Finally, Oliver was born today. Check out my post here.

Hey guys,

Josh's baby boy will have 'James' for a middle name. You should know that they always liked the name James and I think James E Talmage is a hero of Josh's, but still the same.........I'm very honored; in fact, it means the world to me.

You know, names are special......names have meanings and oft times are given in honor or remembrance of a special person. Names carry with them a responsibility of sorts to live up to the name's honor.

I truly don't feel deserving of someone sharing a name with me, but it definately makes me want to be a better person so that I don't bring the name any disgrace.

Just some quick history on the name of James in my family:

My papa McCann shares the same name as me. He is a great man and still living in Scotland. He was born in Ireland as an Irish Catholic.......so you can imagine the heads he turned by marrying a Protestant in the war-torn country.....he was even excommunicated for doing so. He has had a limp his whole life due to a grenade explosion he survived in World War II (he never complains how he got it, but is proud of the service he rendered). He became sour to religion, but oddly was my father's biggest supporter during my dad's mission.

My dad, another James, is a convert to the church and the first LDS missionary to serve from the Greenock Branch of Scotland. For those of us who served European missions, we realize how rare it is to find someone willing to listen to the message let alone be willing to be baptized. I guess you can say that my dad was special.

I look up to these men for doing what they thought was right despite so much opposition. I strive to be worthy of sharing a name with them. Now, thanks to the Ferrins, I have much more to strive for.

I love you all, you have had such a lasting influence on my life, I don't know where I'd be without the boys. I believe that families are together forever and I believe that God is merciful enough that we might be together as well.

Don't worry, all of this sentimental behavior will die off soon enough......miss you guys.

Yesterday was an interesting day. For being such a sucky day with finals and everything, it was quite the heart-warming one too.

I knew it was going to be interesting when Paige had a BM while giving her a bath. It was hard not laughing seeing her have such a gay ole time swimming in her fecal soup, but also hard not treating her as this contaminated thing splashing E. coli all over the place.

Paige became pretty sick later on (probably not from her poop)......poor girl had the sniffles and a sore throat. The thing that I love so much about my little girl is that even when you know she is in pain, really uncomfortable, and has snot running down her face, she is still able to give one of her smiles......I'm never more proud of her than when she tries to be happy despite her struggles. Yeah, I know, I'm probably over-dramatacizing it........but I imagine you papas have had similar feelings at times.

For the first time since she was a couple days old, she slept with her parents. She must have woken up 8 times during the night........I only set aside 4 hrs of sleep to begin with. It didn't bother me remotely when she'd wake up and start patting my face or climb onto my back......I enjoyed helping her get back to sleep each time and looked forward to the next time she'd wake up and be pleasantly surprised that her parents were there with her.

You know I'm convinced, that God allows his little ones to get sick to help parents keep their lives in proper perspective. Man, I'm so grateful for my family.

Jimbo,

Are democrats truly 'liberal'? No.

Are republicans truly 'conservative'. Again, no.

If liberal means 'based on liberty' then we can assume that means that a person who is truly 'liberal' both socially and economically, wants no governmental interference. We tend to call those people Anarchists (or Libertarians, depending on how you look at it). People who want total government control- socialists (or totalitarians).

Do you see where I'm going? Republicans want (I'm speaking in generalities) less government interference in the economy (taxes, regulations, etc.) but, they seek regulation in moral areas (abortion, drug use, etc) Therefore, Republicans are socially conservative and economically liberal. Obviously, Democrats tend to be the opposite.

But both Republicans and Democrats are a mixture of liberal and conservative viewpoints.
So, you are right. Democrats are no more liberal than Republicans are conservative.


I thougth I would respond to a few of Glums remarks before moving past the whole good vs. evil thing.

Glum you stated,

Liberalism has caused the strong not to act, and the willing not to help.

Has the debate between pro life and pro choice minimized the eternal nature of a child? Yes.

Social liberalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Social liberalism (also new liberalism,^{[1] [2]}, radical liberalism^[3] or sometimes modern liberalism^[4]) is a development of liberalism stemming from the late 19th century. It has been a label used by progressive liberal parties in order to differentiate themselves from classical liberal parties, especially when there are two or more liberal parties in a country. Unlike classical liberalism which embraces a strictly laissez-faire philosophy, social liberalism sees a role for the State in providing positive liberty for individuals.

