profound evening, hearing Dr. Charles Krauthammer speak to the Center for the American Experiment. He is brilliant intellectual, seasoned & articulate. He is forthright and careful in his analysis, and never resorts to emotions or personal insults. He is NOT a fear monger nor an extremist in his comments and views. He is a fiscal conservative, and has received a Pulitzer Prize for writing. He is a frequent contributor to Fox News and writes weekly for the Washington Post. The entire room was held spellbound during his talk. I have summarized his comments, as we are living in uncharted waters economically and internationally. Even 2 Dems at my table agreed with everything he said! If you feel like forwarding this to those who are open minded and have not drunk the Kool-Aid, feel free.

Summary of his comments:

1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual. He is not to be underestimated. He is a cool customer who doesn't show his emotions. It's very hard to know what's behind the mask. The taking down of the Clinton dynasty by a political neophyte was an amazing accomplishment. The Clintons still do not understand what hit them. Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time.

2. Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton. He has a way of making you think he's on your side, agreeing with your position, while doing the opposite. Pay no attention to what he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES!

3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, including dismantling capitalism. He can't be straightforward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along. He has a heavy hand, and wants to level the playing field with income redistribution and punishment to the achievers of society. He would like to model the USA toGreat Britain or Canada

4. His three main goals are to control ENERGY, PUBLIC EDUCATION, and NATIONAL HEALTHCARE by the Federal government. He doesn't care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an early bonus. The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth. Paying for FREE college education is his goal. Most scary is his healthcare program, because if you make it FREE and add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go through the roof. The only way to control costs is with massive RATIONING of services, like in Canada. God forbid!

5. He has surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic types. No one around him has ever even run a candy store. But they are going to try and run the auto, financial, banking and other industries. This obviously can't work in the long run. Obama is not a socialist; rather he's a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the hard left. Again, watch what he does, not what he says.

6. Obama doesn't really see himself as President of the United States, but more as a ruler over the world. He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate & coordinate various countries and their agendas. He sees moral equivalency in all cultures. His apology tour in Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America, as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors. This is the first President ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies!

7. He is now handing out goodies. He hopes that the bill (and pain) will not come due until after he is reelected in 2012. He would like to blame all problems on Bush from the past, and hopefully his successor in the future. He has a huge ego, and Dr. Krauthammer believes he is a narcissist.

8. Republicans are in the wilderness for a while, but will emerge strong. Republicans are pining for another Reagan, but there will never be another like him. Krauthammer believes Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty & Bobby Jindahl (except for his terrible speech in February) are the future of the party. Newt Gingrich is brilliant, but has baggage. Sarah Palin is sincere and intelligent, but needs to really be seriously boning up on facts and info if she is to be a serious candidate in the future. We need to return to the party of lower taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility, strong national defense, and state's rights.

9. The current level of spending is irresponsible and outrageous. We are spending trillions that we don't have. This could lead to hyperinflation, depression or worse. No country has ever spent themselves into prosperity. The media is giving Obama, Reid and Pelosi a pass because they love their agenda. But eventually the bill will come due and people will realize the huge bailouts didn't work, nor will the stimulus package. These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama's allies, unions and the Congress to placate the left, so he can get support for #4 above.

10. The election was over in mid-September when Lehman brothers failed, fear and panic swept in, we had an unpopular President, and the war was grinding on indefinitely without a clear outcome. The people are in pain, and the mantra of change caused people to act emotionally. Any Dem would have won this election; it was surprising it was as close as it was.

11. In 2012, if the unemployment rate is over 10%, Republicans will be swept back into power. If it's under 8%, the Dems continue to roll. If it's between 8-10%, it will be a dogfight. It will all be about the economy. I hope this gets you really thinking about what's happening in Washington and Congress. There is a left-wing revolution going on, according to Krauthammer, and he encourages us to keep the faith and join the loyal resistance. The work will be hard, but we're right on most issues and can reclaim our country, before it's far too late.

