From President Obama to the least popular host on MSNBC or progressive talk radio, the American political left cannot find anything to dislike in the Muslim religion. At least, if they do, they are not telling.

Considering Islam’s bad record on human rights (see Sudan) on women’s rights (see Afghanistan/Pakistan), its belief in a real God, its belief in a holy scripture, its history of 1,400 years of warfare, conquest, forced conversions, persecution of minorities; you’d think, the political left would loath the sound of the call to prayer or the sight of a minaret, like they do the Christian cross and the memory of Jerry Falwell.

What is it that the American left sees in Islam that makes them defend it with the passion of a convert to the Charismatic Catholic Renewal? Explanations todate range from the argument from cowardice: namely, that the left is afraid to criticize Islam because they fear becoming an intentional target of a suicide bomber; to the explanation from Machiavelli, that the left wants to use Islam as a foil against Christianity and Judaism to destroy Christian/Jewish power in America. Of course, the addendum on this argument is, because of the secular left’s antipathy to religion, that after their gambit works, they will turn on Islam, and so completely remove the influence of faith from American life.

As inventive as those answers are, I don’t see the left composed of a bunch of cowards afraid to criticize anyone or anything. I also disagree that the left would play the dangerous political game of elevating Islam and then turning on it, knowing that the very first purges of society made by an empowered Islam would be against those left-wing members of society.

The most satisfying answer that no one has yet offered is foundby looking at the kind of salvation offered by each of the great monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and, of course, Secularism.

Salvation in Judaism

In Judaism, the salvation offered is national. We can prove that by reference to the Hebrew scriptures where it is recorded that the nation was offered a relationship with God. In Judaism, the actions of a single person can bring disaster on the nation; whereas, the righteousness of the nation is required for blessing. One’s individual relationship with God in some contexts is constrained by the Jewish nation’s relationship with God.

Salvation in Christianity

In Christianity, the salvation offered is personal. One’s ethnicity or national origin are facts that do not impede or aid one’s personal relationship to God. One is born Jewish, but all Christians are supposed to be converts. Even if your parents were Christians, that heritage does not automatically make you a Christian, at least not in the sense described in the New Testament. Christianity, with its emphasis on individual and personal responsibility before God, has been called the perfect religion for a capitalistic society.

Salvation in Islam

In Islam, the salvation offered is social, not national, and not personal in the way Christianity is personal. One becomes a Muslim by reciting a Koranic exclamation. Everyone is Islam has exactly the same responsibility, the words of the prayers recited are expressed publicly, everyone prays at the same time toward the same geographic spot on the earth, making It social prayer. In Islam, the world-wide religious tax collected from every Muslim goes to provide for the poor.

Look at Islamic societies, like Egypt. Everyone dresses alike, everyone’s houses are similar, and everyone speaks the same thoughts (at least publicly). Deviations from socially acceptable speech are punishable by law with beatings and imprisonment. Except for the elite few, everyone lives a similar life, with a similar income. It is only in business thatcitizens have a hope of gainingmaterially something more than their neighbors.

Political/Social Salvation

The social salvation offered by Islam is the reason the American political left so “loves” this one monotheistic religion and despises the others. The saying goes, “two cannot walk together unless they be agreed.” The American political left agrees with most of Islam’s goals and with many of their methods. A world under the control of the American left would look very much like a world under Islamic control. Social salvation (peace) is imposed because every member of society must look like, act like, and think like every other member.

For non-leftists, especially the right-wing commentators, the actions of the political left often seem perplexing and inconsistent. That is because non-leftists usually view political actions from the 30,000 foot level of the nation-state. Even the 50,000 foot multi-nation view of leftist’s actions doesn’t seem to account for all thepolitical positionsleftists take in American society. This is because the American left’s actions are driven from the high orbit of a world-viewing satellite. This view from space is primarily a moral view which gives the discourse of the secular leftits religious quality and air of moral superiority.

If one believes that no human being should have to choose between satisfying their hunger or their thirst, but not both at the same time, the view from orbit makes sense. From orbit, with the entire world illuminated against the blackness of space, earthly resources are limited. Some human beings have a miserable life because their economics are primative: if they have a drink of water, they cannot have a mid-day meal, if one family member gets a new shirt, the rest must go without shoes.

