Even before President Obama was elected right-wing nuts were sounding the alarm. According to them Obama is a socialist. Unfortunately, for those who are more interested in overusing one-word descriptions one cannot be a socialist unless they subscribe to the theories of socialism. Socialism, like most other words, has a well-defined set of definitions. So, in an effort to further your education I will paste the wiktionary definition of socialism below and then discuss why Obama’s policies are not those of a socialist.

Wiktionary defines Socialism as: “1. Any of various political philosophies that support social and economic equality, collective decision-making, and public control of productive capital
and natural resources, as advocated by socialists.
2. The socialist political philosophies as a group, including Marxism, libertarian socialism, democratic socialism, and social democracy.
3. (Leninism) The intermediate phase of social development between capitalism and full communism. This is a strategy whereby the State has control of all
key resource-producing industries and manages most aspects of the market, in contrast to laissez faire capitalism.
4. (Classical Marxism) The international communist society where classes and the state no longer exist.”

The second definition is simply a restatement of the historical political groupings that have been used to describe the socialism agenda. The third definition revolves around the theory of socialism made famous by Lenin after he took control of Russia. Under Lenin’s theory the state controls all industries and manages just about the entirety of the market. If you are cognizant enough to understand that the government does not own all grocery stores, gas stations, malls, and almost every other place you go—you should have figured out that Obama has not brought a Lenin-style government to Washington.

The forth definition of socialism focuses on the philosophy of Marx. Under Marx’s ideology, the state controls everything and the government is a dictatorship. Since many of you have been allowed to freely protest things, like health care reform, that make sense it should be obvious to you that Obama is not a dictator. And, again, his government controls very few of the businesses you deal with every day.

Your best hope for accurately defining Obama as a socialist can be found in the first definition. It is true that Obama strongly prefers “collective decision-making,” but it is also true that no government could function if every decision was made by the collective. If you do not believe me look at the mess too much involvement by an uninformed electorate in California has contributed to. And, once again, Obama’s government has almost no involvement with the vast majority of businesses and industries you deal with on a daily basis.

As you should now understand Obama does not subscribe to Socialism. So, he can not intelligently be called a socialist. It is fine if you want to oppose Obama’s ideas, but it would be very helpful to the debate if you spent some time attempting to learn something about the issues you are discussing and the meaning of the words you are using to describe them before showing us how uninformed you really are. Simple words have the power to insult and label, but when used incorrectly they only seek to reflect poorly on those who are using them.

The Commerce Department has revised the amount of growth done by America’s economy during
the third quarter of this year. As you may remember, early estimates were that our gross domestic
product (GDP) grew at a rate of 3.5 percent during the third quarter. Now, the Commerce Department
has revised that number down to 2.8 percent.

While the 2.8 percent figure is disappointing when compared to the 3.5 percent figure we must not
lose sight of the fact that it still represents a strong improvement, and marks the beginning of the
end of our deep recession. Unfortunately, much of the growth during the third quarter was a direct
result of extraordinary government spending that will not be sustainable in the long term. Programs
like the “Cash for Clunkers” program and the homebuyer tax credit as well as spending from the
stimulus program were the main driver of the growth.

Consumer confidence, and the spending it fosters, normally constitutes 70 percent of spending in the
American economy. Today, that percentage is lower and not expected to rise in the near future.
Since so much of consumer confidence is driven by the nation’s employment picture and the
availability of credit we cannot expect a noticeable increase in consumer spending for months.

Given all of this it seems as if our economy will grow at a rate that is somewhat close to the 2.8
percent it grew during the third quarter. But it is likely that growth will be much smaller during the
first two quarters of next year when the holiday season is over and government spending slows
down. Sadly, there is currently a strong correlation between government spending and economic
growth. While it is true that much more needs to be done to get America working again none of
those efforts can substitute for short-term government spending.

If we want to put America back to work we need to grow the economy and encourage hiring. So, you
can expect to here about a package of targeted tax cuts for business–especially small business—and
more government programs designed to spend money. In short, how quickly we recover will depend
on how willing we are to embrace the necessary government spending that the seriousness of the
situation demands.