Social liberalism is a political philosophy that emphasizes mutual collaboration through liberal institutions. Social liberalism, as a branch of liberalism, contends that society must protect liberty and opportunity for all citizens. In the process, it accepts some restrictions in economic affairs, such as anti-trust laws to combat economic oligopolies, regulatory bodies or minimum wage laws, intending to secure economic opportunities for all. It also expects legitimate governments to provide a basic level of welfare or workfare, health and education, supported by taxation, intended to enable the best use of the talents of the population, prevent revolution, or simply for the perceived public good.

Question: if it protects the opportunity of all citizens, why are liberals not interested in protecting liberty and opportunity for the unborn child? Why are they not protecting the opportunity for the deserving students? Why do they only see separation of church-from-government and not government-from-church? they try to regulate religious practices quite frequently (I'm more than willing to expound if you would like examples).

Rejecting both the most extreme forms of capitalism and the revolutionary elements from the socialist school, social liberalism emphasizes what it calls "positive liberty", seeking to enhance the "positive freedoms" of the poor and disadvantaged in society by means of government regulation.

Like all liberals, social liberals believe in individual freedom as a central objective. However, they are unique in comparison to other liberals in that they believe that lack of economic opportunity, education, health-care, and so on can be considered to be threats to their conception of liberty.^[2] Social liberals are outspoken defenders of their idea of "human rights" and "civil liberties", and combine this with support for a mixed economy, with a state providing public services.

The day I stop seeing military recruiters harassed on college campuses, religious freedoms impinged, and freedom of speech only available to minorities, I will believe that liberals are truly liberals.

The paragraphs in bold were inserted by James McCann, the rest of the material is from Wikipedia.

Yea! My first, non-political post!

We are really getting into the Christmas spirit this year. We even killed our own tree!

Yup, we wandered off into the wilderness with some friends and a chainsaw and came back with the Christmas Tree by which all Christmas trees will be judged.

Tara ambled through the forest for a mile or so before she spotted the biggest tree in the forest and said. "This is the one" We killed it, chopped it to pieces and tried to move it. It took three of us to carry it back to the truck.

Here is what was left of it when we got home.

Yea, it's twice as tall as our friend Brian.

We had to hack more of it off to fit it in the front door.

Here it is in our living room.

Tara is in the background somewhere. Not surprisingly, our house smells like pine now. So do our clothes, our child, and, I think, you can smell it in the street.

Anyway, Merry Christmas!

Booker

I had the perfect plan.

First, I would find the story James was referencing. I would read it, undoubtedly find sound journalism, and then, throw it in James face for being too sensitive, seeing 'liberals' everywhere- in the crosswords even!

There was a slight hitch in my plan.

I didn't get through the first paragraph without rolling my eyes. What was this 'journalist' thinking? Then I wondered if his editor was on vacation.

It's pricelessly biased.

There is a story here. Mitt Romney uses a company that employs illegal immigrants. Doubly so because of his strong stance on illegal immigration.

Unfortunate, Yes. Worth a story? Of course.

Worth sending a journalist to Guatemala to interview former employees of said company? Uh, NO! How about scoping out the home of the Governor to see who shows up? Bizarre.

If we assume the burden of proof stated in the article I suppose that one would need to ask nearly every person who might be in the country illegally for documentation before patronizing their business. Is someone listening to Mariachi music at the gas station? Ok pal, where's the green card? Absurd.

I think it is ridiculous for a newspaper to take a story with connections as tenuous as 'they worked on his lawn' and come up with a headline that says 'Illegal immigrants toiled for Governor.'

Toiled?

From my perspective, they were justified in doing the story. But what was the purpose of painting the governor in such a contradictory light. Simple, they are trying to appease their readers. It's a shame when journalists abandon their pursuits of informing the public and begin to skew themselves to serve their readers interests.

I was surprised and I am a member of the 'liberal media'. What's going on here? It can be summed up in two words.

Yellow Journalism.

Read it here yourself.

Oh, yea! What's with the registration for the Globes site. Do they really need to know my household income before I can read your biased writing?

The joys of the internet. I am excited to join the dialogue. It is impressive to see everyone so passionate about these topics, it creates an inquisitive atmosphere.
Let me begin my thoughts with the vision statement we created for my new company, "Through moments of truth, you dignify your integrity." We adopted this statement for us to remain focused that in every situation we are faced with in the nursing home, we have the chance do dignify our integrity by not betraying the truth of the situation. This applies politically also.
This applies to both sides of the congressional isle. One thing that CA said was that in real life it is hard to have just right and wrong decisions. In principle, however, there cannot be any gray area period. God spoke in the first book of Moses about light and darkness, not grayness. He also spoke about everything having its opposite, not almost an opposite. In every decision or policy there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong, in principle. The result of the decision or policy may not reflect the exact truth of the principle that is being discussed, but that doesn't mean there is not an absolute.