Other people can go to the richest city on earth, take a penthouse suite in the most expensive hotel, and live there for years without thoseexpenses in any way diminishing their personal wealth. Others can choose between the kinds of luxuries they enjoy, even though they cannot afford everything. Othersmust choose between wants, but have all their needs satisfied. Not so with many people throughout the world who must choose between basic human needs, and so suffer.

What the Left Believes

To the left, looking at today’s default distribution of world resources, the inequalities seems to provide another reason for not believing in a good God. If they (the left) could re-distribute resources so every single human being had at least their basic material needs met (water, food, shelter, clothing, employment), those who accomplished this redistribution would be the gods of this newworld order. It’s a high moral view, one that cares about human suffering and finds no technical reason that economic discrepancies between societies should continue.

Convergence of Islam and the Left

Islam believes if all humanity submits to Mohammed’s revelation, then there will be peace. Islam proclaims that until all the world submits, peace for any in non-Islamic society will not be allowed. Furthermore, Islamic societies are driven by top-down, non-democratic means. The elites make the social decisions, for everyone else those decisions amount tothe will of God. The political left loves this kind of societal organization because only in this way can their goals be achieved.

The American left is uncritical of Islamic societies not because they don’t privately opposes Islamic religious ideas, but because Islam and the left both offer a human, social salvation. Islam imposes their salvation in the name of God. The American left would impose their social salvation in the name of the moral goal of eliminating needs-based human suffering. For the political left to criticize Islamwould be to criticize themselves, something those with a high, external,moral purpose will not do.

This explains why Christianity, because of its emphasis on the personal and individual, cannot be tolerated and must be rebuked or marginalized at every opportunity. A Christian society, includingeven a degenerate western society originally based upon Christian ideas, is an enemy of both Islam and secular political thought. The elimination of human suffering caused by the inequitable distribution of resources is a goal that rises above the prosperity of a single nation orthe possible achievements of any single member of those societies. An all powerful God could have designed a better system, but because He didn’t, the left will rise to the challenge and do the work He should have done, but certainlyonlyin their own name, not in His.

It is true that achieving the end of human needs-based suffering is technically possible. That possibility makes it a moral imperative. It is such a lofty moral goal, that should a portion of the human race suffer in other ways from this necessary re-organization, so be it. At least, that is the perspective the left offers. Understanding this connection between Islamic and leftist political salvations explains everything. The left is often accused of condescending, arrogance, and elitism. But if your religion offered a salvation that could bring the world and all of humankind political and social peace, while your opponents followed the teachings of a God who couldn’t accomplish what you can, how else could you feel?

The citizens of any country cannot be allowed to think as individuals who are responsible to God first and only secondarily and tangentially responsible to government. National citizens must become world citizens and this means individuals in a society must think as a group, part of a world society in which every culture shares equally. In Islam this is God’s will for the world and so it is a salvation that must be imposed. So it also is for the true believers on the American political left. Their will, their high moral purpose, must also be imposed.

http://www.amazon.com/Time-of-the-Heathen/dp/B002TG4NTW/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257447160&sr=1-2

Author: James Matteson
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Canada duty rate

If you have ever entered into a political debate, you will know that politics is always intriguing, confusing but never easy. It is far too simplistic to try to categorize individuals as being on the political left or political right. If you ask ten people to define what being a Democrat means you will probably get ten different answers. The same goes for Republicans. Even within the political parties you will get a range of opinions veering from the far left to moderate and perhaps even far right on some issues. This has lead to some people suggesting that a third party is required.

A political debate should be an opportunity for people to put their points of view across and argue, politely, with their opponents. The winner of the debate is the one with the most convincing argument. That’s the theory. The reality is somewhat different. When you have two people involved in a public debate, the person who is seen as the winner is usually the one who has more charm and charisma. They are better able to put their point across and have the ability to present their views in the language of the listener. They may even look better. It has been noted that President Obama’s natural good looks and charm didn’t do him any harm in the political arena. It is a fact of human nature that we often side on the part of the person who looks the best rather than the views they hold.

Watching a political debate can be entertaining and educational if it is held in the correct format and is properly controlled. Unfortunately all too often they end up in a shouting match between the two candidates/parties with verbal personal attacks featuring very frequently. If you are involved in a discussion about politics always maintain your composure and listen to the views of the other side. You never know but they could have something interesting to say.