Do yourself a long term favor, send this to all who will listen to an intelligent assessment of the big picture. All our futures and children's futures depend on our good understanding of what is really going on in DC, and our action pursuant to that understanding!! It really IS up to each of us to take individual action!! Start with educating your friends and neighbors!!!

What I hope to do is share my perspective on a few things. Hopefully you will feel like I’m filling-out your own knowledge, even if you still disagree with me on anything I write here.

First a little bit of background.

Krauthammer may be a Pulitzer prize winning, widely syndicated columnist, however his two main venues are FOX NEWS and the Weekly Standard- both of which are extremely conservative and not exactly balance. Just as many are suspicious of a so-called “liberal media,” one should probably also be leery of any “conservative media” too. Do they really mean to inform, or to persuade?

For the most part, Krauthammer is a neoconservative (meaning he agreed with much of George W. Bush's foreign policy, expansion of American ideology by military means). However, on domestic issues, Krauthammer is a supporter of legalized abortion; an opponent of the death penalty. He describes himself as "not religious," and is a critic of intelligent design, and creationism. So I'm not sure he's your kind of conservative.

Now, what I think about the email.

Considering some of what we know about Krauthammer, one has to wonder if this is really a very accurate summary of his views or if whoever put this together is just using him to try to lend their opinions more credibility. Just a suspicion, but it could be exactly the way he thinks.

My personal reaction to the summarized points 1-3 are that either he, or whoever is reporting this is paranoid and frustrated that the neocons lost power. Obama is a young, charismatic speaker, but I think that it is the ideals in his speeches that are inspiring, and that he actually believes what he says. Krauthammer seems to believe that he is a sinister megalomaniac bent on world domination. At best this is fear, at worst it is propaganda.

Point 4 is false and misleading. Progressives would like the government to initiate programs that would lead to a "green economy" which would 1. create jobs, 2. improve the environment and 3. free us from our dependence on foreign oil (Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, & Russia). That's not the same as total control. I've actually been disappointed that Obama is so far continuing much of the education policies of W. which have created a lot of problems for schools with unfounded regulations and unfunded mandates. And we could obviously go rounds forever about health care reform but essentially Obama is weak on this as far as REAL Liberals are concerned, making too many concessions.

In a nut shell, the public option would've just been an independent (govt. contracted and initiated, but not controlled) non-profit insurance company meant to promote competition among the big insurance corporations. Krauthammer says that adding 46M people would make costs skyrocket, but the way that insurance already works is that the more people contributing to the pool, the lower the average costs for everybody. That's why Denison schools have lower premiums than Charter Oak-Ute, bigger pool, lower costs- not higher. Again, at best FOX and/or Krauthammer are scared, at worst, they're lying in order to scare viewers. Either way, Obama is not George Orwell's 'Big Brother,' he does not want to control everything.

On point 5- so far he's been governing from the corporate middle, just like Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Committee, the pro-business wing of the party. The thing is, since 92 or so we have become more and more polarized not so much by actual policy and/or ideology but by team or camp or tribe. People hate the opposition not because they think differently but just because they're not on the same side. I know nothing about Oklahoma except that I'm a Nebraska fan.

6.What they wrote here is nonsense and probably is meant to evoke anxieties about a one-world government or the antichrist smears some fringe people were emailing around during the campaign. The ironic thing is that neoconservatives like Krauthammer are part of something called the project for a new American Century, which envisioned the U.S. as the leader of the world. The difference is that Bush hoped to do it with momentum created by our victory in Iraq whereas Obama probably received the Nobel Peace Prize today because he appeals to the same kind of values of peaceful cooperation and diplomatic negotiations which Dwight Eisenhower and George Marshall did in the aftermath of WWII.

If with #7 they're talking about TARP and the bailouts, those were started under Bush and probably prevented a much deeper collapse than we had. No one runs for President without a huge ego, but I've observed President Obama being much more humble, self-effacing and understated than almost any of his predecessors except maybe President Carter.

