The second annual Sages, for 2010...

This is the second annual presentation of the Sages, the end-of-the-year awards from the Sage Street blog. Congratulations to the winners, as well as the nominees!

BIGGEST POLITICAL WINNER--This category was painfully empty this year, as more people, including good politicians, actually lost. The nominees included Jerry Brown, a Democrat who won the California gubernatorial race for a second time; Scott Brown, a moderate Republican who used a pickup to pick up middle class support to win a Senate seat in Massachusetts; and both Democratic senators named Udall (cousins Mark Udall in Colorado and Tom Udall in New Mexico). But the winner is Lisa Murkowski, the former Republican and newly Independent senator from Alaska, who ran a long-shot write-in campaign and won. What Murkowski actually did was defeat the Tea Party, who had put up an extremely conservative candidate as the Republican nominee. Even better, Murkowski "defeated" Sarah Palin, who had backed the Republican candidate. It has been downhill in popularity and seriousness for Palin ever since.

BIGGEST POLITICAL LOSER--Wow, a filled category. The nominees included President Obama, who went to the aggravating center, compromised on important principles, and pretty much lost his progressive way, probably ending his chances for re-election as his enthusiastic majority faded slowly away. The young voters, who had supported his ideals, didn't like his need to rack up compromised achievements of lackluster legislation and so they didn't vote in the 2010 mid-term election and thus the Democrats lost the House and probably the future. Obama's concept of "change" seems to be replacing one Clinton Administration person with another Clinton Administration person. Doesn't he himself know anyone worthy of political thought outside of Clintonville and Chicago?! Other nominees included David Cameron, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, who showed the UK why conservatives don't lead to progress; the Democratic Party, who lost Nancy Pelosi as the Speaker of the House and three great progressive politicians Russ Feingold, Joe Sestak, and Alan Grayson, all who lost their elections; the Tea Party who put up crazy candidates like Christine O'Donnell, Sharon Angle, and other backward-thinkers who lost their elections; the Republican Party which is burdened by the likes of Mitch McConnell and John Boehner; and John McCain, whose flip-flopping stance on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy just made him look like an "old fool." But the winner or, in essence, loser in this category is the American people, because of all of the previous reasons.

MOST AGGRAVATING--The nominees included the Republican zeal for rich people as indicated by their demand for the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy despite what it will add to a budget deficit; British Petroleum with its leaking oil well in the Gulf of Mexico which created the biggest environmental disaster in U.S. history; the lack of jobs desperately needed by the unemployed; the failure of President Obama and the Democrats to promote a public option for health care; and the Republican denial of global warming despite the weather extremes and records. Many years ago, when I lived in Wyoming, I think my newspaper was the first in the state to recommend that Wyoming adopt the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. The governor at the time, though a Democrat--which often doesn't mean much in Wyoming--dragged his feet and waited and stalled, but finally approved the adoption. But by the time it was done, its passage seemed more embarrassing, for being slow, than triumphant, for being bold. Such was also the case for the December repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy concerning gay soldiers in the military. It was with a yawn, an "About time!" and finally joining the rest of the world democracies that the repeal got through Congress and to the president. But the winner for most aggravating and generally horrible is the continuation of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, with the loss of lives and the huge cost. The war in Afghanistan goes into its 10th year, the longest in U.S. history.

BEST PEOPLE MOMENTS--The nominees included Shirley Sherrod, the woman who was unfairly removed from her job at the USDA, who showed why the rant and the sloppiness of the right-wing media is destructive; Velma Hart, the woman who spoke her mind to President Obama at a CNBC town meeting concerning the economy and expressed what most of us in the middle class were thinking; when the former insurance executive apologized and described to filmmaker Michael Moore the effort by Cigna and the insurance industry generally to undermine his documentary "Sicko" because the insurance industry didn't want Americans to start a populist movement for universal health care; Anderson Cooper, for an amazing moment after the Haiti earthquake when he came to the rescue of an injury boy; and the inspirational views of Elizabeth Edwards on the Larry King Live show, not long before her death. The winner is Jon Stewart whose speech at his D.C. rally noted the concept of respect and community by using the analogy of drivers taking their turns in traffic: "You go, then you go, then you go." And everyone gets to where they are going on the American highway of opportunity, freedom, and care.

BEST TV NEWS SHOW GUESTS--Howard Dean, Anthony Weiner, Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Edwards, and Joe Biden who is probably the best member of the Obama Administration for, as vice president, being able to speak to truth while the president speaks to politics. The winner is Ralph Nader, who showed up on the Lawrence O'Donnell news show. Wow, he had been missed!

