"Are you now or have you ever been…a member of the Democratic Party?”

Richard Wall’s column last Tuesday created visions of Joe McCarthy. Wheeling, West Virginia. 1950. “I have here in my hand a list of 205 names…a list of names made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.”

Richard Wall has in his hand a list of names made known to him by the Secretary of State of people known as being members of the Democratic Party and who nevertheless are still running for office and seeking to become public servants.

McCarthy warned America. “Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communistic atheism and Christianity.  The modern champions of communism have selected this as the time. And, ladies and gentlemen, the chips are down.”

Wall warned Wyoming, in effect, “We in Laramie County are engaged in a final, all-out battle between liberal atheism and conservatism. The modern champions of full-spectrum conservatism and their gods have selected this as the time. The chips are down.” The crusades have begun. All who are now or have ever been members of the Democratic Party must be smitten.

He carefully, though erroneously, traced every ill in the nation to office holders with a “D” behind their names. Like the patriot Paul Revere, he’s riding through the countryside sounding the alarm. “The Democrats are running, the Democrats are running.” And he knows who you are.

If only they’d repented of Barack Obama they might have been saved from the wrath to come. They didn’t and must therefore be repudiated.  

He doesn’t offer Democrats re-education camps as the CROWS do for RINOs and even Mao did for his adversaries. All dreaded-Democrats must go, even those seeking non-partisan offices. The purge, according to Mr. Wall, “particularly means voting against Democrats running without party labels.” He identifies those who seek seats on the city council, the school board, or the community college board as an especially sinister part of the conspiracy. Wall fears they’ll get elected under that non-partisan label hiding a surreptitious goal of springing their Democratic leanings on the public in higher office.

Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Democratic Party? Party membership automatically disqualifies you regardless of your qualifications in Richard Wall’s world.

What about you the voter? Is that how Wyoming people decide elections? We’ll find out Tuesday.

Many of those “outed” as “Democrats” have been endorsed by this newspaper. Several previously served in public office with distinction. All have served the community in a variety of ways. But Wall asks you to punish them because they have chosen to be members of the opposition party. Fidel Castro does the same thing.

Wall’s list could be turned on him and used as a list of who to vote for.

The list includes good, decent, qualified candidates worthy of your consideration; legislative incumbents who have demonstrated ability: Floyd and Ken Esquibel, Mary Throne, James Byrd; successful educator Gary Datus, dedicated first-responder Joe Fender, one-time Peace Corp member Kathleen Petersen, and a youthful, energetic public servant Lee Filer; for county commission consider former school board leader and legislator Jim Applegate, Marguerite Herman who dedicated her life to better government and Kim Cox; city council candidates Robert Aylward with a long history of significant contributions to the community, Jan Nelson-Schroll, a lifetime resident who understands Cheyenne as well as anyone, and Annette Williams. Nate Breen, a candidate for school board who mentored hundreds of students into successful careers and lives; and a new, Misty Heil who wants to provide a new, youthful voice on LCCC’s board.

Voters should be less concerned about the failure of local Democrats to repudiate the president and more concerned about local Republican candidates who haven’t repudiated an extremists like Richard Wall. Send a message. In Wyoming we vote for the best-qualified person, not as instructed by an ill-informed extremist.

Inhale. Exhale. Breathe easier. The 2012 election is nearly over.

A facebook friend posted, “I sure hope this election ends before I lose all my friends.” Can I get an AMEN?

If you care about the results of an election and find yourself engaged in the debate, like me, you’ll find that when it’s all over you may have lost some friends while you gain some others. Regretfully, politics seems to be a process of narrowing our relationships so that increasingly we “break bread” more and more among only those with whom we agree.

With this election drawing to a close, regardless of who wins the presidency or the congress, there are some historically critical matters to be addressed promptly. A congress that thought it could force discipline on itself by mandating catastrophic budget cuts as a penalty for its own failure to compromise is now faced with the reality of the havoc those cuts will create unless they act responsibly in the lame duck session. Politicians who’ve spent the last year pillorying one another must now find enough common ground to save the nation from the results of their earlier inability to put party aside.