8. Just as someone who watches politics like other people watch sports, I'd say that it would be unwise to count the GOP out, but that Tim Pawlenty & Bobby Jindahl have more of a future than Romney, Gingrich or Palin. She may be sincere, but not intelligent. Gingrich may be a genius, but I think too many people mistrust him as too many people find Romney two-dimensional. I also think that it may be that what the GOP needs is more than just a repackaging or a re-branding. People still share and seek many conservative values, family, country, suspicion of bureaucracy- but I suspect (could be wrong) that more and more people are skeptical of if not fed up with Reaganomics and are ready for something new.

Using "Redistribution of wealth" as an accusation used to work to make people frightened of communism, but with the Goldman Sacs and Lehman Brothers and AIGs out there, I think that maybe voters realize that Reaganomics has redistributed wealth to the people who already had too much of it. The progressive tax structure we had from FDR through Ford really promoted a more sustainable economy and allowed the middle class to grow and flourish. That may or may not be "socialism," but Republican Teddy Roosevelt might call it fair, like his "Square Deal," which the Democrat's Fair Deal was modeled after. And government intervention and regulation of some of those big banks and huge corporations is needed to SAVE capitalism, not destroy it or replace it.

They may be right about how a Republican couldn't win in 2008 and how 2012 will be closer than people think, however Obama had over 50% of the youth vote (18-25 yr old first time voters) in 2008 and that's kind of like being the brand of your first car, first beer, first cigarette, first gum or cola. People tend to build a brand loyalty. Just as Reagan's election in 1980 meant that the pendulum had finally swung back to the right, it might just be that the Republican party will be fighting an uphill battle for the next 12-20 years. Only time will tell. With a 24-hour news cycle thanks to cable/satellite/internet and such short attention spans-anything is possible.

I hope since you know me and know that I love the Lord and the Bible and my family and community- and believe it or not, I also love our country and cherish our history, because you know this about me, I hope that even if you never agree with another “Liberal” on anything or oppose President Obama on most every one of his policies or proposals, I hope that you will at least remember that most Democrats, moderates, progressives, and liberals are not out to destroy America. They genuinely want what they think is best for our country, just as much as you do. And probably, that goes for President Obama too- he’s not an evil maniacal genius bent on world domination, he may even be the servant that God intended to lead us through these times. I’m not saying you have to believe that- but I guess I think that he’s a decent man with good intentions who has one hell of a huge job and needs our prayers- even when he makes us mad.

Sorry this turned into a 3 page epic. I guess I miss writing (especially run-on sentences).

Stay warm this week!

http://www.opensecrets.org

http://www.opensecrets.org

OpenSecrets.org is your nonpartisan guide to money’s influence on U.S. elections and public policy. Whether you’re a voter, journalist, activist, student or interested citizen, use our free site to shine light on your government. Count cash and make change.

Want to see who's pocket your senator or congressman is in? Want to know why they're obstructing reform? Visit OpenSecrets.org to find out!

I found out where Chuck Grassley got some of his campaign money...

Insurance	$184,998
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products	$145,150

Amgen and Blue Cross are two of his biggest donors. Is it any wonder he opposes health care reform?

Email exchange

To Ted: "Steve King in a public meeting today said and 200 people at the meeting agreed:

'Health care is a privilege not a right.'~Rep. Steve King (R), Iowa

Do we let them die in the street. No i do not thinks so. What is Steve's answer to an elderly person with out health insurance die in the street. Do we let a young women with a problem pregnancy miscarriage because of lack of heath insurance."

Ted's Reply: "Isn't that the great irony? Protect the unborn from abortion, but once you're born you're on your own. Don't teach Darwin in our schools, but practice Social-Darwinism all day long."

Survival of the fittest, if you're not rich enough or smart enough or lucky enough to get good insurance, better to let you suffer, you must deserve it. How about if conservatives and liberals agree that we need to work together to make things better for everybody? Pre-born and post-born, young/and elderly, affluent and struggling. I wish that the folks who are so opposed to reform (often- ironically- who use and want to protect Medicare) would think back to what it was like in the 60's when Johnson was working on getting Medicare. Then Gubernatorial CANDIDATE Ronald Reagan tried to scare people into believing that Medicare was the first step toward SOCIALISM and it would be a slippery slope toward no longer being a free society.