THE QUOTE OF THE YEAR--The nominees included the response by President Obama in the Jon Stewart interview of "Yes, we can, but..." It was a "but" that just confirmed why Obama is seen in disappointing ways. Another nominee is the recent "tweet" by Newark, N.J., Mayor Cory Booker that noted "I just doug out your car," a reference to his good work in helping to clear streets of snow but which also shows why politicians shouldn't use Twitter if they can't spell. ("Dug" not "doug" unless it is a play-on-words for a guy named Doug who had a snowed-in car and, in that case, might be clever. Twitter language is supposed to reduce letters to irritating spellings of "u" for you, not increase letter amounts.) And who could ever forget--even if you want to--the quote from a young man's airport security experience, "Don't touch my junk." It was aimed at Pat Down, the ubiquitous airport security person. But the quote of the year is "I am not a witch," spoken by Delaware senatorial candidate Christine O'Donnell, conjuring up ghostly images of Richard Nixon's "I am not a crook." And when O'Donnell uttered the words, she was wearing a black blouse with a black background. All that was missing was a black, pointy witch's hat. Couldn't her PR people have at least suggested the colors of green or pink or blue as the color companion if she were going to go there?

A TIP OF THE HAT TO...All are winners here: Salvatore Giunta, Medal of Honor winner for heroic service as an American soldier in Afghanistan; Larry King, who retired from his interview show on CNN; Andy Griffith, who became a spokesman for TV public announcements about health care reform; and Leslie Nielsen, who died in December, leaving a movie legacy of deadpan humor and entertaining comedies.

BEST TV ENTERTAINMENT MOMENTS--The nominees included Andy Samberg's songs, often with nasty innuendo but always goofy and funny, on "Saturday Night Live"; the Geico Insurance commercial about the "woodchucks chucking wood;" the clever writing of James Thurber as read by MSNBC news personality Keith Olbermann; and the entertaining CNN teaming of Anderson Cooper and Kathy Griffin for the New Year's eve show. But the winner is Betty White, whose monologue and comedy-sketch performances as a guest host on "Saturday Night Live" was very amusing. She seems pretty ageless with her sparkle and wit.

BEST ENTERTAINMENT TV SHOW--"Saturday Night Live," "Merlin," "Haven," "The Mentalist," "The Closer," "Parks and Recreation," and "Monk." The winner is "Smallville" though the absence of the character Chloe, played by Allison Mack, was evident this past fall.

ACTORS AND ACTRESSES TO WATCH who are early in their careers, all of whom are winners: Ashley McKay, Yuval David, and Carlo Marks.

BEST NEWS SHOW--"Rachel Maddow Show," "Keith Olbermann's Countdown," "Anderson Cooper's 360," "Nightline," "60 Minutes," "Ed Schultz Show," "The McLaughlin Group," "Need to Know," "Fareed Zakaria's GPS," "Reliable Sources," "Caught on Camera," "Now," "CBS Evening News with Katie Couric." The winner is the PBS News Hour.

BEST NETWORK--MSNBC (except for the crime show schedule on the weekends), CNN, History Channel, Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, and the Sci-Fi Channel. The winner is PBS for depth of news and information, music, and historical programming.

WHAT I NEVER WATCHED (not once in 2010): Fox news or commentary shows, most reality shows, "American Idol," "Mad Men," and "Dexter."

BEST BOOKS (from the ones that I read, some of which were written in earlier years): "The GI Bill, A New Deal for Veterans," "Thirty-Eight Witnesses," "All the Devils Are Here, the Hidden History of the Financial Crisis," and "Jacob Riis, Reporter and Reformer." The winner is, but I'm very biased on this category, the sixth edition of the Wyoming Almanac. For digital books: "The Wolves and Short Stories" and "Sage Street."

BEST MOVIE (from movies I watched, some of which were made in earlier years): Not as many good ones as last year that I found, mainly through Netflix. "Avatar" and "Blind Side," which were two from last year that I finally watched. Also, "Daybreakers," and "2:37." For an indie film, the winner is "Entre Nos," a 2009 movie about Colombian immigrants in New York city. Paola Mendoza was the main actress as well as director in a story based upon her mother's experience in struggling to provide for her children. For a major film, it has to be "Avatar," which was excellent and really set a new standard in special effects. (Favorite movies continue to be "Dear Frankie," "Idiocracy," "Bella," "Sin Nombre," "Angel-A," "Children of Heaven," "Evil," "Unleashed," and "Across the Universe," and the segment leading up to the sheep driving the truck off the cliff in "Black Sheep.")