To read additional articles about the misadventures that can arise as a result of political debate, or to participate in problem-solving focused discussions about today’s issues, join us on our website: http://www.uvent.info/fodder-for-political-debate

Author: Chris Hartpence
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Mobile device news

When speaking in terms of the political extreme we must first define what is meant by “extreme.” Most scholars will agree that political extremism can be defined as a political philosophy or ideology of a character and kind that is farthest removed from the ordinary or average. It is the farthest from the center, outermost or endmost. It is going or doing the utmost to very great lengths to the political left or right in action, habit, or opinion.

With this in mind it is fair to say that the body politic of the Untied States has largely shifted to two extremes – liberal and conservative, as defined by the plat forms of both the democratic and republican parties. The dilemma is that neither party views themselves as being “extreme.” Yet, both parties categorically define each other by these extreme terms. They are fully capable of seeing the awful nature of the extremist positions of their opposition but not in themselves. That is more then troubling, it is dangerous. Let’s take a good look at both extremes.

Liberalism was once philosophically favorable to progress and reform in political or religious affairs, but without defying the basic tenets and principals of the constitution or Holy Scripture. Liberalism was favorable to and in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom in a society and government that was free from prejudice and bigotry. Liberalism advocated tolerance and generosity. Liberals were patriots and champions of freedom. Now compare this to modern day liberalism.

Modern day liberalism can best be defined as “secular progressivism” in a true Bill O’Reilly sense. No doubt about it, this is extreme. Modern day liberalism will redistribute wealth by targeting the affluent for most of the government’s revenue. They fully embrace the “rob Peter to pay Paul” mentality. This form of secular progressive liberalism wholly embraces the “welfare state” and is a champion of illegality with respect to illicit drug use and illegal immigration. Hard work and ingenuity will be taxed and penalized while laziness and illegal immigration will be rewarded through income redistribution.

Modern day liberalism embraces lax school discipline on American children to promote the so-called “liberties of minors.” It will even go so far as to deprive parents of their right to shape and discipline their own off spring through tried and tested (and biblically supported) cross-generational and universally accepted standards. This includes the occasional spanking (not to be confused with abusive beating). Instead secular progressive liberalism would replace this with a new social order that claims to know what is better for children then their parents. They would assume/replace responsibility for children from their parents. It is Orwellian in scope.

Modern day liberalism has a “one-world” approach to US foreign policy. It will happily abdicate American sovereignty to the Untied Nations and a new world order. Modern day liberalism wholly embraces all manner of moral perversities from pornography in literature, film, art and music to all manner of sexual promiscuity. All of this is done in the name of “self-expression” and a disturbing interpretation of the first amendments right to the “freedom of expression.” It doesn’t matter how much societal harm this does either. The focus on “individual rights” trumps the rights of an entire society under this new and modern secular progressive form of liberalism.

Modern day liberals call themselves “patriots” yet will do and say practically anything that will disgrace or do harm to their own country. With few exceptions, modern day liberals seldom serve their country but think nothing of attacking those who do. Modern day liberalism, unlike the liberalism of yesteryear, largely defines the meaning of “coward.” Modern day liberalism has lost its generosity, sense of fairness and fair play, and its patriotism.

Most modern day liberals are lazy. They believe they are owed everything yet deserve practically nothing. Few among them earn all that they have. They are much more “takers” then they are “givers.” They are perpetual spoiled brats, even in to middle age and beyond. Modern day liberals are extremely stingy with their own money but they will happily give away everyone else’s. They advocate gay rights but work diligently to deny “Christian rights.” Modern day liberalism bears naked hostility to religious values and their expression in public. They even flaunt obscene perversities in the face of Christians in the name of progressive free expression. They care nothing about those they offend.

Modern day liberalism embraces freedom only for its own ideals while denying the ideals, philosophies, and thoughts of any opposing view. Liberalism that was once the champion of “tolerance” has now become the most intolerant political ideology imaginable. Modern day secular progressive liberalism personifies the evil of hatred toward those who fail to share their views and these liberals would outright do harm if they could. This secular progressive liberalism is mean-spirited, scary, and very dangerous.

