Argentina is the latest country in the process of legalizing gay marriage. The lesser branch of congress in Argentina, known as the Chamber of Deputies (comparable to the U.S. House of Representatives), approved a bill on May 5th that would legalize gay marriage, as well as make adoption legal for gay couples. The Senate was due to vote on the bill today.

The LDS Church took notice of this momentum and issued a statement to be read to its members in the country this past Sunday, July 11th. There were some stark differences between what was read to members of the LDS Church in Argentina and what was read to Mormons in California in 2008. The letter read to Mormons in Argentina on Sunday was not nearly as explicit and determined as was the California letter. The California letter was a call to action while the Argentinean letter was more of a statement of belief with a reference to the church’s “Proclamation on the Family,” a document highlighting the LDS belief that the family is a fundamental and important part of society.

There was, for example, no mention of “donating your means and time” to defeat the proposed law. No mention of a broad coalition of churches uniting to prevent gay marriage. There is no mention of contacting lawmakers to express opposition to the law either. That is significant given that this is not a ballot measure, but rather a bill working its way through the legislature.

After the letter was read and made its way around the Internet, the church was contacted for further comment and as part of their response stated that “the church has taken no official position on the legislation being considered” in Argentina. While their position was made clear with regards to marriage, it is true that there has been no political push. That is a big difference from what happened just two years ago in California.

This raises the simple question of why the LDS Church merely reiterated its stance on marriage rather than making such a concerted effort as they did in California. Is it because there is such a low percentage of Mormons in Argentina compared to California, meaning they are not in the position to take the lead on the issue? About two percent of the California population is Mormon as opposed to 0.85 percent in Argentina.

Not only that, but Argentina is considered to be a more secular country, especially compared to its Latin American neighbors, making it that much more difficult to create a coalition of religions to oppose the measure. Is it because the law is viewed so favorably by Argentinians, with about a 66 percent approval rating? Is it because the LDS Church’s public relations took a serious hit in the wake of Prop 8? Or is it because the church’s position on gay marriage is evolving ever so slightly?

Whatever the reason for the change, it is becoming abundantly clear that the world is in the middle of a long conversation about gay marriage.

This week, the magazine’s editor Steve Pierce and resident armchair economist Daniel Anderson contemplate the reigning hot topics of the day — including the most recent (and totally unexpected!) Bachelorette trainwreck, Eclipse’s total dominance at the box office, local favorite Isaac Russell’s new major-label EP, and the greatest (and worst) American presidents. Enjoy!

You can stream the podcast by simply clicking on the link below, or you can download it to your computer by right-clicking the link and selecting “Save Link As” from the menu.

Listen to: Rhombus Podcast 019 — Rhombus Roundtable (2010.07.12)

On August 28th, Glenn Beck will unveil his plan to “save our country.” Mr. Beck has been getting his followers prepared for what he calls “The Plan” over the past few months, much the same way his rants led to The 9/12 Project and the Tea Party. Take, for example, the talking points used by both Beck and his Tea Party followers. Just the other day, both were on the verge of tears ranting about how they need to “take our country back.” How could they accomplish such a valiant effort? That is where The Plan comes in.

Beck has been dropping hints and providing previews of what The Plan will contain. The anticipation is building to the point where Beck’s organized followers are undoubtedly going to make a pretty significant showing in a couple months. I know I can’t wait.

On his website, Beck tries to entice his readers by giving hints as to what the plan will contain, laying out a plan for “action steps that each of us can take to play a role in America’s re-founding.” (Re-found is not in Webster’s Dictionary, by the way.) That, in itself, is not unorthodox for Glenn Beck. But here’s the kicker — he says that God is revealing to him this master plan to re-found America.

No joke.

Here is what he said in his own words: “God is giving the plan, I think, to me,” followed by claiming it is “a plan that He would have me articulate.” He then makes clear his discipleship with this gem: “I haven’t seen Jesus and what he would do on a talk show on Fox, but I’m gonna try.”

I cannot make this stuff up.

Here’s how it happened. Beck was having a conversation with his co-host Pat Gray and he mentioned to him that he felt a darkness. His own words really articulate it better than I can so here you go: “I said, ‘I can feel it coming. It’s darkness, and I can just feel it coming.” So Beck went home with his co-host and prayed. Later, after he and his sidekick had finished praying, they began reading the Bible. He said they “found something the next day that I think is important for you.”

