PFAW Dot Org: Christian Right Form of Big Government

Source:FRS FreeState

It would be funny, if it weren't so tragic, when hypocrites who complain about big government, are in favor of incorporating the tenets of their religion in government rules to form their own version of big government.  A Christian theocracy in the U.S. would be just as oppressive as the Muslim theocracy in Iran.  Social freedom would be severely curtailed.  Women and ethnic and racial minorities would be treated as second class citizens.  Homosexuals would be treated as criminals. 

The whole idea of America is that the people are in charge of their own lives and have the right to choose the social paths that they take without interference by government. 

Our nation's forefathers rebelled against the United Kingdom to escape high taxes, authoritarian rule, and government enforced religious dictates.  Freedom of religion is part of our Constitution, the 1st Amendment thereof, so that Americans would have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to practice religion and which religion, if any, they would practice.

There cannot be any dictation  by the U.S. government on choice of  religion or practice of religious tenets.  The 1st Amendment is explicitly clear that government shall neither sponsor nor intrude upon  the practice of a religion.  There is an explicit separation between religion and the State in America, regardless of  what the Christian Right, Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle or Delaware Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell says or thinks.

I'm troubled, and somewhat amused, when Christian Conservatives complain about the intrusions of big government while they promote authoritarian Christian theocracy.  Are they completely ignorant of the provisions for separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution or are they just ignoring it to achieve their religious goals?  Either one is truly dangerous.  They must be prevented from succeeding for the sake of the United States of America.

CBS News: Evening News: Cynthia Bowers: John Boehner Next Speaker of the House?

Source:FRS FreeState

I hate to say this but it's looking more and more likely that current House Minority Leader, John Boehner (not boner or bonehead, as many think) will become the next Speaker of the House going into the 112th Congress.  According to independent polls from Gallup, Politico, the Hill, etc., as many as 90 Democratic House seats are in play for Republicans.  Republicans have to pick up only a net of 39 seats to win control of the House, i.e., 39 out of the 90, while holding their own. That's only 43% of the seats in play to win control of the House.  I think that's too tall an order for Democrats fill to retain control if the House. 

For House Democrats, the only drama  on Wednesday morning will be the election of the next Minority Leader.  They were in this position for twelve straight and painful years from 1995-07, an experience they haven't forgotten. 

Assuming the polls are correct and Republicans do win control of the House Tuesday night, I think that current House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, will step down as the Democratic Leader and, perhaps, even leave the House all together.  She probably won't have the votes to be reelected Minority Leader, a position she held from 2003-07, very skillfully.  But times have changed.  House Democrats, especially Blue Dogs, assuming there any left after Election Night, (not a safe assumption) could argue that she led House Democrats to  defeat with all of the unpopular legislation that she talked them into passing, like the cap and trade bill that will never become law in its current form, deficit spending, and the Affordable Health Care Act (AHCA).

Blue Dog Democrats are fiscally conservative and generally don't support these things.  Not one single Blue Dog who voted for AHCA is mentioning that vote as they run for reelection.  They could argue that these unpopular votes, pushed by Speaker Pelosi and Leader Steny Hoyer, led House Democrats, especially Blue Dogs, to defeat.  The House Democratic leadership should have been smart enough to see this ahead of time.

   

This leads me to the status of House Leader Hoyer, who has a lot of support amongst all of the factions in the Democratic Party, progressives, liberals and Blue Dogs alike.  You could make a case that Leader Hoyer, whom I'm proud to have as a fellow Marylander, had a role in leading House Democrats to their defeat.  I don't think House Democrats have a clear leader going into the 112th Congress if they lose Tuesday night.  I think they'll have a leadership fight after Tuesday night.

I hope that the polls are wrong, as they were in 1948 when they predicted that President Truman would lose reelection but they probably are not.  Polling technology is much better and more accurate now than it was then.  House Democrats will have some regrouping and self-examination to do, which isn't always bad for a great political party, of which I'm proud to be a member.

CBS News: Evening News With Katie Couric: Return to Moderation?

Source:FRS FreeState

Return to moderation?  As a liberal, I know exactly where I stand on the current issues of the day. I don't call myself an expert on anything.  Others can judge that for themselves.  I do know where I stand and I think my readers know that when I write about something I don't flip a coin to decide what my position is going to be or split the difference.  Nor do I look for a position that will offend the least. As someone who's not currently a politician, I have the freedom to say exactly what I think.