Conservatism was once viewed as the inclination in politics to maintain the existing traditional order. Political conservatives urged caution or moderation, as a behavior outlook. They were strict constitutional constructionists and were strong on national defense issues and staunch supporters of the military and military veterans. They were devout American patriots, almost to a spiritual level. Conservatives clearly embraced the free market ideal and the entrepreneurial spirit. They believed in fiscal responsibility in government to include limiting spending and taxation. They were strong on faith issues and supporters of religious freedom and expression. They deemed themselves to be the “champions of family.” Conservatism was a political philosophy and attitude that emphasized respect for traditional institutions, and distrust of government and governmental activism. Conservatism was in strong opposition to sudden change in the established order. Conservatism had a heart. Now let’s take a look at modern day conservatism.

Modern day conservatism could be better defined as “progressive fascism.” Not in terms of a governmental system led by a single dictator but rather by a “powerful elite” that I call the “fascist elite.” One person may appear to be in charge but he or she is responsive to the facist elite. One must go through a “rights of passage” to gain membership in this highly select “fascist elite” inner circle. The “fascist elite’ is comprised of select and influential lobbyists, corporate elitists, and the conservative governmental inner circle. The trilateral commission members clearly fit in to this inner “fascist elitist” inner circle.

Modern day conservatives buck the traditional order as much as they embrace it. They abhor secular progressive Supreme Court decisions that overturn traditional values pertaining to marriage and life, which is a reasonable and defendable argument. However, they would happily out law individual freedom if it would advance their fascist conservative cause and further empower them. They are much more “pro-war” then they are “pro- military” and they wrongly think of them as being one in the same. They prefer a “military offense” to “military defense” and I’m not speaking in terms of military tactical or strategic maneuvering. I am speaking to a philosophical and ideological ideal.

They are quick to send Americas soldiers in to harms way provided they themselves, or their family members, never have to lead the charge. Modern day conservatives are quick to raise the flag but slow to serve it. Certainly there are exceptions but this is mostly a normal and usual dynamic of the modern day conservative movement. Most modern day conservatives are merely “military cheer leaders” that would fight only to stay our of a soldier’s uniform. Most of them define the word “coward.”

These modern day conservatives think nothing of turning their backs on America’s military veterans once they have been spent and are no longer useful. They point to passed veterans’ appropriations but neglect to mention that they themselves fought most of those appropriations tooth-and-nail through the legislative process. Had they had their way, our nations veterans would be penniless and without adequate healthcare.

Modern day conservatives abhor social welfare for the poor but embrace corporate welfare with frenzy. They are not just supporters of the entrepreneurial spirit and the capitalistic ideal, which is good, but they’ll also surrender the nation and its people to that a gross aberration of that ideal in the interest of corporate greed, which is bad. They are not just against taxation in general, they devise laws and methods to ensure corporations and the wealthiest among them can completely avoid taxation, especially in off shore accounts and through creative accounting.

Most of our nation’s wealthiest people are in these modern day conservative ranks and they have gotten greedier then the human psychic can comprehend. They have wholly forsaken the “middle class” and, believe it or not, with their secular progressive “give away everything “liberal cohorts, they are on the verge of turning America in to a two class “rich and poor” society. The American middle class is truly at risk of collapse.

Modern day conservatives speak a good line about being against “illegal immigration” but when they owned the presidency and both houses of congress they did absolutely nothing to prevent it. Instead they opened the avenues to illegal immigration and unlawful entry in to our country more then doubled. Cheap exploited labor for the modern day conservative ranks of the rich and greedy has become a mainstay for them, and America’s immigration laws, and the American worker, are damned because of it.

Modern day conservatives are content in transferring once secure and good paying jobs to distant foreign shores. There desperate, exploited, and often abused workers who are willing to work for a pittance await these once lucrative American jobs. The modern day conservatives thought nothing of leaving their loyal and hard working American employees stranded, destitute, unemployed and having to fed for themselves and their families in an increasingly competitive market that offers only little more then minimum wage to even college graduates. So, they gather to the unemployment lines and the welfare system, without health and dental insurance, both of which modern day conservatives are reluctant to fund. Then they call their once proud American workers “lazy freeloaders.” Modern day conservatives lost its compassion in an abyss of economic quicksand where it can’t be retrieved.