In the political arena today, it is apparent that too many people are concerned with an agenda other than what is fundamentally right or wrong. It does no good for one party or another to attack what they perceive as being good or evil, or right or wrong based on agenda.

How is integrity dignified by moments of truth in politics? Good question. I think if that question could be answered, we would have nothing to talk about today. However, I am inclined to point out that there are some ways to narrow it down. Unfortunately for some and fortunately for others, it does lie in the differences between what the GOP promotes and what the Liberals promote.
Consider the statements below:

Liberalism has caused the strong not to act, and the willing not to help. How? Just look at the social problems creeping into our communities.
Has political correctness given way to apathy and agendaism? Yes.
Has gay marriage ruined the right of an adopted child and squelched the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman? Yes.
Has affirmative action extinguished the chance for a qualified man or woman regardless of race? Yes.
Will leaving Irag early jeoporadize our country immediately for future terrorism on our own land? Yes.
Has not being able to say," Christmas" hurt the principles our country was founded on of free speach and practice of religion? Yes.
Has the debate between pro life and pro choice minimized the eternal nature of a child? Yes.

Do these scenerios seem extreme? No. Liberalism and the majority of democrats are proponents for every alternative to the questions above. Is it easy to see where the problem is? Hopefully.

Hey Josh! Good idea Bro!

Hey guys--as proof that you are not the only ones I rant to........here is a copy of an email I sent to Boston Globe recently when they went off on Romney having "undocumented" immigrants do work for him.

Dear Saltzman,

I’m a Floridian………illegal or “undocumented” immigrants are everywhere.
I’ve yet to see a politician ask for green cards. It seems that the employer is here legally……..what is the issue? If Romney assumed that the workers were here illegally….wouldn’t he be guilty of “racial profiling?”

I commend Romney for taking a stand against ILLEGAL immigration, and don’t find this circumstance hypocritical in the least.

I can’t believe I read the Globe. I guess it’s a guilty pleasure…..can’t wait for the next witch hunt. Psssst….I heard Romney wears funny underwear.

Thanks for reading this email……..have a great day!

James McCann

P.S. congratulations on being the most biased newspaper on the continent!

I decided to put this together (slow day at work- I am so ready for vacation!) so we could have a place to keep all this stuff. You should all have emails that invite you to post here in your inbox. So have at it! You can either post an entry or just say something in the comments of someone else's rant.

Feel free to post your own nutso political thoughts but also, post some pictures from time to time so we can see how cute your kids are.

We thought it would be a good way to keep in touch and also make fun of each other at the same time. I think this will work as long as we don't take anything personally. Like I said, I think of you guys more as brothers than just friends, even if you are weird.

I chose to leave my name in the earlier message but took everyone else's out in case you want to use a screename.

I'll make some more changes to make it look prettier and if you have any suggestions, just let me know!

Josh

I’m in fixed prosthodontics right now……..boring the crap out of me…..so here we go.

The thing that Josh is the most riled up about is the good vs. evil thing. He has stated that “once you pin evil on a political party, you end progress. There is simply no way to negotiate with a person who thinks you are literally doing the work of the devil.”

I would like to start out by saying that is completely and utterly false……maybe it’s true regarding the weak-minded……not for me. Let me share a story with you. I think it’s safe to say that devil-worshipping is literally doing the work of the devil…..right? I happened to baptize a Satanist…….how did it happen? I saw the good in the individual and then became his friend regardless of his belief…..how was I able to “negotiate”………I don’t know, but he’s now a member.

Some would have me see the world with rose-colored glasses. There’s good and bad to having pornography, strip clubs, abortions, drugs, homosexual marriage, and removing God from everything--------MAKE A STAND PEOPLE! Stop being so understanding of evil and fight it.

That doesn’t mean you have to stop loving people.

Now, am I blind to seeing the good, no matter what the source?--NO! Do I agree with Kerry fighting for veteran benefits?—yes. Do I like Gore’s stance on global warming (despite his own motives)—yes. How about Rev Jackson’s stance on removing the “n” word from our vocabulary?—of course.

Good comes from ALL sources, but I refuse to be so politically correct as to deny what liberals are fighting for.

Can you still talk politics with me……..am I non-negotiable? So far, I’ve really enjoyed hearing from you two……and I hope I don’t sound like someone who is shut off.

