You beat me to the punch but I might just punch you in the beets. (Ha!)

As I suspected, when I first approached you with the idea of this experiment, this is going to be quite entertaining and give me much to think about. In the interest of maintaining our friendship while allowing for a well thought out debate let me first say I appreciate your willingness to put yourself out here like we are and I value your opinion and intelligence. I respect your occupation and honestly believe that through the efforts of yourself and millions like you, owners and managers of small to medium sized businesses, our nation benefits from a strong and resilient vertebral column.

On to more interesting things.

Regarding whether or not this will include my "top ten reasons for loving Obama" I will try to get them in here, but if the witching hour approaches and I am still mired in my opening statement then I will put that particular project off to another day. When I logged on this evening I had the intention of making my initial decree and laying a groundwork for our first topic of discussion only to be pleasantly surprised by your first post of any length. Lovely. Let's start there then.

I was pleased to see you think values form your opinions which in turn lead to your political sympathies--I tend to think this leads to a better source of opinion and a more solid foundation for logic. With the previous in mind I would like to state some of my values at this time which will present my own foundation for opinion:

Agency

• I believe all people are given agency, the right/freedom to choose as we wish, as our most fundamental and inalienable--perhaps primeval is the correct word--prerogative.


• All people may not have the ability or disposition to act as we would in every situation but our inward response, the very nature with which we perform our actions, our attitude while acting, or even while being forced to act, is ours alone.

Equity

• Simply by nature of our humanity all people ought to be considered equally until proven unworthy of equitable consideration. By unworthy I do not mean that since I differ in opinion with Duane then he is no longer worthy of one thing or another. By unworthy I mean that through repeated gross anti-social or criminal behavior one might prove oneself no longer trustworthy.


• By all people I mean all people.

Forgiveness

• All people everywhere deserve forgiveness at many points throughout our lives--which forgiveness only comes from one source (God), only by one means (His Son), and only if we go through the ofttimes painful process of asking for it.


• Forgiveness is essential for both those who've wronged and been wronged and allows for that refreshing and fulfilling restart resembling, only in an emotional/spiritual sense, that moment after a severe sunburn when you've peeled off the sheet of dead skin cells to expose the raw, tender, sensitive, and completely new skin underneath.

Well, there are three of my values anyway. I'm not saying they're my top three but they're all I felt like bringing up tonight. So, now, let's get to how agency applies to politics.

I stated, under the heading agency above, that agency is the freedom to choose. Duane has stated that he thinks socialism would require everyone to hit the same mediocre level. Duane has a point: when socialism is forced on people it seems to tap the human spirit and breed mediocrity. Even when a large number of a given populace tries to buy into the same socialist order it still seems to end up as a less than ideal society. Mediocrity is not the goal of socialism as it is defined, but I am now finished defending it as I am not a socialist.

One point I would ask Duane to think about is the law of consecration. As I understand it the law of consecration would be the ultimate socialist order as it would require all who follow it to consecrate all they have to the church, taking only what they need, and letting the rest be passed along to others who need it. Hmm. Seems pretty socialist to me. Yet, I think Duane purports to believe in this law. I. Am. Getting. Confused.

So, what's the difference between the law of consecration and socialism? I bet you've guessed: Agency! Wahoo!

Where else, one might ask, does agency play a role in democratic politics that differs from those of the pachydermal persuasion? Well, let's consider the abortion issue. Do we dare hit such a subversive and dangerous topic as this so early in the game? Why not. We're mormons after all. We are brave and jump at the chance to clarify church position even when it exposes our own ignorance. (I love LDS stereotypes--they bring a little devisive tear of condescending joy to my eye.)

So, the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can be read here. I argue for a woman's right to choose when it comes to the issue of abortion not because I approve of abortions as happy, pretty, fluffy, harmless little things, but because I do not feel comfortable with a government mandating that women must be forced to complete a pregnancy that may endanger/kill them, was forced upon them, is the result of incest, or will result in some other outcome the church considers justifiable in considering an abortion.

I remember having quite a heated argument with Danny one afternoon, at Capriotti's I believe, that devolved to the point I was labeled un-Christian. I don't think my cheese steak tasted the same after that, but I stuck to my guns because I cannot, in good conscience, agree with legislation that forces a choice upon a woman because someone else (some neo-con twit with the disposition and complexion of that ugly dude in Men In Black . . . no, not Will Smith the other agent whose name has a junior in it and I'm not going to google right now), who likely is not even aware of the emotional-spiritual-physical torment this woman is going through, arbitrarily determined abortions are icky. Oh man. I don't think any liberal in the world would argue that an abortion is a pleasant walk along a wooded trail accompanied by refreshing citrus beverages and light conversation about puppies and kittens and puppens, which everyone knows are those charming little puppy/kitten hybrids with the personality and melodius voice of Angela Lansberry (sp?), not to mention her lovely cankles. . . yet I digress. Puppens? What the. . . .

Alright, so let us consider the abortion issue as compared to the conservative point of view on the argument about gun control. (I actually do not agree with a whole lot of gun control legislation. I do believe in the right to bear arms.) Should all people everywhere be forced to turn in their guns because there are some idiots out there who abuse them? No. Nor should all women everywhere who've been raped be forced to complete their unwanted pregnancies because there are a few idiots out there performing and receiving abortions of convenience. People should be allowed to have agency and make choices for ourselves. We don't always choose right. We often choose wrong to various degrees. We are all human and we all deserve to choose even if we chance to do so to our detriment or that of others at times--I am afraid that's just part of the human condition and no matter how hard we try we all screw up and need forgiveness. Isn't it wonderful?

So there's one reason, at least, that I am choosing Obama--he allows women to choose on the issue of abortion. It's not the prettiest car on the lot, but it sure beats being forced into a shady clunker like McCain, which could likely crank out its last any second, and that insufferable know-nothing windbag Palin. To quote Tina Fey acting as Palin: "I can see Russia from my house!" Hee hee. Man that was classic. Here's the real Palin link btw. Hilarious.