Here's what I'd love to see- Steve King propose an alternative to the Demorcat's plans.
Teddy Roosevelt had a word for it, "Muckruckers." People who rake the muck, stir the shit, but don't shovel it- quick to criticize and condemn, but don't offer any other solutions.

Here's a proposal that Iowa Republicans King and Grassley are more than welcome to call their own and take credit for- put all Iowa public school teachers into the same insurance pool with other state employees. The more members of a plan, the less the risk and the lower the cost!

Offer me that and I'll back off of supporting a national plan with a public option because I'll be taken care of. Meanwhile the deductions to pay for Welmark are practically half my monthly paycheck yet my copays and precription costs are way higher than they were under Principal last year and Welmark won't cover as many things as Principal used to.

And there's my brother and sister-in-law. They never know when they might get laid off because their company just went bankrupt. My 7 year old nephew went to the doctor yesterday and might have pneumonia. And don't forget the threat of H1N1 this year.

How can anyone continue to defend Steve King when he says idiotic things tike this? Listen, ether he's a jerk or a fool. This isn't just his opinion or a different philosophy. A privilege not a right? Then we should revoke his privilege to Congressional benefits like Government health care. I'd like to revoke his privilege to a Congressional salary, but we can't seem to get anyone strong enough to run against him in the 5th District.

How can the same people that claim to believe in a "right to life" say that health care is not a right? So, potential death, suffering, and poor quality of life due to injury, illness, or other health conditions shouldn't be prevented? That's not a human right?

The "Government" issue; The use and abuse of a word

By Geoff Nunberg
http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nunberg/government.html

In sickness and in health, Republicans have always been better than Democrats at singing from the same hymnal, and right now they're all turned to the page that's headed "government takeover." The charge makes supporters of the Democrats' healthcare plans apoplectic. There's nothing remotely like that in the plans, they say -- it's like equating the provision of public toilets with a takeover of the nation's bathrooms. Even so, the supporters would as soon leave the word government out of the conversation, which is why they describe the proposed federally run insurance program as the "public option." Public is the word we use when we want to talk about government approvingly, by focusing on its beneficiaries -– as in public schools, public servants, public lands, and public works.

That's how freighted the g-word has become. People will readily defend particular government programs. But when you listen to the ambient noise -- the radio talk shows, the late-night monologues, the "how many bureacrats does it take to change a light bulb?" jokes -- it seems to be a truth universally acknowledged that government in the abstract is inefficient, self-serving, intrusive, and generally a terrible idea.

The political scientist Samuel Huntington once said that distrust of government is as American as apple pie. But the suspicion waxes and wanes. In other eras the word government could inspire admiration and even awe. You think back to the 1930's, when millions of kids joined "Junior G-man" clubs -- g as in "government" -- pledging to become "secret operators" in "law and order patrols," in emulation of J. Edgar Hoovers heroically intrusive federal agents.

Or recall the scene toward the end of John Ford's 1940 film adaptation of The Grapes of Wrath, with Henry Fonda. After their long and harrowing journey from Oklahoma to California, the Joad family finally arrives at a bright clean camp for migrants run by the Department of Agriculture, and an incredulous Tom Joad talks to the manager:

TOM: You aimin' to tell me the fellas that are runnin' the camp are jus' fellas that are campin' here?
CARETAKER: That's the way it is.
TOM: An' you say no cops?
CARETAKER: No cop can come in here without a warrant.
TOM: Why, I can't hardly believe it. Camp I was in before, they burned it out--the deputies an' some of them poolroom fellas.
CARETAKER: They don't get in here. Sometimes the boys patrol the fences, especially on dance nights.
TOM: You got dances, too?
CARETAKER: We have the best dances in the county every Saturday night.
TOM: Who runs this place?
CARETAKER: The Government.`
TOM: Well, why ain't they more like it?
CARETAKER: You find out, I can't.