The Senate’s health care reform bill calls for a five percent tax on elective plastic surgery and cosmetic treatments. In this article, plastic surgeons do their best to try and argue against the proposal. The amount of sexism in their language is striking and demonstrates not only how they market their services, but how many women have been influenced by them. Repeatedly, they argue that women from all demographic backgrounds want these treatments to make them more competitive in the job market. Sadly, our all too shallow society may provide a small bit of evidence to support their claims, but the tax is still a good idea. Americans spend far too much money attempting to defy nature. Aging is a fact of life. Our focus on youth—especially in the workplace is very misguided. Since I am blind I have no idea what someone looks like when I meet them; as result, I am able to focus on what they are saying to me. It would be a good idea if more Americans tried living this way. A few wrinkles does not make someone a bad worker. It is sad to think that so many women are convinced that their value is diminished by things that are out of their control. At our core people are not skin or breasts—people are brains and hearts.

Lately, there has been much discussion as to whether or not people want health care reform. Today, I would like to answer another question. Today, I would like to discuss whether or not people need health care reform. Unfortunately, partisan political debates, like the one ongoing over health care reform, often have more to do with the uninformed being manipulated than they do the facts. So, let’s examine the facts as they currently are.

Much of the opposition to health care reform has come from people living in so-called red (Republican) states. A quick look at the facts leads to an unmistakable conclusion—citizens who live in red states and oppose health care reform are screwing themselves.

Nine of the 10 states with the most uninsured are red states. Twenty of the 24 states with the most uninsured are traditionally red states. Eighteen of those have uninsured rates that are at least two percentage points above the rate of the nation as a whole. For the purposes of this post I did not count Colorado or Oregon as red states, because the evidence indicates that they are no longer solidly red. If you still count them as red then the numbers are even worse for red states which would comprise 22 of the 24 states with the highest rates of uninsured.

Conversely, eight of the 11 states with the least uninsured are so-called blue (or Democratic) states. If you include Pennsylvania and Hawaii, two states that are trending blue, then 10 of the eleven states with the least amount of uninsured are blue states.

Massachusetts, which is the only state that has attempted to get all of its citizens covered, has an uninsured rate of 5.4 percent. This rate is 2.5 percent lower than that of Hawaii which has the second lowest rate of uninsured. In comparison, more than a quarter of Texans are living without health insurance. New Mexico (23.2 percent) and Florida (20.2 percent) also have uninsured rates above 20 percent; meaning that more than one-in-five citizens of those states is living without health insurance.

Given the reality these facts proves red state opposition to health care reform simply does not make any sense. Once again, too many red state voters are being convinced to follow some stupid ideology rather than to support what makes sense for them. If anything citizens of blue states, who overwhelmingly pay the bills of this nation, should oppose health care reform. After all, they need it less and will mostly be responsible for paying the bill. But that approach would be foolish in the long term. The reality is that citizens of blue states must ram health care reform through, because without it citizens of red states, who are much more unhealthy than are citizens of blue states, will wind up costing the taxpayers of blue states much more.

In conclusion, red states that, by enlarge, are drains on our nation’s treasury, and have the highest rates of obesity, should allow blue states to save some money and pass health care reform. Asking blue states to pay significantly more money over decades simply to allow red states to continue clinging to an outdated ideology they wish led to outcomes it simply does not is totally unfair. As long as red states contribute the least and, on average, cost the most their objections are not only foolish they are selfish.

America—especially those living in red states—needs health care reform. In a society as wealthy as ours is no one—even those who do not know any better—should not be subjected to a life without health insurance.

As some of you may remember I have previously criticized the sexist treatment of Sarah Palin. While I almost never agree with Palin I do believe many progressives have tolerated and contributed to sexist treatment of her because they disagree her views. Having said that, I think Sarah Palin has become too much about being a victim and not enough about being a serious political operative.