I hope future political chats will be regarding the issues. I feel like we have to agree to disagree about the good vs. evil thing.

J.M.

Sorry if I came across as saying "conservatives are not educated." I have heard that
argument before and I think that falls into the same nonsensical
category of logical fallacy as arguments like "liberals are evil."
They are simple ad hominem attacks that detract from true debate.
James is much smarter than I and has more education than I ever will.
In spite of that (kidding!), he is quite conservative.

I can see how you could think I was implying that from when I wrote
"church leaders urge us to make educated decisions." I simply meant
was that I think we should not vote for one party because we think
that Mormons are supposed to be conservative. I think it is common
for members of the church to assume that they should be conservative
because they have been lead to believe that their religion urges them
to do so. That was me at one point actually! I actually joined the
college republicans because I felt that is where I belonged as a
Mormon.

The opposite is true. Gordon B. Hinckley stated (in that famous Larry
King interview) "The church does not become involved in politics."

My point is simply this. The root of evil is not the democratic
party. Our church does not, and never has stated anything near to
this. There is no question about party affiliation when you get your
recommend renewed. We are free to chose whatever party we want
because none is perfect (they both stink!) My point in relating
democratic leaders of the church was just to point out that you can be
a democrat and not get excommunicated. Many of the Church's'
doctrines could lead one to have political leanings for either party.
For example:

Ezra Taft Benson stated: "The central issue in the premortal council
was: Shall the children of God have untrammeled agency to choose the
course they should follow, whether good or evil, or shall they be
coerced and forced to be obedient? Christ and all who followed him
stood for the former proposition--freedom of choice; Satan stood for
the latter--coercion and force. The war that began in heaven over this
issue is not yet over. The conflict continues on the battlefield of
mortality. And one of Lucifer's primary strategies has been to
restrict our agency through the power of earthly governments (from his
book The Constitution--A Heavenly Banner)."

I understand this to mean that we should be free to make our own moral
decisions without government involvement. That is obviously a
left-leaning thought. But from that same idea, you could find support
for conservative economic ideals. The gospel leaves room for all
parties.

To pin 'evil' on a political party ends progress. There is simply no
way to negotiate with a person who thinks you are literally doing the
work of the devil. Israel and the Palestinians are a perfect example.
Many Israelis believe that god gave the land to them and that the
Palestinians should simply be destroyed. Guess what the Palestinians
believe? Same thing. No wonder they can't make any progress! All
they do is blow each other up.

When your platform is 'you are evil' you choosing to make no progress.
You might make yourself feel a little better but you don't solve
anything.

Also, if my statement that "we need to turn off rush, et al. and think
for ourselves" meant I felt that conservatives are uneducated then I
can understand that. That was not my intent. Keep in mind, I think
that applies to Air America listeners too. Being a member of the
media I try to keep apprised of what is being batted around the AM
dial. My knee-jerk reaction to James original list was that it was
nothing new to me. I had heard it all before, time and time again on
the radio. The same crap is constantly thrown at republicans from
democratic pundits, same tactics- different party. It's all mindless
banter and I just wish that I could hear something new.

While we live in a country that still has a separation of church and
state, I just think it is counter-intuitive to tell yourself that God
is on your side. If it weren't so, Mormons would have a heck of a
time with it. We may have Romney and Reid, but we're still a pretty
small minority. Besides, everything the government gets involved in,
it screws up! Just imagine what it would do to religion if it got
involved. Eek, I'll take secularism, thanks!

Imagine what it would be like to live under Shari'a as a Mormon. We'd
beg for secularism!

Finally, (Sorry, I know, I know. I can't shut up!) as for the media
thing. Sorry if I wasn't too clear. I was trying to say that, from
my perspective, there are instances of left-leaning journalism just as
there is right-leaning journalism. It just appears to me that the
real problem comes from those people who are unable to accept 'news'
if it doesn't support their opinions. The idea that there is a
liberal conspiracy to skew the news is as laughable as the 'protocols
of the learned elders of zion.'

James, I appreciate your firm stance. John Steinbeck (favorite author
btw) once wrote about how the one thing missing in this country is
people who are willing to stand for something that they believe in.
It is a rare person who is willing to take a stand for what is really
important. With enough of them, you can change the world.

But you criticise the 'liberals' because they offer no solutions.
Your critique was strictly pointing out their flaws and how they are
messing things up. If you feel that the liberals are screwing up
this country, what about the conservatives? Are their solutions going
to solve everything?