That is how “The Plan” came to be, ladies and gentlemen.

If a political pundit trying to position himself as a leader of conservative thought starts making outrageous statements like that in an attempt to create a movement so powerful it must be referred to as “The Plan,” you should probably take a step away from the bandwagon. But, according to Beck, it is meant to be and should be taken seriously since it is not only coming from God himself, but also has the blessing of the Founding Fathers. It is what they want as well, of course. Beck said as much and so it is; It will contain the “values of the Founding Fathers.”

As if all that wasn’t enough, the timing of it all is impeccable. It is not a coincidence that Beck chose August 28th as the date to reveal such a marvel. That is the anniversary of none other than Martin Luther King Jr.’s historic “I Have a Dream” speech. Insulting, perhaps? If it isn’t insulting, it sure is pretentious.

And, of course, “The Plan” will be available in book form soon too, so Glenn clearly has no ulterior motives besides his sincere desire to bless us all with his revelatory saving powers. Nor does his advocating the investment of gold as a good idea in these hard times have anything to do with his sponsorship by Goldline, which rips off consumers by overcharging for their gold products. No conflict of interest there either.

Listening to or watching his show for a week is enough for any sane person to realize this guy has lost it. How many red flags do Glenn Beck fans need?

Teams from Miami, San Antonio, Los Angeles, and Phoenix have all participated in such nights dedicated to their Latino community, sporting jerseys saying “El Heat,” “Los Spurs,” “Los Lakers,” and “Los Suns.” Let’s be honest, it is largely a marketing scheme. Most recently, the Phoenix Suns were united in a decision to sport the jerseys, not on the “noche latina” but in the midst of a fierce debate about a bill that the Arizona Legislature recently passed which gives police an unprecedented amount of power to crack down on those suspected of being in the state illegally.

This story underlies a larger discussion in the midst of all the turmoil. The Suns decided to wear the jerseys not for marketing, but to show support for the Latino community. This comes in the face of some possibly very serious repercussions to a business that is already in financial distress. A recent poll shows that 70 percent of likely voters in Arizona favor the bill while, interestingly enough, 53 percent are concerned that its enforcement will lead to violation of many citizens’ civil rights. From those poll numbers it is apparent that people want the immigration problem to be dealt with, but they do not agree with how the bill allows for law enforcement to question anyone under “reasonable suspicion” to prove they are in the country legally.

Under the new law, if you are unable to provide documents showing that you are in the country legally, your arrest is a requirement. Previous law required police only to ask about legal status if you were involved in a crime. “Reasonable suspicion” is very subjective and could lead to infringement of civil rights. The bill also includes provisions that make it illegal to hire illegal immigrants for day labor.

The Suns have furthered an already divisive debate. President Obama recognized their protest in his speech at the White House while celebrating Cinco de Mayo, calling for comprehensive immigration reform this year. Rev. Al Sharpton led a demonstration against the immigration bill by the US Airways Center to the Arizona state capitol building before the pivotal game against the Spurs. (Conservatives begrudgingly began to root for the Spurs in this series.)

Noticing the uproar over the likely racial profiling, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed an amendment to the bill intended to prevent racial profiling. I am still not clear how you can make people provide proof of their legality in the state because of “reasonable suspicion” without profiling on the basis of race. How do you know the police will not detain someone based on race, then find some minor infraction as an additional reason for detainment? And how to you regulate such a broad amendment?

The many chain e-mails I have received from conservative friends dealing with illegal immigration are not only racist, but they are aimed specifically at the Latino community. They are not complaining about any other immigrant population besides Latinos. Brewer’s latest amendment does little to change a law that allows for law enforcement to target a specific race. There were many cries of socialism from the right following the passage of President Obama’s health care overhaul, but this Arizona bill resembles the makings of an actual police state.

The Suns lost a lot of conservative fans with their bold move, but they undoubtedly gained a large number of more fair-minded supporters at the same time.

For Mormons, that should be a distressing assertion. As a Mormon himself, Beck has always been something of an oddball. However, Potok’s point wasn’t that Beck is simply extreme, or embarrassing to people of one political persuasion or another. It wasn’t even that he personally disagrees with Beck and those like him. Rather, it was that Beck and others are actually helping hate become more common. Tellingly, Potok also points out that hate crimes in the United States are becoming more widespread, which could obviously correlate with the increase in hateful rhetoric.