Of course there were plenty of people back then who weren't quite so grateful for the government's expanded role. But they hedged their objections by granting that government was a useful check on the excesses of the private sector. When Republican presidential candidate Wendell Willkie coined the phrase "big government" in 1940, it was as a play on the words "big business," and he conceded that government intervention had been necessary to correct what he called "corporate tyranny." Over the next thirty years, Republicans from Taft to Eisenhower to Nixon never warned of the risks of big government without acknowledging the need to restrain big business as well. Even Barry Goldwater framed politics as a tradeoff between big government and big business, though he came down solidly on the side of the latter.

That rhetoric shifted abruptly in the 1970's, when public confidence in government dropped precipitously -- a phenomenon that people have blamed on everything from Vietnam and Watergate to declining party loyalty to negative campaigning and media sensationalism. That ushered in the modern age of misarchism (a nice word for hatred of government): by the 1976 election, Ford and Carter were vying to see who could denounce the bloated Federal bureaucracy more energetically.

But it was Ronald Reagan who decisively transformed the language of political debate. Earlier Republicans had opposed big government because it was big; Reagan opposed it because it was government. And he drove his views home with jaunty aphorisms. "A government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth." "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." (Actually, the Democrat Ed Muskie was the first politician to use that line, but Reagan had a way of making these things his own.)

But Reagan's real contribution was to shrink the cast of characters to a simple opposition between government and “the people.” Big business was eliminated from the political landscape, absorbed into "the market," where everyone was free to shop around for the ripest tomatoes. You could no longer ask the question, "Whose side is government on?" -- government simply was the other side.

Within a decade, that had became the received picture, not just for the Gingrich Republicans, but for the New Democrats who were trying to neutalize the Republicans' rhetorical advantages, albeit with mixed success. In 1996 Bill Clinton famously proclaimed in his State of the Union speech that "the era of big government is over." The next day the conservative Weekly Standard ran its coverage of the speech under the headline, "We Win!"

You can hear the echoes of Reagan's voice when opponents of the health-care plans raise the specter of government bureacrats interfering with the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship, cropping the insurance companies out of the frame. That's no doubt what led President Obama a few weeks ago to start talking about "insurance reform" rather than "health-care" reform, by way of refocussing attention on the insurance companies and HMO's.
Nobody expects Americans to become as enthusiastic about government as they were in the New Deal era -- just as well, since that tends to go along with desperate times. But with the revival of populist rhetoric in the bailout era, people may return to talking about government with a resigned acceptance, the way Nelson Rockefeller did almost fifty years ago: "Let's face it," he said, "big government is here to stay, like big business. This is a big country, after all."

"A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican" By Thom Hartman

My cousin in Livermore, CA sent this one to me. I'd read it before, Thomas Harman is a very good writer and incredibly smart.

This piece came to mind recently when so many people at the town halls have been saying how they don't want big government meddling with their health care- but in the same breath say that we'd better not touch their Medicare.

Do people not realize how ironic they're being when they say stuff like that?

Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn’t think he should loose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FDIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republican’s would still be sitting in the dark)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.
He turns on a radio talk show, the host’s keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn’t tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day) Joe agrees, "We don’t need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I’m a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have".

In the interest of self-disclosure; Where I’m coming from and why you wouldn’t think so

The Apostle Paul once made an impassioned declaration of his credentials as a Jew to Jewish members of the new sect that followed “the Way,” (aka Jesus). He described in detail his lineage and pedigree, down to the denomination (Pharisee) to the point than no one could dispute his authority in matters of Jewish laws and traditions.

Much of my adult life I’ve felt like I had to defend my credentials as a conservative. By that I mean as a traditional, straight-laced, straight-shooting, hard-working, family-loving, small-town, middle class, Midwestern white guy. People tend to question my middle-America, middle-of-the-road, stable, straight-arrowness because I vote like a bleeding-heart and I wear that bleeding-heart on my sleeve.

