What Happened To The "CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN?"

Does anyone besides me remember the night of the presidential election of 2008?  It seems like ages ago when Barack Obama walked out to address the huge crowd gathered in Grant Park in Chicago and once again promised to deliver "change we can believe in."  More remarkable to me than his inspiring speech was the look of joy, pride, and about-to-be-realized hope on the faces of those who came to hear him speak.  While watching the events of that populist pageant unfold, it came to me that I had not felt like that about a political figure in forty years.

 In 1968, a year away from being old enough to vote, I was an active participant in the presidential election campaign of Robert Kennedy.  But unlike so much during that horrible year, my dreams for our country were devastated by an assassin's bullets.  My dreams were not dead, but they were in a state of suspended animation for quite some time, until Barack Obama found a way to revive them.  Finally, after so many disappointments, after so many false progressive prophets, I was sure that it was finally our time.  After all, the Democratic Party scored huge gains in the Senate and House in the 2008 election, as well as winning back the presidency, and I was sure that we would now see the final touches applied to the unfinished work of the patriarchs of modern progressivism, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson.  What began in the depths of the Great Depression as the New Deal, followed by the social reforms of Kennedy's New Frontier and Johnson's Great Society, would surely be completed by the progressive agenda laid out by Barack Obama in his campaign for the presidency.

But something kept gnawing at the back of my conscious mind.  Something that would not abate, even while so much of me was caught up in the joy of that incredible November night. I kept seeing this image of the all but forgotten "fringe" candidate of the progressive left, Ralph Nader. I remembered the evening prior to the beginning of the Democratic National Convention, when he was being interviewed by Jim Lehrer on PBS's The News Hour. By then, Nader was no longer taken seriously by most of the media, so his TV time had been reduced to an occasional footnote on PBS, or a late night conversation on CSPAN.  Both of which, for American pop culture, are the national media equivalence to a near-death experience.  

Lehrer, dropping his usual tranquil style, bored-in and challenged Nader to explain why anyone should still take his candidacy seriously. Without missing a beat, Nader fired back, "because there is no substantive difference between Obama and McCain, nor between the Democrats or the Republicans." Pressed by Jim Lehrer to justify that comment, Nader offered this simple fact: most of the money raised by both major parties during the campaign of 2008 came from the economic elites running America's manufacturing, insurance, banking, and, communications industries.  And those people like things just the way they are.  Raising his voice, as if that would make any more of us listen, Nader told Lehrer that the last thing the United States needed was another president and another Congress more beholden to the boardrooms of our country than to the living rooms.  He concluded with a prophetic warning that we would see no fundamental change in any of our policies or programs as long as corporations financed American political campaigns.

Now it looks as though he may have been right.  Last week Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's chief of staff, read the riot act to sixty progressive Democratic members of the House, who have been criticizing the president for seemingly backing off on support for the public option in the healthcare bill.  Rather than assuring the progressives that Obama is with them, Emanuel warned them that if they did not back off, all Democrats might lose some campaign funding for the 2010 election cycle.  So there it is, seven months into the Obama presidency and "Change we can believe in," is looking more like "change the fat cats can live with."

In an earlier rant I called for an amendment to the Constitution to eliminate private funding for all political campaigns.  I still believe that is ultimately the way to go, if we ever really want a government that represents the people instead of the stockholders.  But that is a long and arduous process and there may be an easier way.  Maybe it is time that we progressives do what many centrists have been doing for the last twenty years.  But instead of becoming political independents, like they did, perhaps we should organize our own political party.  Let the Blue Dogs have the Democratic Party, and let's see how well they do without us.  It takes a majority in both houses of Congress to pass a bill and instead of trying to appease those on the right to get a health reform bill, how about we stand our ground and fight this time.

Perhaps losing is not the worst thing that could happen. If at the end of the day there is no public option for health insurance, there is no plan to cover the forty million Americans without health insurance, there is no robust federal regulatory process to rein in the insurance companies, then who cares if a bill passes?  Better we lose fighting for what is right than let the corporate jackals and their political toadies win with a meaningless piece of legislation, gutted of any real reforms.  After all, this fight should be about morality and justice, not politics and money.  Here is an idea, let's make Ted Kennedy's forty-seven year struggle for a compassionate and caring society a reality, rather than just another political slogan. Wouldn't that be a more fitting tribute to his memory than a marble headstone in Arlington? Instead of making placards with swastikas on them, like the fools on the far right, let's write our representatives in Congress and the President and press for the kind of change we all voted for in November.