Modern day conservatives have turned fiscal responsibility in to a tax-and-spend extravaganza that makes the most ardent liberals proud. They are still strong on family and faith issues as long as they get to decide the dogma and doctrine of what is acceptable. I’m not talking about defending bible scripture, which is good, but living outside the dictates of what they preach, which is bad. For example they are against premarital sex, sexual promiscuity, adultery and “lusting in the mind,” but many among them are known to have done some or all above with a fever. Yet, they hypocritically attack an immoral Hollywood, which really is immoral. They rile about sodomy and gay marriage, which is their right if faith and scripture based. Yet they would imprison a gay couple, consenting adults, who engage in gay sex in the privacy of their own home. To be against sodomy is defendable religious belief but to want to discriminate and bring harm to those who don’t conform to your belief system is in no manner a Christian principle. That’s judgmental, playing God, and I think God would object. It’s an “extreme” conservative position that falls outside traditional mainstream conservatism.

The modern day American politic has evolved in to a mean-spirited bastion of political extremes. The political center that was once the mainstream of American political society was slightly right of center. Some had liberal tendencies but nothing extreme. Some had more conservative tendencies but again nothing extreme. They were both patriots and they liked each other even when they disagreed. They worked together for the good of the nation and each other. Their was seldom any polarization. That is now a distant memory of our better days.

Both parties have been hijacked by the political extremes, the democrats on the left and republicans on the right. They offer only candidates that embrace one extreme or the other. Candidates that must “sell out” to extremist ideologies before the American people get the chance to decide. America desperately needs a third party. A party of moderation and atonement. A party of patriotism. A party that supports fee enterprise, capitalism and the entrepreneurial spirit without embracing the evil of greed. A party that cares more about the powerless then the powerful. A party of Judea-Christian values. A party of tolerance but not so tolerate as to embrace the extreme. A party that is slightly right of center and embraces traditional American values and morals but is not afraid of change. A party that will not lose its direction and sense of compassion. A party that will never stop caring about its people and one which reward hard work instead of good market guesses.

Author/Poet Biographical Sketch: Ed Coet is a retired US Army officer and professional educator. He is a widely published freelance writer and poet. Ed has had numerous articles published on a variety of topics. Ed’s short stories were published in Bewildering Stories, Scribal Tales, Muscadine Lines – A Southern Journal, and Scars Publications. His poems have been published in Purple Dream Ezine, Solder Works Magazine, Children, Churches & Daddies Magazine, Scars Publication, Steller Showcase Journal, Both Sides Now Journal, Because We Write Magazine, Lost Beat Poetry Journal, Cynic Magazine, Fullosia Press, Blue Fog Poetry Journal, Poetic Diversity Magazine,The Huffington Post, Raven Publishing, Inc., Muscadine Lines, A Southern Journal, Osprey Journal, Masque Publishing – Decanto Magazine, Namaste Fiji – The International Anthology of Poetry Book, The “Breaking Silences” Poetry Book Collection, and the 2007 Scars Poetry Collection Book – We The Poet’s, which includes Ed Coet’s award wining poem – Comfort. Visit with Ed Coet at “The Coet Blog” at http://thecoet.blogspot.com

Author: Ed Coet
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Digital Camera Information

The term political left is sometimes used to describe a liberal or a Democrat. Traditionally a liberal was someone who believed in the rights of the individual. They wanted to reduce the impact of the Church or religious organizations without defying the conventions of the Constitution. They were usually associated with being the patriots of freedom and would appear, on paper at least, to be more tolerant and more generous.

The political right on the other hand would be used to describe someone who was more conservative in their outlook on life. If a hostile situation arose in the Middle East for example, while the political left would be willing to work with the United Nations and try to reach a peaceful compromise, the right would generally advocate an armed response especially if they thought the USA was at risk.

The political right was usually associated with being American patriots. Historically, the Republicans would have been seen to support the military and its veterans, although it is debatable whether that is still the case. They believed in an entrepreneurial spirit, after all this is the USA where anyone can become wealthy if they believe in their dreams. With the recent economic downturn, there are a lot of people who believe that those on the political right will support the capitalistic ideal at the expense of ordinary people’s pensions and stock holdings.

Whether you agree or disagree with either party, it is more than obvious that there are extreme viewpoints on both sides. For example some conservatives believe that every individual should be responsible for their own healthcare, schooling etc. After all if some can succeed why can’t everyone? They do not buy into the fact that some people just are not cut out to be entrepreneurs.