When the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle endorsed Cynthia Lummis for reelection it noted, “Lummis has wisely backed away from her ‘no new taxes’ pledge and appears to be looking for more realistic approaches to solving America’s problems. We would, on the other hand, like to see more leadership from the congresswoman. Ms. Lummis’ experience does Wyoming no good,” the editorial continued, “if all she is going to do is take marching orders from House Republican leadership.”

The same leadership should be asked of all members of both parties as they leave behind the campaign and resume their jobs. America needs more leadership from all of them. Partisan marching orders have walked the country to the precipice and will send us over the cliff if something doesn’t change immediately.

That doesn’t mean the debate won’t be difficult, even harsh. Each side has deeply held beliefs. Each has worked hard to persuade others of the righteousness of their positions and the threat posed by their opponents. But all of that came during a time when the focus was on winning an election. Now the focus is on the well being of the nation.

People of faith have some perspective on turning harsh rhetoric into a search for what’s best for the community. If you want to judge the negativity of contemporary dialogue, compare it with Christian scripture. The Apostle Paul, who crystallized the teachings of Jesus into Christianity, once told the Galatians, “I wish that those who are upsetting you would castrate themselves!” (ISV 5:2). Later he became better known for teaching that greater than hope and faith is love. Jesus raged at times, calling his adversaries “zealots” and “a brood of vipers.” Later he thought it better to turn the other cheek.

In his classic book “Siddhartha” Herman Hesse attributes words to the character after whom the book is titled. “The world is NOT imperfect or slowly evolving along a path to perfection. No, it is perfect at every moment; every sin already carries grace within it.”

Every argument made in the heat of the campaign, both from the left and from the right, carries within it the answers to America’s problems. In spite of the philosophical differences, Barack Obama is not a socialist. Mitt Romney doesn’t disdain the poor or the elderly. Both men care deeply about their country and their fellow human beings enough to expose themselves and their families to a political process that attempts to separate our view of them from their real values.

The Apostle also once said, “Let each of you lead the life that the Lord has assigned.” 1^st Corinthians 7:17 (NRSV).  On Election Day, each candidate for all public offices, winners as well as losers, will be given an assignment. All we can ask is that each undertakes the democratic obligations of that assignment.

Retailer pressures workers to take anti-Obama “civics course”

Retailer pressures workers to take anti-Obama “civics course”

Welcome to Cheyenne Menards...NOT

The church must save itself!

On a recent morning I surveyed religious news from around the country. That day an Oklahoma man was arrested for plotting to blow up 48 churches. While taking advantage of its tax-exempt status, dozens of evangelical churches openly defied the law, and challenged the IRS to defend it, by endorsing Mitt Romney from the pulpit. Meanwhile in Michigan, a pastor who claims Romney, a Mormon, is not a Christian, gave the invocation at a rally for vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan, creating another unwelcomed controversy for the church.

But the biggest headline, perhaps not unrelated, reported a study finding the fastest growing denomination in America is “none-of-the-above” i.e. people claiming no religious affiliation whatsoever. One in five Americans, it said, does not identify with any organized religion. For the first time since researchers began tracking these things, fewer than half of Americans said they were Protestants.  That’s a precipitous decline from 40 years ago, when more than two-thirds of all Americans claimed a Protestant church affiliation.

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life conducted the survey. They found the decline is not just among liberal mainline Protestants, like Presbyterians, Methodists or Episcopalians as many thought, but has also characterized conservative, evangelical and “born again” congregations. The “canary in the mine shaft” may have been the finding that more than one-third of those between 18 and 22 years-of-age are religiously unaffiliated and are fast replacing an older generation that has been traditionally far more involved with the church. Those young adults will soon be raising children who will likely have even less of a connection to the church. The Pew numbers will predictably look far worse in another decade.