In The Beginning, There Was The Word!

Anyone who doubts the power of the spoken word, need look no further than the ongoing debate over health care reform.  For instance, many elderly Americans are viscerally angry about the perception that the bills working their way through Congress will result in more "government" control over the management of their health care options.  At one of the recent Congressional "Town Halls," an irate senior shouted at his Representative, "You better keep your government hands off my Medicare!" When told by the Congressman that Medicare was indeed a government run program, the old man responded by calling his representative a liar.  Hello!

So what is going on here? Instead of pining over the lack of policy-savviness that has all but taken over this debate, perhaps the solons of the Potomac should have been more concerned about language than legislation.  Like it or not, words matter!  For instance, what if the term "Expanded Medicare Program" had been used instead of "Public Option?"  Nowhere in any of the healthcare reform proposals before Congress has there been a proposal to "socialize" American medicine.  But when a term like "public" is used as a label, it is no wonder that many among us think immediately of "government-run."  In a response to an earlier posting, one of my readers railed against my support of the healthcare reform plan, stating that as a soldier, he was well aware of how the government runs healthcare and that he wants nothing to do with it!  Too bad he does not realize that the reform package before Congress does not call for a government run healthcare delivery system.  But can you blame him?  The rhetoric used to both label and promote the plan are confusing at best, and downright misleading at worst. Medicare is a government funding program, not a government healthcare delivery program.  The reason that Medicare recipients are so happy with this "government" program, is that they get to choose all their own "private" health care providers.  No one, and I mean no one in a private HMO (insurance company program) gets that kind of choice.  If you belong to Blue Cross, you can only go to a Blue Cross approved doctor, no exceptions! Oh yeah, and if you get real sick, Blue Cross has the legal right to drop you, Medicare does not.

The very term, "Healthcare Reform Bill" is itself a poor title for what is actually going on.  From the outset, the legislation should have been called what it really is, a health insurance reform bill.  Changes in healthcare delivery are not on the table.  What is being debated in Congress are bills that change the way health insurance companies do business.  Is there anyone in this country, other than the CEO of Aetna Insurance Company who likes the way we pay for healthcare?  The answer is yes, anyone who holds health insurance company stock, as the current system is incredibly profitable. . . for Wall Street, not for Main Street!

Of course, clarifying the language will not silence all the critics of reform.  The crazies and profiteers will continue to amp-up their pin-headed followers with phrases like "death panels," and "socialism."   Wouldn't it be nice if the calm center of our political universe could clearly understand what is actually being proposed? If we could take those Americans out of the current ruckus, then only Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and their foil-cap wearing toadies would be left. That may, however, be too much to hope for, because one thing I do know is that rhetorical clarity and politician-initiated jargon have never been "fellow travelers."

President Obama, It Is Time For A Little FDR!

In reference to the previous rant, "Democracy in Peril," I think I may have discovered four phenomena that have led to all the irrational behavior on the part of many of our citizens. First, I believe that a sizable portion of the population is policy-ignorant. Notice I did not say stupid, I said ignorant. People who simply do not know something are ignorant of the facts. People who are given a reasonable explanation of those facts, and still do not know are stupid. People who do know, after being informed, and persist in ignorant behavior are liars.

Regarding the debate (which may be too civilized a word for what is actually transpiring) over health care reform, an uninformed citizen may not know that there is no provision in any of the bills in Congress to create a government "Death Panel," whose job it is supposedly going to be to decide if elderly Americans get care or are allowed to die. That rumor was started on the floor of the House by Minority Leader, John Boener in a blatantly irresponsible speech, and later trumpeted by the queen of the nutballs, Sarah Palin, on her Facebook page. Anyone who cares to look will find that the only thing in the bill that is even remotely akin to euthanizing granny is a reimbursement schedule for Medicare physicians who counsel their patients on end of life issues. Further, the bill stipulates that the patient, not the physician, must initiate the discussion. Right now, private insurnace companies and Medicare will not cover the cost of a doctor's visit for this kind of a discussion. In fact, most Americans who can afford it, usually have this discussion with an attorney while drawing up documents like living trusts. I know, I went through this with my mother and it cost just under $5,000 to make sure my mom's wishes about end of life care would be honored. It would have been wonderful to have been able to have that discussion with her primary care physician instead of n attorney. Does anyone really believe that AARP and the AMA would support a bill that did what John Boener and Sarah Palin are claiming?