I feel that for a person to get to a position of influence in this
country, they have had to have made a myriad of concessions to their
party (can't get anywhere without either party support. The delegates
are really the ones who choose who leads this country) and had to
accept money from so many donors that by the time they are in a
position to do any good, they have sold their souls. Who has more
influence over a congressman: a lowly letter-writing voter or, the
multi-zillionare company that paid for your election? Most
politicians (if not all) serve those that got them in office and I
don't mean voters. We're too easily manipulated. When it comes down
to it, we really just have depublicans and republicrats. Governance
in this country has gotten so diluted that we don't even understand
the reasons our leaders make the decisions they do and they rarely
serve our best interests. That goes for both parties.

Democrats are too spineless to do any good, I think they are too busy
trying to please everybody to actually come up with any ideas, and in
the meantime, accepting any idea, no matter how repulsive.
Republicans, on the other hand, are set on doing things their way, no
matter how bad of an idea of it is. Then, when things go sour, they
play the 'doing whats right' card. It makes me think of "they draw
near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me."

Last thing (promise!), why do we owe our thanks to liberals for
pornography, etc? I fail to see a connection. I understand this is a
growing problem even in our own church, which is largely conservative.
Shouldn't we find someone to blame that actually has something to do
with the problem of pornography, like the consumer? I would dare to
guess that they are all not 'liberals'. What good does blaming a
bunch of bureaucrats do- other than sell books, that is.

I'm sure much of what I write will be misunderstood due to a lack of
clear thinking on my part but, what the hey, this is fun! Email is
weird because sarcasm gets totally lost but I get a kick out of you
guys making fun of my goofy ideas and appreciate that you don't get
mad when I bite back. We should get a blog or something where we can
respond to one anothers ideas. Heck, I think we could probably cover
the whole political spectrum!

This is, of course, all your fault You started it. :)

-Josh

I’ve been reading the past few emails and just wanted to give my two cents. First of all, I told JM earlier that I did share many of his feelings on those matters, but that I am also affiliated with neither party, because I vote based on whom or what I think is right (which I realize, is not what everybody think is right). People may see this method as a “copout” or “riding the fence” but I see it as having strong political feelings independent of any party bias. I also agree with you Josh in the fact that there are problems with being too party tied and/or extreme on either side of the line. Although I have listened to them, I don’t regularly listen to Hanitty, Rush, Colmes, and Franken. I’m also not one of those guys that thinks that all liberals are evil. I don’t think that all Republicans are evil either. There are obviously good and bad on both sides. I’ve worked in the Utah State Legislature and having had a Father in the Senate, I realize that this nation is not without it share of corrupt Republican politicians. But, it obviously is not without its fair share of corrupt democrat politicians either. Josh would probably know that having worked for the government as well. It is because of this that I tried to approach the past local and national elections with an open mind and without any political bias. This is something that I think that everybody should do (Republican or Democrat). I was just as ready to vote for John Kerry as I was for George Bush if I felt like he would do a service to our country.

Now Josh, I do want to call you on something. Just because a conservative (or liberal) doesn’t agree with a story does not mean that it isn’t an unbiased story (nor a biased one for that matter). Now, having said that, I do believe that the media is much more biased toward liberalism and I wish that they would give the story as it is, not as they think it should be displayed toward the public. I’ve seen so many shows that portray the conservative as a jerk and liberal as a hero. I’ve also seen the news withhold images or stories just because it doesn’t work for their political bias. Don’t get me wrong, I understand that there are problems on both sides of the line again, and I know that you work for a newspaper, but you have to admit there is some real bias in the media. All that I want, is for the media to give the story in an unbiased professional approach, whether or not conservatives or liberals agree with it. At this point I don’t think that they do.

You made a good point when you said, “Lincoln was often portrayed as making "the devil's deal" when he signed the Emancipation Proclamation. It is a good thing that history saw him differently, but no matter how history viewed him, he still did the right thing whether the people, of the time or this time, agreed with him or not. That is what we are shooting for in politics. Now having said that, I understand that life is more complicated than just saying that this is right and this is wrong. A lot of times, in politics as well as in life, I feel like I’m choosing between good and better or bad and worse. I felt this way this past presidential election. Adam and Eve felt that same thing in the garden of Eden. I think that is why the church teaches us to have the spirit with us, so we can make the right decisions at the right time and under the right circumstances. I think that it is in these decision making methods that partisan views can just plain get in the way. I mean, what if Nephi had “voted” not to kill Laban just because he believed murder was wrong.