Ironically, and because I too am a Mormon, I listened to this segment of On the Media between sessions of LDS General Conference. As some surely know, that’s a bi-annual event that teaches Mormons to strive for Christ-like attributes, like love and respect. Yet in the midst of that message I also ended up listening to an expert on hate speech point out that one of the most prominent Mormons in the United States is doing the exact opposite of what the Church teaches.

In the past, I’ve had friends argue that Beck and other commentators are wrong primarily in style. They’ve said that while people like Beck don’t accomplish much with their belligerent tone, the underlying message these figures endorse is still worth dignifying with attention.

Yet, Potok wasn’t arguing that Beck has an abrasive tone. He was saying that Beck’s content itself is the problem because it promotes hate. Juxtaposed against the backdrop of general conference, that seemed like it would disturb all Mormons, regardless of an individual’s political orientation.

Others might argue that NPR and Potok merely epitomize the “liberal media,” whose goal is to tear down “patriots” like Beck. Judging from Beck’s Arguing With Idiots — which I recently received as a gift — that’s the argument I’d expect Beck himself to make. Yet, whatever biases the radio network may have, it routinely invites conservative commentators on its shows and strives for neutrality. Recently, for example, I even listened to another conservative Mormon, Mitt Romney, on Talk of the Nation. The point, then, is that irrespective of any supposed biases, Potok and On the Media are serious sources presenting, in this case, findings based on empirical research. In other words, these accusations deserve to be taken very seriously.

Of course, Beck was little more than a footnote in Potok’s discussion, but the larger trend of increasing amounts of hate obviously conflicts with the values the LDS Church teaches. During general conference, at least one talk pointed out the need to maintain respect in public and private discourse, and more generally the Church routinely emphasizes temperance and civility. Unfortunately, however, those are attributes about which Beck and the Church now appear to disagree.

Listen to the original segment from On the Media here.

The primary reason for the fury is that many Democrats feel betrayed by Matheson, arguing that he ignores his base and votes like a Republican on many key issues. Most recently, he voted no on President Obama’s monumental health care reform bill. It was a close vote and represented, for many, a core principle the Democratic Party has been working to accomplish for decades. Needless to say, it was a controversial vote being that the bill passed by a slim margin of 219 to 212.

During the 2008 election campaign, Democrats repeatedly accused Republican nominee John McCain of being just like George W. Bush. There were bumper stickers reading “McCain: Bush’s Third Term.” What was their reasoning for this? “McCain voted with bush 95% of the time.” So yes, McCain sided with Bush and the Republicans the vast majority of the time.

Some Democrats now accuse Matheson of voting just like a Republican as well, but that might not necessarily be true. According to The Washington Post, Matheson has voted with the current Democrat-controlled Congress 92.1 percent of the time. Does that mean McCain is not really that conservative and that he wasn’t a Bush “Yes Man?” Or does it mean that Matheson really does have Democratic principles?

Matheson has had another conspiratorial controversy surrounding him lately, this one coming from the conservative side of the aisle. The rumor — which was started by The Weekly Standard, a conservative rally cry magazine — alleged that President Obama nominated Rep. Matheson’s brother, Scott, to a federal circuit court judgeship in order to persuade the congressman to vote yes on the health care bill the second time around. Of course, the rumor made its way through the ranks — all the conspiracy-savvy conservatives (including the Republican National Committee) were making sure their base knew what was going on here. Tea baggers loved it. It fed right into their theory that the Obama White House is forcing tyranny on the American people.

More level-headed conservatives understood that was not the case. Both Sen. Orrin Hatch and Rep. Jason Chaffetz praised the nomination, saying they knew Jim’s brother would fill the vacancy on the court well beforehand. Paul Cassell, a former federal judge and colleague of Scott Matheson, was familiar with the nomination process and was quick to put an end to the theory, explaining the nominating process includes a few months of background inspection. The nomination would have been in the works well before the impassioned health care vote.

Even after all this, the Deseret News reported that Rep. Matheson’s approval rating is currently higher than ever at 64 percent, even higher than that of Orrin Hatch, Rob Bishop, Bob Bennett, and Utah’s wonder boy Jason Chaffetz (all Republicans).