I came from a very stable home in the very sterile suburbs of 1970’s Phoenix Arizona. My parents moved there in before I was born. I’d like to think that it wasn’t a case of “white-flight,” my older brother suffered with asthma and allergies and my parents suffered from family infighting and unrest, but they did leave the Detroit area in 1968. 1969 may have been known as the summer of love, but 1968 was a year of race riots, anti war demonstrations and political assassinations. “Out West,” and the sun belt seemed like the New Frontier that JFK had promised back in 1960.

I choose to believe that my parents were more concerned with our safety than with property values or integration because they taught us to be tolerant of and kind toward people of all colors and creeds. Once upon a time “tolerance” was considered a value rather than a vice.

My childhood was textbook example of stability and normalcy. My parents never divorced and to our knowledge never faced any challenges of infidelity. My Dad had a good paying, union job with an airline. He used to say that part of the year we were middle-middle class, and part of the year we were lower-middle class. I’m not sure if that depended on over-time, holiday bonuses, or tax refunds, but we always had food on the table and clothes on out backs, even if we never had a brand new vehicle or as many of the newest toys that little boys drooled over in the Sears-Robuck Christmas Wish Book catalog.

Surely I was the product and chief beneficiary of the American Dream.
My Mother was a stay-at-home mom most of the time. Some years she took secretarial or temp jobs, I suppose to help pay for home improvements, vacations or to put my brother and through parochial school. While she demonstrated for us that women were as smart and capable and worthy of respect as men, she never burned her bras or pontificated about the need to be “liberated” or to have her own career or identity apart from my Dad. If anything, she often preached to us about how the husband was to be the head of the household and the wife should defer to her husband and honor him- much to her consternation whenever he disappointed her or disagreed with her, which was plenty.

We lived in the same three bedroom, two bath ranch on the same suburban street in the same suburban subdivision my entire life. Mom and Dad still live there. I believe Dad’s got his 30 year mortgage paid off as a matter of fact, which may be why Mom wants to get a condo in a small town on California’s central coast where she can paint all day with her friends.
They scrimped and saved and sacrificed to send us to Christian school from kindergarten through eighth grade. They took us to Sunday school and church every week and made sure we studied catechism and were confirmed. They had nightly devotions with us at the dinner table (not just during Advent and Lent, either) and prayed for us every night. I ask you, what could be more conservative?

In my mind, I adhered to an Arthurian mythos. I aspired to be God’s knight, abiding by the credos of “right makes might” and “by serving each other, we become free.” What could be more conservative?

For my part, I read, marked and inwardly digested as much of God’s word as I could, not to mention church doctrine and Reformation history. In high school, while it seemed like everyone else was studying Bud Light and wine coolers, I was exploring journalism and foreign policy. While other kids were listening to Megadeath and Metallica, I was absorbing Theloneous Monk and George Shearing. I shunned piercings and tattoos. Even with temperatures in the 100s most of the year, I believed it was unmanly to not wear socks and unclassy to wear an undershirt. I was square before Hewly Lewis sang that it was hip to be so. How conservative can you get?
I was about as rigid and repressed as a teenager can get. I can honestly say that I’ve never even tried pot once, even though it was offered to me. I dated some girls but held onto a chivalrous, romantic ideal so tightly that I could never settle for less than the deepest, truest love. Just as well, I spent three of high school’s four years in love with a girl I held on a pedestal. Even so, I valued a relationship with her more than any mere attraction to her, so we remained platonic. Best friends. I was her blood-brother, her confessor, counselor, protector and defender (at least in my mind). For me, women were to be respected, treasured, and treated as intelligent, capable, individuals- not as objectified body parts or recreational play things. Surely that’s conservative, right?

Just like I can genuinely boast that I’ve never tried drugs, I can honestly say that I’ve only had one sexual partner my entire life, which is my wife of 18 years. Again, I ask you, have you ever known ANYONE so conservative?