One of the things I love about blogging is that I can get all of the best available objective evidence before I make a judgement about what is in the best interest of the country, or whichever jurisdiction it is involved.  If it's an issue on which I'm confident that I'm well informed, such as civil rights, I can proceed without  further research.  I would like to think that the average politician operates in the same way but I have my doubts. 

When I'm considering voting for someone, especially for the first time, I'm not interested in a candidate who claims to be a moderate or centrist and says vote for me and I'll work for the best interest of the country, not possibly knowing what that could  be ahead of time.  Once in office, such politicians can take positions that come as complete surprises to their constituents.  I think voters have the right to know where candidates stand on the issues before they get to office.  After all, they're running to represent us. 

I especially don't respect politicians who claim to be moderates or centrists but vote like Liberals or Conservatives. They're centrists in their private lives but once it gets down to voting or governing their liberalism or conservatism comes out.  Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman  claims to be a centrist in public but its hard to tell the difference between him and Liberal Democratic Senator  John Kerry, one of my political heros, the "Northeast Liberal". The only issues they've disagreed on have been the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Sen. Kerry is very proud of his liberalism and Senator Lieberman is not. 

Then there's Senator Arlen Spector who's admitted to being a Goldwater Libertarian Republican in the past,  "Government out of my wallet and bedroom," and that sort of thing.  On domestic policy, Senator Spector tends to be more progressive than Senator Barry Goldwater had ever been, especially in medical research and infrastructure spending.  Senator Spector woke up from a Republican nightmare just eighteen months ago, saw the light and decided to become a Democrat again, a liberal Democrat, I might add. (Perhaps it had something to do with getting reelected.)

Senator Spector has a progressive record on civil rights, civil liberties, women's rights (incluiding reproductive), and gay rights and is as much as a centrist as the current Pope is a Muslim. I mean who did he think he was fooling? Arlen Spector should've remained a Democrat for his whole career, especially, in a blue state like Pennsylvania. He could've been Governor of Pennsylvania if wanted to.

He, along with Ted Kennedy, voted against Robert Bork for Supreme Court Justice.  As a Pennsylvania Democrat, he would've never had to worry about a primary challenge from the far right and probably not from the far left either. 

I have more respect for Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians, Social Democrats, Socialists, Theocrats, and Authoritarians than I have for Centrists.  With the former, you know where they stand on the issues, whether you agree with them or not. Two politicians for whom who I have some of the most respect are Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, both Conservative Libertarians, because you knew where they stood and they were loyal to their principles.  They didn't take positions just for presumed political advantage.

Republican Senator Tom Coburn is a Republican for whom I have a lot of respect.  He is a true fiscal conservative, not someone who claims fiscal responsibility just because his party is out of power, but someone who's always been there.  I have a lot of respect for Liberal Democrat Jack Kennedy, even though he was a little late to the party on civil rights, but he finally made it.  He had clear liberal convictions on most issues.  I also have great respect for Jack's brothers Bobbie and Teddy.  They  were ahead of their big brother on civil rights.

I have a lot of respect for Liberal Democrat Sen Russ Feingold.  I desperately hope that he gets reelected on Tuesday night though it's not looking good for him.  Unfortunately his convictions are probably going to cost him his seat on Tuesday.   For Russ Feingold,  it's not about getting reelected. It's about doing what he believes is best for the State of Wisconsin and America.  Today, that might sound corny but it's true. The problem with Congress is not Sen Russ Feingold, it's that there are not enough Russ Feingold's who are willing to vote their convictions.  For a lot of members of Congress,  everything is about the next election. 

Does centrism have a place in politics?  I don't see it as a governing ideology. Could you imagine a  centrist as their party's nominee?  First of all, a centrist would never get the presidential nomination of the Democratic or Republican Party today. But, for a second imagine that did happen.  What would their campaign theme be? "Vote for me because I'm stuck in the middle trying not to get squashed?" 

The problem with Washington is not the lack of moderation.  The problem is a lack of bipartisan cooperation. Thats not moderation, thats combining the best from both sides of the aisle to make legislation that works.  We as a country have a long tradition of bipartisanship and we could use more of it today. What you get with moderation is splitting the difference.  A computer can do that and it's not Leadership.

Legalize Our Dream: Legalization of Marijuana in Utah?