Also, the idea that conservatives can’t think for themselves is something I’ve heard so many liberals say, and I think that the fact that you made that assumption Josh means that you are buying into the same type of partisan things that you’re accusing conservatives of buying into.

Also, I did realize that many of the early LDS church members were democrat, but you can’t tell me that we have the same democratic party today that we had back then. Back then, abortion was considered murder, God, reference to and belief in, was not being extinguished, and I am relatively sure that homosexual couples were not celebrated and given the right to marry. I have some very good friends who struggle with homosexuality and I know it is very difficult and I feel for them. I do not however, think the leaders of our church voted in support of any of these issues. Now having said this, I think that the church is very wise today to not endorse any political party, but to encourage its members to vote according to their own free will and conscience. I do think that you can be a good Mormon and vote Democrat or a good Mormon and vote Republican (…or Independent or Libertarian, etc), as long as you are voting according to what you know to be right.

Anyway, that’s probably all I’m going to say for now. Feel free to disagree and to make any comments. I like this open minded conversation that we have going. I think that its what friends should always have, whether we agree or not (... As long as we don’t kill each other). Anyway, I'll talk to you guys later.

C.A.

First off, good to hear from you, always. How I miss having these conversations in person where we can throw things at each other and do some proper arguing. Oh, well.

I thought I would take this chance to offer a few thoughts of my own, and, I hope, not ignite a firestorm in the process. I hope you take my words with the same open mind that I took yours. You are, after all, the best friends I have ever had. I consider you guys to be more like brothers than friends.

Now, enough with the gooshy stuff, on to politics.

First off, I'm no liberal. I am of the opinion that polititians (90% of them anyway) are not altruistic idealists. Moreso, I think most of them are self-serving except when they are serving special interests and corporate america. That goes for both sides of the isle. The idea that one party is evil and the other is good is just a sign that you have bought what one side is selling. This is not a new tactic. It is an old trick for politicos to categorize their oppenents as 'evil'. It's an easy way to energize voters.

For example: Lincoln was often portrayed as making "the devil's deal" when he signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Good thing history saw him differently.

John Quincy Adams campaign even had a song that culminated with this wonderful diatribe:

Tears are comin', fears are coming,
Plague and pestilence is comin',
Hatin's comin;, Satan's comin',
If John Quincy not be comin

Whew! Good thing he got elected or we'd all be living in the millineium.

Right!

Silly then, silly now. Don't buy it.

So if you do think it is a question of 'good and evil' I'm afraid that you have been duped. If you look at our own religion, you would think if there was a real, imminent danger in 'liberalism' we would have heard about it. In fact, maybe someone would have mentioned it, but, the opposite is true. We are constantly urged to think for ourselves and make educated political decisions.

Contrary to popular belief, early mormons were strongly democratic, in fact, "The early Utah community was so solidly Democratic that the mostly Republican post-Civil War Congress was reluctant to grant the territory statehood for fear it would be a knee-jerk Democratic state. To reassure Congress, church leaders simply asked half of the state's Mormons to register as Republicans, and in 1896, after decades of attempts, Utah finally became a state" ( <- copied from The New Republic article here).

Many church leaders were active democrats, Wilford Woodruff, Heber Grant, B.H. Roberts, Hugh B. Brown, James Faust, Marlin Jensen and Hugh Nibly. So if you want to call 'liberals' evil, think about who you are calling names.

Right now, conservative pundits have found a willing audience in those who are looking for someone to blame. Do the pundits really beleive that 'liberals' are 'evil'? I don't know, but it sure sells a lot of books!

Instead of looking at ways to change things, it's much easier to blame the liberals. Blame it all on them, from the economy to child porn, because their evil!

The truth is much more complicated. It's easier to blame someone else for the state of your country then to try to work with them to make progress. If there is anything wrong with this country, BOTH parties share the blame, equally (-there are pedophilic liberals and conservatives). The way that elected officials sell their souls to their parties and big business ensures that the needs of the rich are met much faster than the needs of the people.

In short, republicans are just as 'evil' (which is a word I dispute as politcally valid) as democrats.

As for thanking liberals for pornography, prostitution etc. I think this is a simple tactic used by conservative pundits to try to get evangelical christians to vote republican. I happen to live in the only state in the union where prostitution is legal and just happens to be extremely republican. How many votes in the past 40 years have been taken to make it illegal here? Yup, 0. But I will not point my finger at the conservative legislature and call them evil. No, I wish it were so easy. The fact is, they have sold their souls to the businesses in the state and wouldn't dare overturn something that makes so much money. I think the republicans will ride this rightous wave as long as it fits their political needs.