I contend that even my initial interest in politics was what I would consider conservative- fiscally conservative anyway. My perception of Reaganomics was that it was irresponsible. Skyrocketing deficits and mounting national debt were what incensed me. Boring, huh? Wonkish. My heroes were so called “Blue-Dog” democrats like Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts and Paul Simon of Illinois. I followed my Arizona Senators, Barry Goldwater and John McCain and appreciated that neither of them felt obliged to tow the party line on every issue. I’m telling you, I may have been a charter member of my high school’s Young Democrats club, but as Democrats go- conservative.

As I studied history, I observed that with the exception of Teddy Roosevelt, the Democratic party of the 20th century tended to be on the side of the working class, and more often than not, in my opinion, the side of right. Corrupt Republicans hamstrung or dismantled Roosevelt’s progressive reforms after he left office. Republicans pulled us out of the League of Nations, abdicating the world leadership we accumulated by winning WWI. Republicans favored the robber-barons and led us into the great Depression. Republicans brought us McCarthyism, the red scare and black lists. After LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, racist Southern fundamentalist Democrats flocked to the Republican party and opposed civil rights, desegregation, economic justice and women’s rights under the mantra of states rights and libertarianism. Nixon, a Republican escalated our involvement in Vietnam- including with secret bombings and intrusions into Laos and Cambodia even though he had promised Vietnamization and peace with honor. And everyone knows now that Watergate was a matter of his stealing the presidential election and tried to cover it up. Reagan’s campaign secretly negotiated with Iranian revolutionaries to prevent them from releasing American hostages until after they were sure that Jimmy Carter lost the election and in spite of the fact that Reagan swore that America does not negotiate with terrorists, his administration sold Iran missiles (through Israel, of all brokers) and used the proceeds to fund the Contra Rebels in Nicaragua in direct violation of laws passed by Congress. Now, sure, these reasons are partisan, but surely my reasons for mistrusting the GOP are reasonable, if not reasonably “conservative.”

One summer, I applied to work at the phone banks for the state Democratic party. I supported the blue collar, Midwestern candidate, Dick Gebhart. I’m ashamed to say that one of the reasons I found a different job was that I just wasn’t comfortable with how many of the men who worked there shaved their legs and how few of the women who worked there didn’t. Than may make me bigoted, a hypocrite, or a homophobe- but I believe it also made be quite conservative.

I attended a Lutheran Church~Missouri Synod college, Concordia in small town in Nebraska. A small, church run teacher’s college with fewer than 2,000 students, established in the 1890s with a small professor to student ratio where I was discipled directly by old, white, male Ph.D.s and Th.D.s and Rev.s for five years. Again, I absorbed a culture of reserved, humility, piety and servanthood. My mentors ingrained in me a healthy skepticism of secular humanism and new age nonsense. I virtually minored in Religion, meaning I took the classes required for a Lutheran Teacher’s Diploma, qualifying me to become a Commissioned Minister of the Gospel, that is a Called teacher at a Lutheran school trusted to teach Religion or Bible classes. Well versed in denominational history, official church teachings and Synodical doctrinal positions. Again, I ask you, what could POSSIBLY be more “conservative?” For decades I struggled and wrestled in my soul about whether God was calling me to pastoral ministry. Decidedly, un "liberal."

So what makes me a liberal? Maybe it’s because I believe in Teddy Roosevelt’s promise to give EVERY American a “Square Deal.” Maybe because, (even though he was also an honorary Grand Wizard of the KKK) Wilson’s 14 points of open treaties openly arrived upon and self-determination for emerging nations was egalitarian and responsible. Maybe it’s because FDR’s New Deal ushered in the longest era of economic expansion and prosperity for the middle class in history. Maybe it’s because I think that great thinkers like Henry Wallace, Elenor Roosevelt, Adali Stevensen, and Eugene McCarthy were visionary in their perspectives on race, class, economy, and foreign policy. These aren’t radicals, these aren’t Marxists, these are people who loved America and believed in the dignity of every human being.