Source:FRS FreeState

Utah probably has more registered Republicans, right-wing nuts and NRA members per capita than any other state in America.  You'd have a better chance of seeing a man with multiple wives there than an elected Democrat (sorry, bad joke).  The legalization of marijuana use (considered a capital crime by some Christian theocrats) is being considered by the State of Utah.  That is a sign that similar efforts in California should make headway and it's a message to the rest of America that it's time to rethink the War on Drugs.  Perhaps punishing people for what they do to themselves instead of what they do to others and treating them as drug dealers and career criminals is not the best approach to this problem.

I've made these points before so they might be as refreshing to read as a drivers manual but my argument hasn't changed.  Utah's exploration of marijuana legalization reinforces my argument so I'll take the time to make it again.

The prohibition of alcohol 80 years ago proved that if people want to do something badly enough they'll find a way to do it, regardless of the consequences.  If they can make a successful business out of it, it becomes doubly attractive.  That's one of the reasons prohibition was repealed. I believe that we should legalize marijuana and that let that be the end of it.  I'm not advocating the legalization of heroin or cocaine.  We should legalize marijuana with appropriate regulation and taxation designed to discourage, or limit, it's use.  We should treat marijuana the same way that we treat alcohol and tobacco, two legal drugs that both have negative health effects.

Junk food and drink, with their excessive fat, sugar, salt and caffeine are serious health hazards in America.  Obesity, which leads to deadly diseases, is caused by junk food and lack of exercise.  It is the 2nd leading cause of preventable deaths in America, right behind cigarette induced lung cancer.  Alcohol abuse is the leading cause of liver cancer.  All of you who drink, smoke, eat a poor diet and don't exercise and oppose the legalization of marijuana use should think about the choices you are making.  By the way, if you have all of these bad habits and stay the course, you'll have a hard time making it to the age of 60. 
  
Marijuana, used and grown without control in a black market in America, isn't a leading cause of any disease.   With legalization and regulation of use there would be control and record keeping for public health purposes.   Prohibition doesn't make attractive substances or go away.  We already have legal drugs in America that are killers but they're regulated to make them as safe as possible.  We can do the same thing for marijuana  We know it will be grown and used.  We should make it as safe as possible.

The Open Mind With Richard Hefner: Milton Friedman: The Minimum Wage (1975)

Source:Ama Gilly- Professor Milton Friedman on The Open Mind With Richard Hefner, in 1975.

Source:FreeState Now

“It is immoral to say that people with low skills are not allowed to work.

—

Milton Friedman discusses the effects of minimum wage, dispelling the myth that it is a Good Thing.

—

PBS “The Open Mind” (December 7, 1975) 

—

50 Years of Research on the Minimum Wage:U.S. House of Representatives."

From Ama Gilly 

I disagree with Professor Friedman on one critical point: there’s no such thing as a free market as it relates to wages or anything else. The so-called free market doesn’t decide wages in America. Employers do that. So when he says that having a minimum wage forces employers to pay workers more than they deserve, he’s simply wrong about that. Businesses simply can’t survive without low-skilled jobs. That alone makes people who work those jobs essential jobs. So if anything, just based on my point and those facts, our minimum wage workers are definitely underpaid, because they’re essential workers doing work in America that has to get done.

Gral Hueter: Women On The Move

Source:The Daily Press 

When I'm walking down the street somewhere or sitting down in public and see an attractive well built  woman walk by, or she's ahead of me by ten feet or so, and she's wearing tight jeans in or over boots,  like cowgirl or work boots, of course I take a look, unless I'm in such a hurry that I don't have the time. Its hard for a guy not to stare at a women dressed like that.

I just love the sound that the boots make on the ground.  It's like listening to Frank Sinatra sing or Jimmy Hendrix play guitar.  It's poetry in motion to me. Men should thank attractive well built women who dress like that.  These women look great and are not afraid to show the world that they look great.   They're wearing what I believe to be the sexiest combination in women's fashion right now tight denim with boots. Of course guys are going to notice women dressed like that.  We would have to be blind not to.

I've said before that I'm not interested in what I call the hooker look, the boots over knees look. Women dressed like that look to me as if  they think that they need their sex appeal to make a living. When it comes to tight jeans with boots, I'm interested in women who wear modern jeans cut to show off their rear but not to the point of showing their rear cleavage when they bend over or stand up. Women dressed like this look sexy to me but also look like they use their intelligence in their profession.