As I said, I do NOT consider myself 'liberal' (which, by the way, is just a buzzword right now. If Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh have it thier way it will soon fall in the same catagory as fascist or communist). I choose to not affiliate with either party any more because of the nature of our political environment. It's poison.

But, I am constantly shocked at the audacity of average conservative thought. I can't help but think of how misinformation permeated the former soviet union. They thought we were sadists, sexual deviants, and down right evil. I like to think they were wrong, but it goes to show you what a little misinformation can do to get people to stop thinking for themselves and begin reciting the party mantras.

For example, abortion. Big time political polarization right there. But, the majority of LDS don't think about it and say that they are pro-life when in fact they support abortion in cases of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is in danger. Folks, that's not pro-life. They would toss you right out of the conservative cheering squad for that one. I know you are all getting riled with me right now, but instead of catagorising each other and resorting to party mantras, there is actually intelligent debate to be had. It is not a matter of baby killers verses the religious nutsos. There is actually -gasp- discourse to be had about the pluses and minuses of both sides.

With worst-case scenarious when forcibly raped and impregnated women or girls are then forced to have the baby of a rapist, even in the horrible instance when it is a family member, you call that pro-life. Count me out. How about forcing your wife to have a child that will most likely not live and will probably kill your wife in the process? That's called pro-life. On the other hand, I agree that abortion, on principle is morally wrong. When a women uses abortions instead of common sense, it's murder. But calling it one way or the other, catagorizing someone either a baby-killer or religious nutso, that means your not thinking it through. We need to stop swollowing the dogma we are fed and start making our own observations. So what am I, pro-choice or pro-life. Neither, dangit.

I appreciate you allowing me to vent back to you. I was a little surprised by your email, but I am SO glad you sent it to me. Email me back with your thoughts, I think we all have progress to make. If there is one last thing I would say it is about the media. There is much talk about how liberal the media is. As a member of the 'media', I find this painfully laughable and perplexing. Specifically this claim is made by conservative pundits who make no attempt to be unbiased. They are the most guilty of that which they accuse others of (hey, is that a mote in your eye?) I find it scary that they make no attempt to provide real facts but rather, only those facts that will support their ideas. I happen to know how much effort is put into making a newspaper state the facts and not the personal opinions of the journalistic staff (obviously that doesn't go for the opinion section). Hardly a day goes by when we don't say to ourselves, 'will people think we are showing political preference if we run this story?' Or, 'we ran an article Senator X and his sex scandal last week on the front page. He has now been vindicated, we should make sure we put that out front to be fair."

What I have noticed is that conservatives complain that we are being biased only when a story doesn't support their pre-concieved notions. "I disagree with that story, dang liberal media!" All they want (I may be generalizing here) without even knowing it, is to have the media be biased toward them. If it is simply stating facts or, heaven forbid, portrays someone conservative in a bad light, it must be a liberal conspiracy! They then tune in to AM radio where they are required to do no thinking for themselves and their opinions are readily supplied to them. Unlimited access to even more brilliant opinions can be theirs for a small monthly fee. Also buy the newest New York Times bestseller, "Liberals want to eat your baby and Hillary Clinton is the Anti-Christ!" Three hours a day is all we ask!

In my opinion, 'liberals' as portrayed by conservatives, and 'conservatives' as portrayed by liberals, don't exist. They are imaginary thorns in your side to keep you from seeing the real problems in this country. The politicians, all of them.

In short, I think it's time we turn off Rush, Hannity, Colmes and Franken and do some thinking of our own.

-Josh

From one normal conservative to another; you nailed it. Once apathy sets into the psychi of the those who can make a difference, the only ones left are those do make a difference. you did it man. All that can be said is AMEN.

-D.G.

“A Few Reasons Liberalism is Not Steering Our Nation in the Right Direction”
By J.M. (an average conservative American)

I was disheartened by the change in power in the House and
Senate. It’s understandable considering the unpopular war, but I
think Americans forgot why they have been voting conservative in the
first place. This paper is a simple, yet passionate reminder. You
know, there is a reason why the nation is polarizing. It isn’t so
much about politics anymore as much as it is about the fight between
good and evil. I guess it’s up to you, with a little help from me, to
decide which side you want to be on. If you like this paper, feel
free to forward it—GOP Power! Please forgive my grammatical
errors—writing has never been one of my strengths.