Last night, I watched an entire hour-long interview with Palin on Fox News. I am not going to link to the interview, because to call it an interview would discredit all serious attempts to discuss the issues of the day with a politician. Honestly, I do not believe that Sarah Palin is capable of discussing the important issues America is facing in any amount of depth. The answers she gave, the few times substance accidently made its way into the conversation, were nothing more than a recycling of Republican talking points. So far, Palin has been unable to demonstrate anything close to a working knowledge of any of the issues a serious presidential candidate must understand.

If Sarah Palin wants to be seen as anything more than a right-wing celebrity she needs to stop being a victim and become a capable politician. Continuing to blame everyone else for the bad things that happened during the 2008 campaign and to refuse to take responsibility for much of what went wrong during her brief time as governor of Alaska will not serve her future political aspirations well. Eventually, all people must show a willingness to accept some responsibility and be able to promote a way forward that is detailed enough to convince the public that it might work. One’s inability to answer difficult questions does not make the asking of them sexist.

Lael Brainard, another Obama nominee to the Treasury Department, was forced by a Senate Committee to disclose that she failed to pay several of her tax bills on time. It has been revealed that Brainard did not pay property taxes on property she owns in November in 2005, 2006, and 2007; although, she did pay all of those back taxes in March. Her 2008 property tax bill was not paid until September of this year. During the 90s Brainard, on several occasions, failed to pay employment taxes for people who worked in her home on time. Unfortunately, none of this troublesome history was uncovered during Obama’s now infamous vetting process.

We are use to Obama nominees having trouble paying their taxes, but what makes this case different is the consistent lack of candor displayed by Brainard. The Senate Finance Committee asked her dozens of questions—many dealing with her tax history—before she acknowledged the extent of her failure to pay taxes. As many of you remember I opposed the nomination of Timothy Geithner to head Treasury, because I believe political appointees—especially those working in Treasury need to be held accountable when it comes to their tax liability. So, I strongly object to Brainard’s being confirmed. However, confirmation is going to occur since Senate Democrats are falling all over themselves to make excuses for her.

Situations like this one highlight for all of us the double standard that exists between the rules we must abide by and those which the powerful can exploit. When it comes to leveling the playing field and bringing a more ethical approach to government Obama has failed. The public will never be able to begin to trust Washington until Washington demonstrates that it is willing to hold members of the exclusive club accountable to what are seemingly basic requirements of citizenship.

The United Nation’s Population Fund has stated that free condoms and family planning advice would reduce global warming. The agency did not recommend that countries set limits on the number of children people have, but it made it clear that women with access to reproductive services have fewer children and contribute to a reduction in greenhouse emissions.

This news is rather obvious, but it is nice to see more agencies publically discussing it. I strongly believe that the world’s greatest problem is overpopulation so anything we can do to raise awareness is a good thing. By refusing to allow governments to give out condoms and teach young people about sex religious people are seriously contributing to many of what ills us. At some point, societies must reject the rigid ideology promoted by religious zealots in favor of the creation of policies that reflect the world we currently live in. It was easy—but not right—to force women to have children they did not want when land and resources were readily available and people were dying at a much younger age. Today, when we are fast running out of resources and when medical advances are allowing us to live much longer a near limitless supply of children is simply an unworkable notion that is adding to our destruction.

Will Phillips, a ten-year-old Arkansas boy is refusing to stand for the pledge of allegiance. Will is refusing to stand, because he says the words “liberty and justice for all” are not true in a nation that discriminates against gay people and tolerates racism and sexism. In the aftermath of Will’s decision to exercise his legally-protected right to refuse to stand for or say the pledge of allegiance he has been ridiculed by many of his peers and the substitute teacher who is running his class.

It will not come as a surprise to readers of this blog, but I support Will’s right to refuse to participate in the pledge. The reality that America provides “liberty and justice for all” is a mythical one. America never has nor will it ever be a place that equally dispenses justice and offers all the same amount of liberty. To believe otherwise is to be delusional. If anything supporters of the pledge should be telling people that the words “liberty and justice for all” are mere words of aspiration which encourage all Americans to do what we can to create a union that comes closer to adhering to those worthwhile goals than does the America of today.