The second cause of so much of the yelling and screaming going on at Congressional town halls is fear. During his inaugural address in 1933, Franklin Roosevelt told the American people that, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." A teaspoonful of FDR would be a perfect elixir for so much of what ails us today. Leaving out the truly crazy, like the Obama "birthers," rational people under great stress can act, well, irrational. Since September 11, 2001, the American people have had to face the fact that they are not impervious to peril. Hurricane Katrina and the government's pathetic response did not help. Add to that, the never-ending war in the Middle East, uncontrollable fluctuations in energy prices, and of course the disastrous state of the American economy, and one could not find a more fertile ground for fear.

Before FDR ushered in what came to be known as the New Deal, he took the time to reassure the American people that he and his team were on the job and that all would again be well. For example, before the passage of the Glass-Steagall Act, which created the FDIC and reformed America's banks, FDR called for a "Bank Holiday" to slow down the panic withdrawals that were wiping out our financial institutions. Roosevelt, who conquered fear in his personal life while battling polio, understood that no government program, no matter how well crafted could succeed if panic rather than reason governed people's behavior. Under this much stress, a normally reasonable people can succumb to the rantings of demagogues. Is there any other way to explain how the master of factless hyperbole, Rush Limbaugh, can get away with calling President Obama a Nazi?

For the last eight years the American people have been bombarded with one body blow after another, while an incompetent leadership team in Washington performed so badly that our collective fear has been exacerbated, rather than dampened. But it takes more than ignorance and fear to mobilize people into raging mobs. A willing and enthusiastic partner in fanning the flames of irrational behavior has been the media. As far back as the 1890s, newspaper moguls like William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer discovered they could sell more papers by sensationalizing stories, or out and out lying, rather than merely reporting events truthfully. Without a full-frontal lie about the explosion of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor, the Spanish American War might never have been fought.

Following this journalistic ploy, today's major electronic news outlets have been leading night after night with visual images of members of Congress being verbally assaulted and threatened by irrational citizens. Little or nothing is said about the veracity of the mobs' accusations, and even less time is given over to the fact that a significant majority of the American people still support health care reform. Instead, the visceral images are poured on, as the networks reap the profits from higher ratings. Responsible journalism, which was never profitable for the networks, has given way to "Oprahism" and become fat with advertising cash with their new philosophy of "Shock and Awe." So instead of leading with a fact like, the American Association of Retired Persons, endorses health care reform, Brian, Katie, and Charley,the Moe Larry and Curly of network news, lead with a Facebook rant from Sarah Palin on "Death Panels!" Could anyone over fifty even imagine Walter Cronkite or David Brinkley wallowing in that slime?

Finally, a significant portion of the blame for all this must be laid at the front door of the White House. Rather than articulating and promoting a clear plan for reform, the Obama team decided to leave it up to Congress to come up with a plan. Say What? So far we have at least four different bills floating around in the House and Senate, and no one really knows what they contain. The president keeps talking about a health care reform package, but he cannot definitively tell us what any of the specifics are. Thus, the crazies get to make up whatever they want. And instead of promoting the elements of a specific plan, the president is spending his time warding off attacks from the lunatic fringe.

As a former professor of Constitutional law, President Obama should be quite familiar with Article Two, Section Three of our founding document, which states, "He (the President) may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both houses, or either of them." And if this is not an extraordinary occasion, then none will ever exist. So, Mr. President, call the Congress back into session, present them with a clearly articulated piece of health care reform legislation, use the "Bully Pulpit" to explain your plan to the American people and pressure the Congress to pass the bill. Then in a magnificent White House ceremony, befitting this monumental piece of legislation, sign it into law. Then you can move on to one of the hundreds of other pressing issues facing your administration. In other words, stop reading about Abe Lincoln for awhile, and start acting a bit more like Franklin Roosevelt.

Democracy in Peril

The proverbial straw has been placed on this writer's camel's back. For more than thirty years I have watched as the tone of American political and social discourse has deteriorated into this week's mindless screaming and yelling directed at members of Congress trying to host constituent town meetings to discuss impending health care reform legislation. Perhaps even worse than the paranoid anger, was the outright ignorance of many in the protesting mobs. My favorite example of out and out stupidity was the man in South Carolina who screamed at his Congressman to keep the government's hands off his Medicare. Say what?