Admittedly, I am not happy with some of Matheson’s votes, specifically his “No” vote on the health care bill. But what are the alternatives? Matheson’s winning percentage has consistently gone up nearly every time he has run for Congress. If Democrats really want Matheson out and another, more liberal Democrat in, the better option would be to wait until 2012 when Utah is expected to gain another House seat due to population increase.

This could very well result in a more liberal-leaning district than the one Matheson currently represents, since much of Utah’s population growth is based in Salt Lake County and gerrymandering will be severely limited since there is an independent commission in charge of the redistricting project. Maybe Utah could even end up with two Democrats in Washington depending on how the districts are drawn.

In the end, whether you support Matheson or not, we should take a step back from emotion-driven politics and at least get the record straight on the congressman. He deserves that much.

The health care bill does, in fact, account for a large portion of the economy and would have a significant impact on the budget. Republicans actually back me up on this. By the Republicans persistent efforts, they have declared over and over again that health care accounts for a large part of the economy. At the health care summit last week, Lamar Alexander defiantly said that health care makes up roughly 17 percent of the economy and that we should not change it all at once. With that line of thought, reconciliation actually should be used in this case, right?

Republicans are very familiar with reconciliation. Of the 21 times reconciliation has been used, 15 of those were for legislation that Republicans favored. During the George W. Bush administration’s time in office, reconciliation was used three times for tax cuts — even when the Congressional Budget Office was clear about what the devastating effects would be. In 2001, the tax cuts were predicted to reduce surpluses by $1.35 billion over the following 10 years. The famous 2003 “Bush tax cuts” for the rich were projected to increase the national deficit by nearly $340 billion over the 10 subsequent years. The 2006 tax cuts were predicted to increase the deficit by only $70 billion in just a few years.

The last cut and its effects have come and gone already, so you can forget about that one. Where were fiscal conservatives on those, by the way? You know, those same conservatives that argue the health care bill will turn America into a Third World country.

But Republicans constantly want everybody to know just how big of an impact this “government takeover” of health care is going to have on the economy. And that’s true — partially. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office predicts that the proposed Senate bill will reduce the deficit by $132 billion over the first ten years. And that’s not all — over the second 10 years, the proposed reform is projected to reduce the deficit by an additional $650 billion. For obvious reasons, fiscal conservatives are against the bill.

Republicans continue to insist that we should take it slow on health care reform or, even better, scrap the whole thing entirely. I say use the democratic tool of reconciliation, get a simple majority vote, and pass health care reform already. It’s far overdue.

Randal Serr is a liberal political columnist for Rhombus.

There have been plenty of complaints about the health care debate not being transparent enough, and that President Obama and the Democrats have not included the Republicans enough in piecing together legislation for a health care bill.

There have been accusations that the president has not kept his word. For example, Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz tried calling the president out in a question at the Republican retreat a couple weeks ago.

“When you stood up before the American people multiple times and said you would broadcast the health care debates on C-SPAN, you didn’t,” Chaffetz said. “And I was disappointed, and I think a lot of Americans were disappointed.”

Fair enough. Although the majority of the congressional hearings and committee meetings dealing with health care were, in fact, televised on C-SPAN. I guess the question for critics of this sort is how do you logistically make sure that every meeting is televised? Should every single hearing be televised? What about unofficial talks before actual meetings? Conversations? Opinions? I am as big a supporter of transparency as anyone, but it undeniably gets a little messy.

But now, perhaps in response to the criticism, the White House has invited congressional leaders of both parties to a summit to discuss health care with the hope of moving forward and making health care reform a reality. And yes, it will be televised in its entirety.

Unbelievably, almost immediately Republicans criticized the gesture. The talking points were heard far and wide, migrating from Fox News and the EIB Network directly into Republican leaders’ mouths. “It’s a trap,” they said, typically followed by “I don’ t know what to expect.” There are also fears the president is trying to “intimidate” the Republicans and Americans into a “government takeover of health care.”

From what we know about the debate, it is hardly a trap. By the time it takes place, Republicans will have had nearly three weeks to prepare. The Democrats’ updated bill will be posted online before the gathering, challenging the Republicans to put forward legislation of their own. Both parties were allowed to choose additional participants and staff members specializing in health care policy. In other words, if Republicans are caught by surprise or feel trapped, it will be their own fault.