There are also problems on the political left which has been accused of stifling the American dream via its fiscal policy. Regardless of which side of the political arena you sit, one thing is certain. You will never be bored if you are studying, or involved in, politics.

To read additional articles about the misadventures of the political left, or to participate in problem-solving focused discussions about today’s issues, join us on our website: http://www.uvent.info/political-blogs-the-myth-of-the-conspiracy-of-the-political-left

Author: Chris Hartpence
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Buy electrical pressure cooker

Did you know that the term political left originated in France during the French revolution? After the King and Queen had been executed, France became a republic. The terms left and right arose from the seating in the new parliament. They are still used when discussing politics today although they are rather simplistic given our complex political landscape.

If you describe someone as being on the political left, that person is deemed to be more liberal in their views. A conservative would be described as being on the political right. Republicans who tend to be more conservative in their viewpoints are right wing whereas the Democrats are traditionally on the left side of the political arena.

As is often the case with human beings, it just isn’t that simple. Even within those who support the Democrats there will be some who will be extremely liberal in their thinking and what they consider best policy. For example you may have some Democrats who believe that abortion is wrong so would follow a typical right wing view on that issue. Or you may have other Liberals who believe that the war in Afghanistan is just and so spending on defense should increase whereas the Democrats usually advocate decreased spending on arms.

In politics, as with all other things, there are always the extremes. You can have two people who are both deemed to be liberals yet they hold radically different opinions on various issues. These different viewpoints are what make political meetings so interesting and the study of politics so absorbing not to mention complicated.

Barack Obama is a Democrat so would be described as being on the political left. Typically his party would support issues such as legalizing same sex marriages and allowing doctor assisted suicide. The conservatives would appear to take a more religious viewpoint being pro life, anti same sex marriages and wish to introduce more religion in schools.

To read additional articles about the misadventures of the political left, or to participate in problem-solving focused discussions about today’s issues, join us on our website: http://www.uvent.info/political-blogs-the-myth-of-the-conspiracy-of-the-political-left

Author: Chris Hartpence
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Advice on AdSense

Political Blogs: Myth of the Conspiracy of the Political Left

If you read many political blogs, watch much news (especially if you watch FOX for more than five minutes), one theme you’ll pick up on very quickly is that the ‘political left’ is organized and presently orchestrating a scheme to turn the USA into a commie paradise. Conservative darling Ann Coulter delights in expounding upon the nefarious activities of this mustache-twisting villainous group, much to the delight of her conservative readers.

Never mind the fact that this grand conspiracy of the political left has no members that anyone can actually name, nor is there any hard evidence that such a Cabal exists…those are nettlesome details that always manage to get brushed aside when discussing such things.

Nor is there ever any discussion about why the political left would want such a thing, given that communism has utterly and spectacularly failed every time it has been tried. It seems to fly in the face of logic, especially given that these leftists are almost universally described as being intellectual elites. Now, I know I’m not the brightest of bulbs, but it seems to me that intellectual elites would be…you know…educated. And part of that education would no doubt include stuff like…history. So the members of the hoity toity political left should know all this, right?

But, this is their supposed aim, as explained exhaustively by Coulter, Limbaugh, Beck, and others.

At the heart of this mighty Cabal are the liberal news media (which includes any and all news outlets, save for FOX News, which is a paragon of truth, honesty, and the “real American” way (read: the conservative way).

What’s interesting here, is this: Conservatives and Republicans are largely synonymous these days (Ann Coulter herself has said in various interviews that there is no such thing as a “Conservative Democrat” so she too seems to be subscribing to the notion that the Republicans have a monopoly on Conservatism…kinda like they have a monopoly on Jesus…God is a Republican, you know?).

So…Conservative = Republican.

And the Republican base is composed of two groups. Religious fundies and….Big Business and their supporters.

Right. So Republican Base = Big Business.

But, the news companies ARE big business, so…let me see if I follow the logic here….the Republican Base = the Conspiracy of the Political Left?

That’s fairly typical of Conservative logic in my experience, and certainly makes about as much sense as some of their other positions.