Of course, “worse” is a value judgment. This study will generate a lot of hand wringing and religious leaders will attribute the numbers to what some like to call “the break-up of the family” and liberal cultural tendencies. Some will double-down on a strategy of using government to impose religious ideals on what they see as a secularized nation. Instead, the church would do well to exchange its window on the culture for a mirror. Self-examination is in order.

The study indicates it’s the church, not God that these Americans have abandoned. Two-thirds of those polled say they still believe in God, and one-in-five prays every day. Many are fully engaged in the community, contributing time and money, making deep personal commitments to homeless shelters, youth mentoring programs, equality and justice advocacy, and the hands-on mission work of programs like Habitat for Humanity, Circles and Wyoming Family Home Ownership. If attendance at “Bibles and Beer” is any sign, there’s no lack of interest in Bible study even among those who don’t attend church.

Church is becoming a place where young people feel they do not have the opportunity they seek to live out their purpose. What they hear from the pulpit and experience in the pews is often at odds with how they see God working in their lives and the lives of others. Increasingly they leave the church, a place they find often requiring them to make an irrational choice between science and religious ideology. Frequently their interest in Bible study wanes in the wake of literal interpretations at odds with their actual and deeply personal experiences of God’s creation.

On every major issue of the day ranging from interfaith relationships and marriage equality to climate change, abortion, racism, poverty and war, these young Americans read the Sermon and the Mount and contrast it with sermons they hear from the pulpit. They crave the former and flee from the latter.

Once when Woody Guthrie checked into a hospital, the nurse asked his religion. He said, “All.” She said, “You have to choose one.” Guthrie said, “It’s either all or none.” Now a lot of folks are choosing “none.”

The numbers won’t be the same a decade from now. Neither will be the church. These numbers tell us it’s time either for either a funeral or another reformation.

1972 was not George McGovern's greatest loss

George McGovern served in both houses of congress for more than two decades. He was nominated for president in 1972, defeated when voters elected Richard Nixon to a second term. Nixon soon became the only President to resign in disgrace. Under President Kennedy, McGovern was the director of the Food for Peace Program, distributing of American food surpluses to starving people around the planet.

He earned a PhD in history and the Distinguished Flying Cross for heroism as a World War II bomber pilot. His B-24 plane was named The Dakota Queen for the love of his life, wife Eleanor. For all the celebrations and accomplishments of his 90 years on this earth, McGovern was tortured by a sense of personal failure.

Who knows when the demons actually begin to possess addicts. But we know when they left McGovern’s daughter. It was a cold December night in 1994. Late in the evening the doorbell rang. Two men stood on the porch, waiting with news parents of addicted children dread. “Senator,” one of the men addressed McGovern with the title he held for life. “Senator, your daughter Teresa is dead.”

Terry had stumbled intoxicated into a snow bank and froze to death. Last weekend father and daughter were reunited in a place that passes all understanding.

While it’s tempting to remember George McGovern as a liberal icon, a politician and educator of great accomplishment, his legacy as parent of a suffering child should be upheld in a way that comforts all such parents with the knowledge that they aren’t alone.

The lesson McGovern offers parents is one of courage. After Terry’s death McGovern determined to learn more about why. He embarked on the haunting task of reading diaries written by a troubled daughter suffering from depression as well as addiction. The diaries were filled with anger misplaced toward her parents. McGovern read dozens of police reports of his daughter’s encounters with law enforcement and medical records from the dozens of times Terry entered treatment and detox.

Parents never completely lose that guilt. George McGovern, for all his personal and political courage, was no exception. However, the journey he took through his daughter’s life afforded him an opportunity to learn what the parents of every addict should know. He bravely went public with the lessons he learned.

Among them, no one chooses to be an addict. Genetics plays a huge, unforgiving role. Most addicts are hard wired for the disease. Their DNA betrays them, making them more susceptible than others. Abuse of alcohol or other drugs re-wires the brain. In a complicated process that science has unlocked there comes a point when drinking and drug use become involuntary. Regardless of the negative outcomes; e.g. arrest, imprisonment, loss of family, jobs and health, the addict continues to use unless they encounter someone who makes a difference.