And drum-roll...

HONOREE (PERSON OR ORGANIZATION) OF THE YEAR--Last year, the Sage Street "Honoree of the Year" was singer Pete Seeger. Time magazine named Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, as its 2010 "Person of the Year." Sorry, Zuckerberg didn't even make the list for the Sages. This year, the nominees were:

Elizabeth Edwards, who lived with grace, optimism, and resilience and who died of cancer before the year ended. She also was probably the truest voice among the many leaders in politics and society for progressive action.

Jon Stewart, who kept the humor and insight going on his TV show. He continues to be a political power through his sharp perspectives.

Rachel Maddow, who provides meticulous depth on issues on her MSNBC TV news show while she also is smart, likable, has a sense of humor, and can easily smile, which is rather rare and unaccomplishable for most TV talking heads, especially the mean, angry ones on the right.

Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize winner who writes about economics and politics for the New York Times, who always had insightful views about the economy and recommended an approach more like one from FDR.

The people within the organizations of Amnesty International and the ACLU for continuing the important missions of those organizations.

The winner is the WikiLeaks organization of people who have determined its mission of dedication, as a website, to worldwide governmental and business transparency. It is hoped that Julian Assange, the founder of the site, is correct in defining the criminal accusations against him as false and as a smear campaign. However, the site itself should not be judged by the personal conduct or behavior of one person. The information on the WikiLeaks is probably the most important addition to American journalism since the passage of the Freedom of Information Act.

(To see the first Sage award nominees and recipients, go to the Politics category for 12/29/09.)

Book Review: "The GI Bill, A New Deal for Veterans"

Book: "The GI Bill, A New Deal for Veterans"
Authors: Glenn C. Altschuler and Stuart M. Blumin
Publication date: 2009

Ten years after WWII, the Census Bureau found that 15.7 million veterans had returned to civilian life in the United States. Of that number, 12.4 million (78 percent) benefited directly from the GI Bill. When surveys were taken of American veterans, two-thirds of them answered, "The GI Bill changed my life."

That information is part of a paragraph from the book titled "The GI Bill, A New Deal for Veterans" by authors G. Altschuler and S. Blumin.

The authors note that the GI Bill became the largest government program in American history. "By providing job training, unemployment compensation, housing loans, and tuition assistance, it allowed millions of Americans to fulfill their dreams of upward social mobility."

The GI Bill, signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1944 under the name of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act, allowed soldiers coming out of the world war, following the decade of the Great Depression, to go to college, acquire job skills, buy homes, and, in essence, create a strong middle-class for a healthy U.S. economy. It was, and continues to be (to this day), an economic stimulus package in reward to veterans for service to their country.

The book provides an interesting history of American politics concerning the treatment of veterans, dating back on the continent to settlers of Plymouth in 1636 with a measure "to maintain for life any soldier maimed in the colony's service."

Several dozen veterans' benefit laws--the first in 1776--addressed the needs of soldiers and veterans of the Revolutionary War. In 1817, fifth U.S.President James Monroe proposed that Congress award pensions to Revolutionary War veterans. At first, while Union soldiers benefited from national pension laws following the Civil War, soldiers of the Confederacy had to rely on the limited resources of their home states. Eventually, the Civil War pension system was expanded to all veterans. World War I veterans waited only 12 years for the enactment of a non-service-related disability or needs-based pension, according to the book, compared to 35 years for Revolutionary War veterans and 25 years for Civil War veterans.

But the largest expansion of assistance for veterans came with the FDR New Deal program in the 1940s. And it came the fastest for the WWII veterans.

Over the next few years, with government-backed loan guarantees, 4 million vets bought homes at low interest rates and 200,000 purchased farms and businesses, according to the book. "Education and training became the great surprise of the GI Bill. A whopping 51 percent of GIs took advantage of this provision: Altogether 2.2 million attended college or university and 5.6 million opted for subcollege training." The veterans were known for taking education seriously. According to the book, a Harvard professor said, "The window-gazers and hibernators have vanished. This crowd never takes their eyes off you." A student, competing with the veterans, said, "It's books, books, books all the time. They study so hard we have to slave to keep up with them." Harvard University's president, who had once been a critic of federal funding for higher education, said the GI Bill was "a heartening sign that the democratic process of social mobility is energetically at work, piercing the class barriers which, even in America, have tended to keep a college education the prerogative of the few."