As a disclaimer, some of the people I’m most fond of are
democrats and are truly amazing—they are liberal because of noble
reasons like helping the poor, giving people more freedoms, and
striving for world peace. I’m sure they will be offended by this
paper, but I’m sick of being politically correct.


1. They (liberals) cry “help the poor, help the poor!” But do not live
up statistically to the generosity of charitable conservatives.
Hypocritical liberals prefer the government to be responsible for
their own shortcomings as human-beings.

2. Liberals are all about giving people more freedom which is noble,
but some things are meant to be illegal; otherwise, the legalizing of
such things as drugs, pornography, and gambling is equivalent to a
stamp of approval from our government. These immoralities occur
regardless, they just don’t need the government’s endorsement.

3. Many liberals are anti-American. Whether intentionally or not,
they will support any anti-American, anti-white, or anti-religious
person (mainly Christian or Jew) before they support our president or
soldiers in a time of war.

4. Liberals believe they are protecting mothers’ reproductive rights
by being pro-choice. In reality, they are justifying murder and not
protecting the lives of the innocent. It is not protecting
reproductive rights as much as it is the REMOVAL OF CONSEQUENCES FROM
STUPID BEHAVIOR.

5. Liberals haven’t a clue what stem cell research is. It is
RESEARCH—not the cure. It’s been some time since we have used HUMAN
BEINGS AS LAB RATS, I'd like to think that we've evolved. It should
be noted that embryos are NOT the only source of stem cells.

6. Liberals want to take Christ out of everything from Christmas to
public prayers.

7. Liberals want to take God out of everything from the dollar bill to
the Pledge of Allegiance. Basically they want to remove the foundation
from what this country was built upon.

8. Liberals will fight for your right to say anything anti-American,
vulgar, or anti-religious in public, but will fight against the
people’s right to having the 10 commandments posted on public grounds.

9. Liberals claim that they embrace diversity. Why then, would they
prefer me to be a white Christian only in private? I, like most other
religious persons, don’t mind it when people of other religions
practice their beliefs around me (e.g. Jews, Muslims, and Atheists.)
—it’s cool, I might even learn something………all I want is the same
privilege--oh, and a Christmas tree downtown would be nice too.

10. Every time your child finds porn on the internet, you can thank a liberal.

11. Every time you hear cussing on public television while children
are in the room, you can thank a liberal.

12. Every time you see strip-clubs, casinos, and legalized
prostitutes, you can thank a liberal.

13. You can pick any city in the United States that has “San
Francisco values” along the lines of Europe’s Amsterdam, you can rest
assured that city is controlled by liberals. These are merely
correlations, but cannot be ignored if you want to see the FRUITS OF
THEIR LABORS.

14. Liberals fight discrimination with discrimination. In stead of
“may the best man or woman win,” we have affirmative action. This
places an unfair stigma on the truly qualified of all races.

15. Liberals support the grasshoppers of the world—you know—“the world
owes me a living’” type. We are not doing ANYONE any favors (except
for students, single parents and the disabled) by fostering their
endless state of non-self-reliance. Why have the liberals strayed so
far from FDR’s approach of giving people jobs?

16. Liberals fight for the rights of illegal immigrants. While we
need to help our neighbors, we should do it without undermining the
law. Somewhere in time the liberals have forgotten that illegal
immigrants are here ILLEGALLY. Most of us are Americans because we or
our ancestors immigrated the right way, so we know it is possible.

17. While many find it understandable to fight for homosexuals and
their right to marry, liberals are forgetting one very important
thing—THE CHILDREN. People get married to have families and raise
children. Every child needs a father and a mother for healthy social,
behavioral, and mental development.

18. The Liberals’ whole political stance the last 6 years has been
ATTACK BUSH. No one knows their plan for social security, terrorism,
national deficit, or economy because THEY HAVE NO PLAN WHATSOEVER!
Their whole campaigning strategy has been targeted on Bush.

19. Many liberals would have our troops leave Iraq tomorrow. Forget
the fact that would cause a humanitarian disaster, leave Iraq as a
haven for militant terrorist groups, and encourage other nations to
disrespect our nations’ resolve. In stead of fighting the war on
terror abroad, we’d be back to fighting the war here.

20. Liberals think that we can diplomatically solve all of our
problems in the Middle East. I’d like to see the liberals try to talk
peace to those people who decapitate hostages on television, vow the
destruction of Israel, and encourage their children to dance around
dismembered Americans.