Republicans are acting like they’re new to debate — or politics, for that matter. A televised debate with more than enough time for preparation is not a trap. Republicans complain about the health care process going too fast, but cannot get enough time to prepare for a debate on a policy we have steadily been talking about for over a year now? Isn’t that the point of debate, to present your proposals and see who has better ideas? Doing an interview with Stephen Colbert is more of a trap than the White House summit will be. (Chaffetz has done an interview with Colbert, by the way.)

Having a couple weeks to get ready for a televised, transparent debate on the people’s health care policy is not a trap. Public policy debate is not a trap. It’s part of open democracy.

Randal Serr is a liberal political columnist for Rhombus.

Randal Serr

President Obama gave his State of the Union address last week — a speech that has been called both inspiring and tough, as well as rhetorical and lacking content. I thought the speech was good and I heard a lot of what I wanted to hear. What I thought was more impressive, however, was when the President took questions from House Republicans at a retreat in Baltimore two days later.

The State of the Union has received and continues to receive a lot of analysis and criticism. The question and answer session deserves a lot more attention than it is getting. Watching the retreat was an educational experience. It was much more candid and stimulating than the State of the Union. Both Republican representatives and the president were addressing concerns they had with each other and talking about them.

You could sense the tension discussing certain issues, but they were addressed respectfully and forcefully. Not only that, but the whole thing was transparent since it was broadcast live on C-SPAN. That is how politics should be, rather than the over-the-top accusations and boxing each other in we are used to hearing from talking heads like Beck and Olbermann.

Understandably, we like to listen to those that we agree with politically. People are not going to stop watching and listening to their side’s political talk shows and that’s just the way it is. But you cannot tell me Fox News is the only station that “tells you how it really is” any more than I can tell you MSNBC is purely objective and unbiased.

We tend to get so obsessed with ideology that we let it turn into demagoguery. In other words, we end up making arguments that are completely unsubstantiated or backed up by any facts just because that is what is being ingrained in us every day. If we insist on watching these people, we need to acknowledge that some of what we are watching and listening to only serves to make us into unblinking ideologues.

I do not mean to undermine the importance of the president’s State of the Union address. It is an important event that Americans should be more concerned about than the season premiere of Lost. At the same time, the session most people missed or do not even know about was both intellectually challenging and healthy. What I am saying is these sort of meetings need to happen more frequently, because they open the door for honest discussion and debate.

Randal Serr is a liberal political columnist for Rhombus.

Call everyone! Teddy gave his seat up to a Republican! It’s sad to see there will actually have to be discussion again on the senate floor about issues like health care. I wonder how such a thing could happen. After all, the Democratic nominee, Martha Coakley, was ahead by large margins only a few weeks ago. Now she’s going back home with nothing but a “better-luck-next-time” and the reputation of being the first Democratic nominee to lose a senate seat for Massachusetts in the past three decades.

Now you might blame bad campaigning or whatever else, but in the end, is there a hidden message in this little turn of events? I don’t think it’ll be quite as challenging for the Senate to understand the hint, but hopefully they’ll get it: We don’t like the changes that are happening. The White House claims that the misdoings of their agenda has been merely “bad communication” to the American people. You’re right, Obama, because we would have never voted for you if we knew you were going to try and fundamentally alter American society within a year’s time.

Obama and his crony gang that is running both the Senate and House are sitting in office as the embodiment of an attitude of entitlement and welfare that has developed in America. I’m all for helping others out, but the attitude that government should provide all is nothing more than a virus that will corrode the bedrock of our founding. So perhaps the guilty party includes you and me. Thankfully, we seem to be waking up slowly and realizing we want change, but not at the price Obama is quoting us.

Whatever implications this has on party reactions and preparations for the 2010 election year is still hard to say. Democrats may take measures to reach out more to the people and work to address the job crisis in their states instead of pushing solely on the health care issue. Or perhaps they’ll just remain out of touch with their constituencies long enough for a changing of the guard. Who knows? For now, it’s just nice to see that in even the heartiest camps of liberal delusion, common sense still holds sway. Welcome to Washington, Senator Brown!

Jess Jones is a conservative political columnist for Rhombus. We welcome him back from his eight-year vacation.