Veterans became civilians and went to college, acquired job skills and went to work, bought homes for new families, and created a middle-class in the decades to follow that was probably stronger than any other time in U.S. history. And the whole nation benefited.

"The GI Bill, A New Deal for Veterans" is interesting and insightful. I found it at Murrell Memorial Library at Missouri Valley College, but it can probably be found in libraries and bookstores through America.

Bad poetry finds a home with rap music...

I was so moved by the bad poetry of the rap songs of Eminem and Lil Wayne on Saturday Night Live tonight that I took a few minutes to write some crappy rhymes for a couple of rap songs.

Here's what I came up with....

Title: SHEEP BLEAT
You walk down the street.
You can't find defeat.
You sure take the heat.
You might lose your seat.
You'd better like the beat.
Or go slip on the sleet.

Title: MY ROBOT FRIEND
Robot
I bought
for war
I thought
It tore
A lot
And what
I got
was not
One shot.

Title: JESUS AT WAL-MART
Jesus
Squeeze us
Freeze us
Please us
Have some rice
Throw some dice
Pack some ice
Kill some mice
Find a price
Wal-Mart

And finally this title: MAD FRED
Give 'em real.
Take a pill.
Don't fulfill.
Walk, talk, balk, polio guy.
Sock, sock, sock.
Argyles.
No cops.
Corn crops.
Sweet honey.
Got money.
Prosecute my pants from my ass.
And if I care.
Fred Astaire.

News at 10...

This just in...

The Las Vegas odds-makers, the jellyfish experts, and the spelunkers were correct with their predictions about President Obama and the extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy. Yep, he caved.

Republicans are working on what they will ask President Obama to cave on in 13 months when the unemployment benefits come due again for renewal.

President Obama's new slogan for the 2012 presidential race may not work quite as well as his slogan "Yes, We Can" in 2008. "Yes, We Cave" just doesn't have the same lofty ring.

Future Speaker of the House John Boehner cried three different times during the interviews by Lesley Stahl on "60 Minutes" last week. Then Boehner watched the segment on TV, and cried again.

In a memo to all Republicans in Congress, Republican strategist Frank Lutz advised, "Never replace the phrase 'trickle down' with the wording 'urine stream'."

Presumably without compromising, President Obama recently signed the Child Nutrition Act, endorsed by first lady Michelle Obama. He joked that otherwise he might have been sleeping on the couch. In the meantime, Progressives have refocused their efforts on getting the first lady's support for legislation in the future. They call it "The Couch Strategy."

Time magazine named that Zuckerberg kid, the founder of Facebook, as the person of the year. The choice made future Speaker of the House John Boehner cry.

OK, let me get this right (or maybe reich would be the more precise word if it's up to the censors). The government has fits about WikiLeaks and probably does its bullying best to make sure Americans can't find the site, while, on the other hand, we can be bothered by someone who wants to buy a chicken for their fake Farmville on Facebook, learn on AOL what Taylor Swift is doing on her birthday, and probably surf a zillion online porn sites. But, no, don't try to find the WikiLeaks site.

Though hundreds, if not thousands, of people at all kinds of levels in the military and government, had access to material that eventually found its way to WikiLeaks, the government is going to prosecute a military private. Said the Secretary of State, said the Secretary of Defense, said the state department officials, said the defense department officials, said the diplomats, said the generals, said colonels, said the majors, said the lieutenants, said the sergeants, said the corporals, "Blame the privates."

This week's episode of the TV show "Celebrities Chasing Squirrels" features Bill O'Reilly fighting a squirrel for a nut. O'Reilly is mean, so the squirrel didn't have a chance.

President Obama called in former President Bill Clinton to try to sell his compromise on the tax cuts for the rich. Seeing Clinton again at the lectern was about as refreshing as kicking a skunk. But Obama couldn't call in former President Jimmy Carter, who took the Democratic Party to the center and then didn't win a second term, or former President George H.W. Bush who compromised on his famous "Read my lips" tax promise and didn't win a second term, or former President George W. Bush who already urged passage of tax cuts for the rich years ago. And since all other former presidents, many of whom were actually strong and tough, are dead, well, that left Bill Clinton.

The national news media went ga-ga when former President Bill Clinton showed up to point his finger and lock his jaw at Obama's presidential lectern. The U.S. Olympics committee declared that news personalities Chris Matthews and Chuck Todd performed the most perfect cart-wheels.