Way back in 1787, when the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia to write a constitution for our fledgling nation, many, if not most of them were uncomfortable with the idea of making our new national government too democratic. Granted, these men represented a very elite segment of the population of the United States. Besides being economically well off, propertied, and formally educated, the fact that they could all read and write set them miles apart from the vast majority of the people they were claiming to represent. A number of respected historians and political scientists, like Charles Beard, noting these facts, have concluded that the aim of the Founders was to create a national government less interested in equality and democratic institutions, but dedicated instead, to perpetuating the wealth and holdings of a burgeoning American aristocracy.

However, there may have been more to all this than simple self-interest. Since these men were almost all schooled in the classics of western civilization, the self-inflicted demise of Athenian democracy could not have escaped them. Indeed, one need look no further than James Madison's and Alexander Hamilton's writings in The Federalist Papers, to find plenty of warnings about the dangers of "the wrath of the majority." Too much government, they argued, in the hands of people unskilled in governing ultimately leads to "mobocracy," rather than improving democracy. Madison argued that democracy fails when reasonable discourse between individuals with legitimate differences is overwhelmed by passion, fear, and anger. In his 1954 novel, Sir William Golding wrote a chilling story about this very issue in Lord of the Flies.

Without a doubt, the phenomenon of passions overwhelming reason has been a fairly consistent theme in American history. From the Salem Witch Trials to the murder of Kansas abortionist Dr. George Tiller, the specter of Madison's "mobocracy" has always been with us. But over the past thirty years, it seems that the pace toward the failure of civil discourse has been accelerating in the United States. It is my contention that this acceleration is not due to an increase in the number of malevolent threats to our society, as they have always been present, but rather it is the result of changes in the manner in which information is disseminated.

Twenty-four hour cable TV, syndicated radio talk shows, streaming video on the Internet, have all blossomed in less than one generation. We are bombarded with more raw information than any people at any time in all of human history. But more than the sheer volume of electronic content, what is most troubling for the endurance of our democratic republic, is the inflammatory nature of so much of that content. Today, we do not have to share the same limited sources for news and information. Instead, many Americans are seeking out media sources that reinforce their own political and social biases, rather than using the media to broaden their understanding of complex issues. Even worse, the capitalists who own most of the media outlets have discovered that ratings, and therefore profits go up as the rhetoric gets more rabid. Watching a fool like Fox's Glenn Beck insanely ranting-on about how he would like to kill documentary film producer, Michael Moore, is reminiscent of 1930s' Nazi footage of Joseph Goebbels calling for the elimination of Germany's Jews.

Ironically, the Nazi propaganda machine could only reach its full potential after the fledgling democracy of the Weimar Republic had been destroyed. While in the United States, the high priests of broadcast lunacy operate under the complete protection of our democratic institutions. There was a time of course, when that was not so, and it wasn't all that long ago. Back in 1949, when network television was in its infancy, the Federal Communications Commission adopted a policy that came to be known as the Fairness Doctrine. Claiming that the airways used by radio and television were a public trust, the FCC mandated that broadcasters had to air contrasting points of view when they were presenting an editorial opinion on public issues. For example, if a network like Fox wanted to give over air time for the opinions of Sean Hannity on President Obama's economic stimulus package, they would have to provide time for someone like Bill Moyers to rebut Hannity's conclusions.

From 1949 until 1987, radio and television news organizations worked very hard to remain neutral on most issues, choosing to air factual information, supported by confirmed sources, rather than vocalize opinion. Anyone who cares to take the time to look can view archival recordings of Walter Cronkite reporting the news on CBS, or Chet Huntley on NBC. No ranting, no lunacy, and no huggy bear segments were ever allowed. Just straight reporting on the days news. If a network were to broadcast its opinion, it would always be clearly stated as such and time would be afforded parties with differing views. Perhaps the greatest example of this was Edward R. Murrow's scathing expose of the smear tactics of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. McCarthy was afforded Murrow's time slot two weeks later to present his rebuttal. Can you even imagine Bill O'Reilly giving over his air-time for an entire show to allow someone like James Carville to challenge his opinions? Or on the other side, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, having to grant equal time to Rush Limbaugh? No, I don't think so either.

Of course, were the Fairness Doctrine still in place, many of the above mentioned pundits would not be on the air in the first place. The closest they would get to a microphone would be to ask a customer, "Would you like fries with that sir?"