Yes, I know…the first reply will be that not all big businesses are republican supporters, and that’s true. Just look at Ben and Jerry’s. But on balance, I think you’ll be hard pressed to find large cap corporations that support greater corporate oversight and regulation, higher taxes and laws designed to make companies be good corporate citizens and hold them fully responsible for the messes they make.

That’s very anti-corporation, and anti-republican.

Further, if you look at the owners of these big companies, most (not all, granted, but most) ARE conservative. And the companies they run tend to follow suit, and are likewise conservative in their overall bent. I think where the confusion lies is in the fact that reporters TEND TO BE of a more liberal stripe…that is to say, if you do a survey of reporters across the nation, I think you’d find a majority of them to be more liberally minded than conservative, thus the conservative pundits’ conclusions about the “liberal media,” but here’s the thing: reporters don’t get to decide what gets reported.

Let me repeat that for those conservatives who are hard of reading: REPORTERS DO NOT GET TO DECIDE WHAT GETS REPORTED!

Those decisions are universally made by at the Director level and higher, and among that population you find more conservatives than liberals.

Now, you can draw all sorts of catty conclusions about the fact that conservatives tend to hold more positions of authority, tend to make more money, etc., etc., but you can’t have it both ways, and thus, the hypocrisy of the pundits on the right is (once again) revealed.

Not that this is any great surprise.

This is an inherently political blog, and I am certain that the piece above will rankle some conservatives, but the fact is that where there is a “political left,” they tend to be far less organized than their brethren on the right, and to think that this disorganized rabble could ever head up such a vast conspiracy as they are credited with is even more ludicrous than the one that the moon-landing-hoax folks managed to dream up, and that’s really saying something.

Further, such a conclusion is an insult to the intelligence that the right (grudgingly) credits to the left, but…there you go.

Sound off! If you have something to say about anything you’ve read here, then we invite you to participate in our political forums!

Here are a fistful of policy changes I support. I am sure that these will make excellent fodder for political debate, and welcome any of our readers to open threads in the forums relating to any of these they’d care to discuss or debate further.

Energy Policy:
Always a source of excellent political debate, and it may surprise many uber-conservative readers (who no doubt view this as being a member of the family of liberal blogs), but I support the “Drill, baby, drill!” paradigm. Sure. Absolutely. Allow offshore drilling but inform drillers that they will be held 125% liable for any damages done. We’ll use the surplus to help retire debt. Levy a 1 cent per gallon, 10 cent per ton tax on gas/coal. Use these funds to subsidize alt. Energy infrastructure, with a focus on solar and wind, and a lesser focus on bio-D (split the funds roughly 40/40/20 in those three areas). Enable a government profit sharing plan with regards to profits gained from oil harvested from federal lands (ANWAR, The Gulf, etc). Let’s do it, starting today.

Ethics:
This one’s easy, but my position here will no doubt anger people on both sides of the political spectrum and I’m sure this one will be excellent fodder for an ongoing political debate. I’ve not seen too many people on either conservative OR liberal blogs talking much about matters of ethics, but as I see it, this is sorta paving the road. Taking on this issue will make tackling many of the others our nation faces worlds easier, so here’s what I think we ought to do:

No lobbyists allowed within 500 miles of Washington DC. Make it a Federal crime to give any politician, or any staffer WORKING FOR a politician a “gift” of any size whatsoever. Cap donations to political campaigns at $100 per person, PERIOD. Corporations or other organizations are disallowed from giving AT ALL. See? Told you it was inflammatory. And excellent kindling for all manner of colorful political debates!

Changes in law regarding Corporations:
Conservatives will no doubt want to flay me alive for these, and I suspect that this short paragraph alone will be enough for them to forever condemn this site as being among the family of “commie” liberal blogs, but again, in the interest of sparking a lively political debate, I’ll put my ideas “out there,” and see what happens:

I believe strongly in increased regulations in nearly every aspect of corporate life. Contractually obligate them to be good community citizens, since the vast majority seem utterly incapable of doing it on their own. Laws to force full accountability on them. Shut down tax loopholes, stop all corporate welfare (as above, see the exception where fostering native renewable energy sources are concerned), corporations ARE NOT people, and should no longer be considered as such, and money should no longer be considered a form of speech.

Sound off! If you have something to say about anything you’ve read here, then we invite you to participate in our political forums!