Former U.S. Senator Alan Simpson of the Debt Commission commented about the progress of the commission proposals, "Throw a rope around it and then see if any muskrats will gnaw at it." Asked about why he called senior citizens greedy, he replied, "Some grasshoppers are green and some grasshoppers are brown and fly farther." Asked about the large cost of war, he said, "Only dance when you can hear the drums." Asked what he means any time he speaks, he answered, "The mud is deep on the wet side of the river bank."

The Photo of the Year...

The photo that should be sent to everyone this holiday season to adorn their desks and tables is the one of Prince Charles and his wife Camilla with their astonished expressions when their Rolls Royce limousine on route to the theater was accosted by college students protesting tuition hikes in Great Britain and unkindly uttering "Off with their heads!"

It was a wildly entertaining photo, meant to become as good a holiday tradition for everyone's viewing as Jimmy Stewart's movie "It's A Wonderful Life."

Now, let me repeat part of the facts of that moment: The royals. In their Rolls Royce limousine. On their way to the theater.

And the second part of facts: Students in the street, hoping to afford an education.

Prime Minister Cameron, the current British leader from the political conservative right, is looking more and more like the Herbert Hoover of Great Britain. That means that Liberal Party leader Clegg, whose support was necessary for Cameron to ascend to leadership, is looking more and more irrelevant. For an American comparison, it would be like Cameron is the Republicans and Clegg is Obama. Of course, the royals are the main constituency of the Republican Party which is the 2 percent group of millionaires that the Republicans here so dutifully support, as was the case with the recent proposal for the extension of the Bush tax cut for the wealthy.

Wow, if the Bush tax cut extension for the wealthy does indeed get passed by the Republicans and Obama, despite the protests of progressive Democrats, then someone needs to send around a memo that says, "Got the tax cut again. Bless your lucky stars. And spend like hell." The memo needs to encourage all those millionaires, in the absence of their self-sacrifice for the nation, to do their darnedest to buy another car or two and an extra 3-D TV and some new laptop computers and the latest texting gadgets for their kids in college, to take a trip to Yellowstone Park, to hire another maid and gardener, and to expand that company that hires so many workers. In other words, to spend like crazy so that the economy improves and more middle-class people can find jobs and leave the unemployment lines.

And, of course, that's where it is especially important to include with the memo the photo of the royal distress and surprise of Prince Charles and his wife, as it wouldn't be good if that photo comes to define the future.

Presidential advisers mystify me...

I must admit that sometimes I am mystified by presidential advisers.

Like today, I saw two economic advisers from the Obama Administration on TV and they were both saying that Obama made a good deal when he compromised on the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Then they said that they didn't like that particular part of the deal, but that it would be easier in two years, right after the 2012 election, to get rid of the tax cuts for wealthy. Why? Because they said it would then be clear that it didn't help the economy. So, then it would be an easy cut.

Hmmmm. Now, I am no economic wizard, but doesn't that imply that in order for the tax cuts for the wealthy to be seen as unsuccessful, then also it means that the economy (or the employment rate) doesn't improve? Do they think the economy and employment rate won't improve in two years? Wow! I hope not. Because that means none of their ideas (or the least the few that they have) were successful and so they haven't worked. Wow, I sure hope this economy improves in two years.

But wouldn't it also be true that if the economy improves, the proponents of the tax cuts for the wealthy could point to it as one of the reasons for economic improvement and thus make the case even more than now that those tax cuts need to be kept in place? And then that would mean an extension of the extension of the tax cuts of the wealthy.

Wouldn't it be just better to eliminate the tax cuts for the wealthy now, which should reduce the national debt, and then to work like a busy FDR to improve the economy...and then show that the tax cuts for the wealthy weren't needed?

The Obama advisers mystify me. But maybe they have to say something and put as much of a happy face on it as possible, considering that they made such a goofy mistake.

Grace, disgrace, jellyfish politics, and journalism resources...

Some random thoughts on the news of our times...

It is certainly sad to hear of the death of Elizabeth Edwards, a health care activist and political leader in her own right. She died of cancer yesterday. Though she played a supportive role in her husband's campaigns, she would have been the better candidate. She had the passion and also the integrity. Through her illness and the scandal of her husband's affair, she showed spirit, resilience, and grace. She was inspirational and will be greatly missed by an America with so many needs for activists and courageous voices.

As a journalist and educator, I believe that the best resources that American journalists now have number six in general terms. They are: 1). The First Amendment; 2). The U.S. Supreme Court decision of New York Times v. Sullivan; 3). The Freedom of Information Act; 4). Shield laws when they are strong; 5). Sunshine laws for meetings and records; and 6). WikiLeaks, which comes new just this year to my list.