So what happened? Remember the "Great Communicator?" When Ronald Reagan came into office in 1981, his administration launched an all out assault on government regulations. Any program limiting the private sector was bad, anything promoting private enterprise was good. One can draw a pretty clear line from the collapse of the American economy in 2008 back to the slash and burn de-regulation policies of the Reaganites in the 1980s. This was also the beginning of a great technological revolution in electronic communication. Broadband cable had just become commercially viable, giving birth to a whole new industry, cable TV. And that industry was vigorously lobbying the White House to get rid of, you guessed it, the Fairness Doctrine. The cable networks knew they could not compete with the news gathering capabilities of the major broadcast networks, as the costs would drive them into bankruptcy. They wanted, instead, to air the much cheaper slanted opinion and infotainment programming, without the FCC's interference. The goal was profit, not accuracy. And the way to get there, along with airing endless reruns of Lucy and Leave it to Beaver, was to turn news reporting into opinionated chit-chat.

The Congress, controlled by the Democrats in the 1980s, tried to head this off by passing legislation to turn the FCC's Fairness Doctrine into federal statutory law. The FCC regulations were always vulnerable to presidential executive orders countermanding them. But a federal law was totally immune to executive orders. In 1987, a bipartisan bill converting the Fairness Doctrine into law was passed by both houses of Congress, only to be vetoed by President Reagan. Once the president vetoed the bill, all Republican support melted away and the Fairness Doctrine was doomed. By 1988, President Reagan had appointed new commissioners to the FCC and no one even bothered to try and renew the doctrine.

So what was the result? Today, anyone with a microphone and a camera can be an "expert" on any subject. Add in the Internet and You Tube, and the crazies now run the assylum. Back in 1906 it took the combined will of the Progressives in Congress and the White House to pass the Pure Food and Drug Act, to finally rid the nation of the patent medicine industry. Millions of Americans were dying from phony cures, laced with opium and alcohol, and many more were suffering at the hands of a totally unregulated food processing industry. Under the new law, Congress created the Food and Drug Administration and very quickly medicines were safe and effective, and processed foods were no longer killing people. The debate over the passage of this law was passionate and fierce. Powerful interests lined up on both sides to lobby for their respective positions. In the end, Congress voted, the President signed, and the American people, both for and against, benefitted. In the end, our political system worked in 1906 because people agreed to disagree.

The very foundation of the pluralistic democracy created by our Constitution rests on two important, yet fragile foundations. First, our system cannot function if we replace civil discourse with the bullying tactics of fear and intimidation. From the outset, Americans have passionately disagreed over fundamental issues, yet we have allowed discussion and compromise to rule at the end of the day. Secondly, duly elected officials must be allowed to govern. Ours is a republic, not a direct democracy. No one is obligated to agree with those in power, but disagreement that turns into insurrection is tantamount to treason. One's opinions does not make one a patriot, no matter how loudly one shouts them. Upholding the principles laid down in our Constitution is the stuff of true patriotism.

In the decade of the 1850s, both of these foundational principles were ignored and the result was the Civil War, the bloodiest conflict in all of American history. Do any of us really want to wander down that path again? I believe it is time for us to ratchet down the rhetoric and muffle the voices of extremism. Like it or not, our political system only works when it is governed from the center. As a firm believer in the First Amendment I do not want to set limits on free speech. But I do think it is time that we allow our opponents to be heard, and turn a deaf ear to those who just want to shout. A resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine might just do the trick. By the way, if you want to put a real scare into the purveyors of extremism, just mention those two words and watch them burst into an uncontrollable rage. So you tell me, why would any rational person be opposed to Fairness?

Time for a Real Hero on the Twenty!

Over the last few years, the Bureau of Engraving has radically changed American paper currency. Every bill now has numerous security devices built in to make effective counterfeiting all but impossible. Colors, watermarks, laser holograms, top secret chemicals, and a variety of other ingenious additions have brought our Federal Reserve Notes into the age of high technology. So how about changing one more thing. I have long felt that Andrew Jackson is the least deserving of our presidents to have his mug profiled on our twenty dollar bill. And now, his face is even bigger than before.

I just don't get it. Here was a guy who first became famous by fighting a battle three weeks after the war was over. Then he built his own private army of cut-throats and bushwhackers and slaughtered defenseless Indians, while violating the national sovereignty of another country. His political reputation was manufactured from a lie about him being a humble frontiersman in homespun buckskins, while he was the most prosperous slave-owning planter in Tennessee. Then, as president, Jackson, who swore to uphold the Constitution, ignored a decision by the Supreme Court and set in motion the worst case of American Indian genocide in the nineteenth century. By destroying the Bank of the United States, Jackson ushered in the worst economic depression that the country had seen since the Revolutionary War. And let us not forget his introduction of the political spoils system in America. More politically corrupt and incompetent individuals were placed in government jobs than in any other presidential administration, before or since.