Unfortunately, the debate around Will’s brave stand has become focused on his support of same-sex marriage rather than remaining a discussion of the correctness of his general sentiment. By getting so angry that they are willing to trash a ten-year-old boy those who disagree with Will are proving the truth behind his stance. If America truly was a place where “liberty and justice for all” was the norm everyone would support Will’s right to abstain from the pledge of allegiance. By criticizing him too many are showing us how far our nation has to go on the road to the idyllic society so many falsely believe we already have. If more Americans were willing to join Will and do more for their nation than stupidly reciting a pledge without ever contemplating the truth behind it and working to live up to the creed it espouses our society would be a more perfect union.

Since the horrible attack at Fort Hood many politicians and members of the media have sought to raise their profile by branding the cowardly violence an act of terrorism. Terrorism, like almost every word, has a definition. The problem with trying to brand any person a terrorist or any act one of terrorism neglects one simple problem—unlike almost every other word there is no uniform acceptance of a definition of terrorism. This has resulted in a climate that allows anyone to further their political agenda by describing acts they find abhorrent as acts of terrorism. Simply put, one person’s act of terror is another’s efforts to liberate an oppressed people. With that background as a caveat let’s consider whether the act at Fort Hood was a terrorist activity under United States law.

United States Code Title 22, CH.38, Para. 2656f (d) defines terrorism as: “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational or clandestine agents.”

Under that definition it is hard to claim that Hasan’s violence was an act of terror. For starters, we have no evidence to prove that the shootings were politically motivated; in fact, all of the evidence seems to indicate that Hasan was driven by his religious views—rather than his political beliefs. Furthermore, U.S. law says that in order for an act to be one of terror those targeted must be noncombatants. Obviously, members of the military can not be classified as noncombatants.

To prove how elusive a satisfactory definition of terrorism can be U.S. law defines terrorism differently under the criminal code. Under 18 U.S.C section 2331 [25] terrorism is defined as: “…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the United States or of any state and… appear intended to be (I) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (II) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (III) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping….”

Obviously, number one does not apply since the attack was not launched on civilians. Number three does not work, because Hasan’s violence did not involve mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping as those terms are commonly defined. If we are going to successfully label Hasan’s act one of terrorism, then, we must be able to fit it in under number two.

A credible argument could be made that Hasan’s violence was an attempt to get the United States to change its policies and allow Muslims to leave the military rather than going to Afghanistan or Iraq. Since this question is now one of motive none of us can say for sure whether Hasan’s horror was in act of terror. Personally, I believe his actions were those of an angry, unstable man—not those taken in furtherance of a larger political goal. But if Hasan claims that his rampage was an attempt to change government policy—and only then—will we be able to truthfully call his act one of terrorism.

As disappointed with this result as those on the right who prefer playing politics rather than following our laws will be—under American law we simply can not call Hasan a terrorist yet.

Those who are using scare tactics to argue against the holding of terrorists in federal prisons are doing so because the facts do not support the fear they want to promote. Currently, there are nearly 350 people living in federal prisons who have been convicted of acts of terror. The list of those residing in America includes the leader of the plot to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993, a person who worked for Osama Bin Laden, and Zacarias Moussaoui (the so-called 20th hijacker). Those three terrorists and at least 30 others are currently being held at the same maximum-security facility in Colorado.

Not only are some fear mongers terrifying people about the mythical danger posed by the supposedly never-tried experience of bringing terrorists to America for trial, but they are telling people that the rules of our justice system will allow these terrorists to go free. Again, the facts support a drawing of an opposite conclusion.

The last report showed that 214 terrorists had been prosecuted in federal court. Of those more than 91 percent have been found guilty. No one tried in relation to the first attack on the World Trade Center has gotten away with their crime. The evidence is clear: American prisons can secure the most dangerous of criminals and America’s courts can find them guilty. It would be nice if, occasionally, right-wing nuts examined facts before working the uninformed into a frenzy.