I like sexy and intelligent women, women who are proud of their appearance, dress to display it in accordance within modern social norms, and stay away from the boundary of the hooker look.

CBS News: Evening News With Katie Couric: Democrats Final Push

Source:FRS FreeState

I think that this video makes it pretty clear that President Clinton tried to talk Representative Kendrick Meek into stepping out of the U.S, Senate race in Florida.  It's also clear that he tried to talk Rep. Meek into throwing his support behind Gov. Charlie Crist in the race.  Senate Democrats know that they'll have a net loss of seats on election day and might come close to losing their Senate majority.  They'll probably keep it but they could come damn close to losing it.  Any Republican seat that they can pick up will increase their chances of keeping the Senate, if only by a couple of seats. That's what the meeting between Bill Clinton and Kendrick Meek was all about.  Bill Clinton is probably the most popular current or former American politician right now.  I generally support his involvement because of his popularity, intellect, and political skills but any misstep he makes becomes a national story because of his status as a former president.

I believe the Democrats will hold the Senate just because of the long hill that Senate Republicans have to climb in order to take it back. Senate Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, have to pick up a net of 10 seats to win the majority.  The last time a party picked up ten or more seats in the Senate was 1980 when Ronald Reagan won 49 states defeating a very unpopular President Jimmy Carter. 

If this was a normal election year, which it's clearly not (and water is wet), Republicans would only have a snowball's chance in hell of winning back the Senate because of that long hill and their Party's unpopularity, something the Democrats haven't effectively used against them.  If there's a tie, it will be broken by Vice President Joe Biden and the Democrats would elect the Leader and the Republicans, once again, the Minority Leader.  To win the majority, the Senate Republicans have to be almost perfect, literally, winning 10-12 Democratic Seats.  They're currently not leading in all of them.

I see Democrats pulling away in California with Senator Boxer and Washington State with Senator Murray, which is huge for the Progressive Democratic movement.  Sen Mike Bennett is coming back in Colorado and has basically tied with Ken Buck.  The tie goes to the incumbent if the momentum is on his side because voters are saying that they're taking a second look and reconsidering the Incumbent they know.  On the other hand, the Democrats will lose Arkansas with Sen Blanche Lincoln.  It looks like Wisconsin is slipping away with Senator Feingold, a senator for whom I have a lot of respect as a fellow liberal and for his honesty and his sticking with his liberal ideology, even in an election year but he's an 18 year Incumbent and still hasn't closed the sale. Illinois is still a toss up with Republican Mark Kirk trying to win Barack Obama's old Senate Seat. 

The House, unfortunately, is a different story for Democrats.  As it stands right now, I expect them to lose 45-50 seats, giving Republicans a small majority, in which case, they'd elect current Minority Leader John Boehner ("Bayner," not Boner or Bonehead) as the next Speaker of the House.  That's only a prediction.  We can't know yet but two things are clear: Republicans will pick up at least thirty-five seats, not enough to retake the House, and the battleground and swing seats are in the Midwest.  Good news for Democrats as Republicans haven't closed the sale there.

I think that voters there are taking a second look at Tea Party House candidates and whether or not they actually want these people to be their representatives. So House Democrats still have some hope of victory.  They could achieve that while losing thirty-five or more seats.  They would still be in the majority, electing  the speaker and the committee chairmen and would still control the agenda.  With the next two years being almost nothing but gridlock, they would at least still be in the majority with a likely Democratic Senate and the White House in their hands. That also means no bogus Congressional investigations from the House or Senate going after the Obama Administration.

This much is clear:  Democrats will lose a lot of seats in the House and Senate on Election Day. It's only a question of how many.  As I see it, the midwest will be the battleground for the House.  On election night, all of you political junkies, right, left, or in the middle, who are not sure who will be in control of the House or Senate in January, should look at the results in the House races in the Midwest. If Republicans are winning a lot of Democratic seats, they'e on the way to winning control of the House.  If House Democrats manage to hold their own in the Midwest and pick up a few Republican seats where they weren't favored, they could hold on to the House.

Another thing that's clear is that whoever controls the House and Senate in the 112th Congress will only have a majority of a few seats and that both chambers will be in play once again in 2012. There will be nothing but gridlock for the next two years because of the tight majorities in Congress.  Both parties will have their eyes on 2012, a presidential year, when they'll be battling for complete control of the Federal Government