The jellyfish experts and the spelunkers were right. President Obama caved and sold-out to compromise with a Republican minority once again for some bewildering reason. This time concerning his willingness to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. That would be $60 billion per year that goes to the top 2 percent of income holders in America while the nation can't afford it. That amount of money is equal to what the U.S. could provide if it wanted to provide free college for students or $500 per American in a check rebate, according to a recent New York Times list of possibilities. If either political party were truly serious about reducing the budget deficit, this was the best first sacrifice to start the national effort going. Instead, President Obama gets rolled over again, like a bowling pin. Any new suggestion of where the budget should be cut now--usually aimed at the middle-class or people below the poverty line--would be a cruel and ridiculous joke. I do believe that it is essential that a candidate from the left emerge to challenge Obama in 2012. Perhaps Russ Feingold, Howard Dean, or others. Someone who is a real, actual progressive who isn't likely to dump a principle for a quick compromise. Obama appears to be weak and spineless. That won't be difficult to run against. I don't think Obama will win the 2012 election, so the Democratic Party is crazy if it provides him with the nomination. We expected FDR and we got Hoover who likes the banks. We were hoping for Harry Truman and instead got Bill Clinton and the love of the middle ground that always seems to be farther to the right and to satisfy the Republicans most of all. The middle-class desperately needs to have a better choice for the future.

President Obama's presidential slogan in 2008 was "Yes, We Can." Well, for his next presidential campaign for 2012, for accuracy it probably should be "Yes, We Cave." (My brother noted that phrase and I just had to use it here.)

I recently told PayPal to take me off their e-mail list as I don't intend to use that service, especially in light of their response to the WikiLeaks controversy. PayPal said it was intimidated by the U.S. State Department. Well, that's too bad...and I won't miss their promotional e-mails. I also recently asked to be taken off the Organizing for America e-mail list by the Obama campaign. Enough of that, too.

The difference between conservative and liberal environments...

I can tell that Americans live in a conservative environment socially and politically, thanks to politicians and media, based upon the issues that are framed as provocative or controversial.

In liberal environments, social and political issues tend to lack a provocative nature because freedom, width, breadth, and diversity allow for a lot. If it is done, it is tolerated, it is accepted, it is part of the fabric of the society, its controversy is diminished, if not erased. In conservative environments, on the other hand, provocative and controversial issues are widespread because they are far beyond the norm, the allowed, the legal, the narrowness.

Since about every feature or concept can usually be framed to accommodate the conservative mind or the liberal mind, it then rests on who's doing the framing. Usually those are the people in power, which includes generations-old senators and rich media personalities.

So, for example, the American media might refer to Julian Assange of WikiLeaks as an anarchist because he believes in the transparency of government, even if it means publishing governmental secrets, while the same media wouldn't use the same word to describe Rand Paul, the senator from Kentucky who ran on the platform of opposing government.

It is like with the silliness about the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the U.S. military. What a non-issue, if the environment were Sweden, Norway, France, Canada. But, of course, in the conservative environment of America, it is agonized over, debated endlessly, and senate committees waste time on its focus. Gay soldiers are already in the U.S. military and always have been. The recent survey of soldiers noted that most wouldn't have a problem with the repeal of the policy, which is discriminatory. Most straight soldiers probably are insulted by the idea that they couldn't handle it. The percentage of support for repeal is way greater than when President Truman ordered the end to military segregation of white and black soldiers.

Nonetheless, a stern Marine commander, who has higher percentage figures from his military branch to support the continued discrimination, tells a senate committee that the change would impact cohesiveness. Of course, there are no one polls to see how many bigots are in the Marines or other branches of the service and how that might affect cohesiveness. No, leave the bigots in there because we need them to fight. Apparently, most U.S. soldiers must have adjusted and adapted to the fact that some of their buddies are likely ignorant bigots and/or otherwise insecure about sexuality. Thus, the cohessive issue isn't about mind-set, especially if the mind-set, such as prejudice, comes from within a conservative culture.

About every political or social issue, from God to book-banning, also could be framed narrowly or widely depending upon whether the environment is conservative or liberal. The conservatives see it narrowly and thus any views beyond the status quo are seen as provocative and controversial. Liberals see it broadly. They see no need for stress and they accept the range.

People in other countries where liberalism isn't seen as horrifying must look at America and sometimes shake their heads in wonder. Of course, at least America has Iran, Iraq, and other also conservative societies beat...At least, thank goodness for that.