Maybe I’m a “liberal” because I buy into the optimism of potential and public service espoused by JFK. Maybe I’m a liberal because I admire the courage and sacrifice of men like Martin Luther King and John Lewis. Who risked life and livelihood to hold America accountable to her promises. Maybe it’s because even though an overdeveloped and misguided paranoia about Communism led him to mire us in a tragic mess in Vietnam, LBJ still brought us the Civil Rights Act and had hoped to battle a noble, if ill fated war on poverty. Maybe it’s because Robert Kennedy spoke of renewing our cities, our environment, and our faith in government as a tool for the common good. Maybe it’s because in spite of is short comings, I appreciated that Bill Clinton paid-as-he-went (fiscally conservative), that however short lived it was, he eliminated the deficit and was reducing the national debt. I find it amazing and ironic that the number of abortions was lower under Carter and Clinton than under Reagan or either Bush. And no president has ever demonstrated Christian service, or dedicated himself to the study and teaching of God’s Word than James Earl Carter. Conservative. Preserving democracy, protecting the little guy, protecting the Constitution and our precious traditions. Conservative.

And yes, call me hopeful or too easily inspired by soaring rhetoric- but I have to tell you, so far, I am enthusiastic about the bottom-up grass roots movement, the savvy use of the internet, the cabinet of rivals, the transparency, accountability, civility, attempts at consensus building, the consummate professionalism, tireless work ethic, and gritty pragmatism of Barrack Obama. All these attributes seem bone-deep conservative to me.

So I don’t like xenophobic demagogues bullying people on their AM talk radio shows and their “info-tainment” shows on Fox News. So I think that you don’t have to be straight, so long as you can shoot straight to enlist in the Army. So I think that the 14th Amendment entitles everyone to equal rights, even if they’re gay. So I believe in protecting women from back alley clinics and coat-hanger abortions enough to want abortion to be legal and safe, even though I find it heinous that so many people think if it so callously and nonchalantly as just another form of birth control. So I can’t get passed the part about a “well-regulated militia” whenever I read the 2nd Amendment. So I see the anti-establishment clause of the 1st Amendment’s wall to separate church and state ass something that protects and benefits Christianity, and government. So I actually support a progressive tax structure because I feel like with much privilege ought to come much responsibility AND because I believe that demand-side economics is far more sustainable than supply-side.

If these things make me “Liberal.” Than label me Liberal. If they make me “Progressive,” label me Progressive. If they make me “Socialist,” then I must be guilty as charged.

But please, don’t begin to think that I somehow don’t love my country, my community, my family, or my students. Please don’t fear for my salvation or question my relationship with or loyalty to Jesus, because I beg Him to renew my baptism and drown my sinful nature and make me His instrument every morning. Don't say that I'm not smart and for Heaven’s sake don’t assume that I’m a conformist or that I prefer not to think because I have followed the crowd and value few things as much as reading and learning.

I strive to help people see and come to a better understanding of both sides of every issue. That does not make me less moral or less aware, or for that matter, less conservative than anyone.
Please refrain from impugning my patriotism. If you detest and are repelled by the things I stand for or the way I vote, let’s either try to find what we do agree on or simply agree to disagree.

And if you don’t like what I write- don’t read it. If you’re offended or annoyed by what I post on the internet, don’t revisit my blog or why not write your own? You may even delete me as a friend or block me on facebook- I’ll never know. But please, please don’t pretend that because we disagree, that somehow means that I’m bad or less valuable or your enemy. And if you do, just remember, Christ told us to love our enemies.


St. Paul used his credibility as a hard core Jew to oppose those Jewish Christians who were telling people that they had to be circumcised to become a Christian. I think that what I've tried to lay out her is that if anyone deserves to be able to call themselves a conservative, it's me- yet I choose to be called a liberal democrat because I believe that with a few (in Republican opinions glaring) exceptions, I believe that most liberal political values are more in line with my Christian religious convictions.

I didn't even mention George W. Bush or Iraq or torture. I could probably write another whole page just on how radical, rather than conservative I believe "neo-conservatives" are. And you don't want to know how strict and conservative my parenting style is.