Like most parents, McGovern eventually learned the cure is not simply loving your child. Often that kind of love enables them to use more. Tough love, touted as a strategy, often fails. McGovern and his wife used tough love when Terry resumed drinking after eight years abstinent. On the advice of counselors Terry’s parents distanced themselves from their daughter for the last six months of her life. After her death, they were said to have regretted that decision for the rest of their days. Tough love has the potential to change lives when it works. It also carries the potential to doom the survivors to decades of self-recrimination when it doesn’t.

What George McGovern might like us to know is that addiction is neither the fault of parents nor a character flaw of the addicted. It is a disease, a brain disease and shouldn’t be condemned or stigmatized anymore than heart disease or cancer. It can be treated and it should be treated medically as vigorously as any other disease of the body.

When you think of George McGovern, think of all who are affected by this disease and say a prayer.

Romney says those about to retire need not worry. So, who does?

If you’re 35 years old or younger, you might not be paying much attention to the Medicare debate. You probably should tune-in because it is you who may stand to lose the most.

Under Paul Ryan’s plan, supported by Governor Romney and Congresswoman Lummis, the current Medicare health insurance program ends in 10 years. If you are anywhere near 35 today, it will be your parents’ Medicare that will first be replaced with a voucher. You’ll be left to deal with their confusion and be expected to step up to pay for whatever medical care the voucher doesn’t. Interested now?

Despite the phony claim that Obamacare was a government takeover of health insurance, many felt its biggest shortcoming is that it wasn’t. Instead, the compromise included keeping the private insurance companies as the vendors of health insurance policies. As a result, we still have innumerable companies selling policies that are all different in one form or another, all with little to no effective regulation. Just try buying health insurance. See what the elderly will soon experience, encountering a range of different co-pays, deductibles, coverage limits, preferred providers, networks and penalties for using a doc who is not a member.

That is the lion’s den into which seniors will be thrown ten short years from now if Ryan-Romney Medicare reform plan becomes law.

Do you remember 2005 and 2006 when Part D, the drug prescription plan was implemented? The program was fraught with problems and apocalyptic predictions. Confused seniors enrolled in plans that didn't cover all their medications or missed deadlines to enroll at all. Medicare was inundated with phone calls. Patients waited on hold for hours without getting answers. Pharmacists were filling prescriptions without knowing whether they would be paid.

Imagine the day Medicare closes its offices and millions of seniors, including your elderly parents, receive that voucher in the mail. Now what? Undoubtedly it will include lengthy instructions and a website. Seniors will be given a list of insurance company agents, their addresses and phone numbers. Of course, most of these companies will be initially ill equipped to deal with the numbers of new, elderly clients and their questions.

But they’ll sit down with the elderly and ask all the questions they should ask. The agent may even have some of the answers. What co-pay and deductible would you prefer? Do you have a physician that you would like to keep seeing? Oh I’m sorry, she’s not in our network. What specialists do you anticipate you’ll need? Let me explain prior authorization, deductibles, co-pays and exclusions. This policy covers x, y, and z. This one covers a, b, and c. If you don’t need x but would like b or c, we have another policy. Sorry, we can’t include z and b but you can buy a, b, c, and y. Oh, and each has its own list of exclusions.

The senior will also want to know if deductibles need to be met before any services can be used. What percent will be paid after deductibles, what percent they’ll pay if a doctor, hospital, or specialist out of network is consulted, and what co-payments are for visiting doctors, hospitals, or emergency rooms?

Mom and dad are looking at you now.

When those questions and others have been answered, your elderly parent will proudly present the agent with the voucher. “Oh,” says the agent, “that will cover only part of the premium.” Your elderly parent may say, “I don’t understand. Medicaid paid for these things. Why do I have to pay so much more?” The agent will say, “I’m sure your congressman explained that Medicare was replaced with a voucher to save money. How could they save money if they provided the dame health care under this voucher that you had under Medicare?”

Now mom and dad are looking at you again. You may be 30 years away from being eligible for Medicare but you may stand to lose the most.