How about this instead? Since we love those heroic general/presidents who find their way onto our coins and bills, I suggest that we get a real hero for the Twenty. Anyone remember Ike? You know, Dwight David Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander of all European forces during World War II. As far as generals go, only George Washington can match up. Then there was Eisenhower the president. Hmm, let's see, he carefully managed international affairs during the height of the Cold War. He negotiated a settlement in the 1956 Suez War. He was responsible for the construction of the Interstate Highway system in America. And talk about taking his oath of office seriously, Eisenhower rigorously enforced the 1954 Brown V Board of Education decision, by sending federal troops to Little Rock in 1957, even though he disagreed with the Court's decision. Then, as he was leavingt office, Ike warned the American people about the growing power of the "military-industrial complex." Too bad we didn't take that more seriously.

And what did President Eisenhower get for all this? He got his profile on our tiniest coin, the dime, only to be removed for his boss during WWII, Franklin Roosevelt. Then he had a short stint on the dollar coin, which ended in 1978. Have you seen a dollar coin lately? It is now adorned by that great American hero, John Tyler. Who you might ask? Does this ring a bell, "Tippecanoe and Tyler too?" He only got to be president because "Tippecanoe," William Henry Harrison, died three weeks into his term. As president, Tyler was so despised, that he could not even get re-nominated by his party for a second term, and he is now on the new dollar coin.

President Eisenhower deserves better than this. Heck, even Grant has both a bill and a nice monument in New York City, while all Ike got was a cheesy statue in Topeka, Kansas. So I hope you will join me in writing to the powers that be in the Treasury Department and asking them to remove that puffed-up and sissified engraving of Jackson from our beloved twenty dollar bill, and replace that Tennessee dandy with a legitimate war hero, Dwight David Eisenhower. OK, I did gloss over a few things about Ike. Yes, it was Eisenhower who gave us Nixon as Vice President, and it was Eisenhower who thought creating two Vietnams was a good idea. Yeah, yeah, he never spoke out against Joe McCarthy during the Red Scare of the Fifties, and he stood by as Fidel Castro took control of Cuba, and when he had a chance to defend the honor of his old boss and friend, General George Marshall, he said. . . well, nothing. Oh yeah, there were those little screw-ups with the Russians, like a failure to help the Hungarians in 1956, Sputnik in 1957, and the U-2 fiasco in 1960. But with all that, he is still a better choice than Jackson, isn't he? No? Then can I interest anyone in Warren Harding? Herbert Hoover?

Thomas Hobbes May Have Been Right!

For the last week I have watched in utter disbelief as so many of my fellow citizens have decided that the worst thing we could do is to reform our failing health care system. As one major metropolitan newspaper after another dies, more and more of us are now taking our political marching orders from the crazies on cable TV, syndicated talk radio, or that great bastion of journalistic integrity, the Internet.

So let me see if I can get all this straight. President Obama is not an American citizen, he is, however, a practicing Muslim. The Federal Reserve System should be abolished, as it only exists to enrich Wall Street bankers. Concealed fire arms should now be allowed on college campuses and in bars, so we can all be safe. We need to keep the prison at Gauntanamo open, so no terrorists can set foot on American soil. Sarah Palin quit as the Governor of Alaska so she could better serve her fellow citizens. Judge Sotomayor is a racist. Michael J Fox fakes his Parkinsons and only shakes on TV. And my newest favorite, we do not actually need any health care reform, as the current system is working just fine. Who cares of we rank 37th in the world in health care delivery and 50th in life expectancy? I could go on but I am getting really depressed.

As far as I can tell, the great flaw in the logic of the men who wrote our founding documents, was that they were counting on those who came after them to be motivated by reasoned analysis, civil discourse, and an abiding concern for their fellow citizens. Instead we now eagerly wait for the likes of Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity to tell us what to think, and then march off to do battle. With all due respect to John Paul Jones, our newest motto ought to be, "Damn the facts, full speed ahead!" Don't confuse me with the truth, someone else already made-up my mind for me! Too bad that the Information Age. . . well, isn't!