This August, America will dedicate a splendid new memorial to Martin Luther King Jr. on the Tidal Basin in Washington, and that event should help point toward resolutions of some bitter current disputes.

The cost of the four acre monument will be $120 million - a substantial investment when government is broke, but nearly all the money has been raised from private contributions from major corporations and individual donors; less than 10% of the budget came from governmental sources.

If we can build a monument to a great American without burdening taxpayers, why can't we sustain public broadcasting or the National Arts Endowment on the same basis? Surely, private donors would step forward to cover the small portion for arts and broadcasting currently- and inappropriately- covered by tax money, just as they did for the noble King Memorial.

An indignant Democrat of my acquaintance accuses conservatives of hypocrisy when they criticize President Obama for acting with caution and restraint in response to crisis. He accurately points out that caution and restraint represent core conservative virtues, and that most leaders on the right ripped the president during his first two years for pushing too fast for transformational change. How, then, can they attack him now for reacting too modestly, too slowly to Libya, Egypt, Japan, oil prices, or anything else?

Beyond fleeting politics of the moment, this challenge brings into focus a single explanation to two persistent mysteries:

First, how can conservatives passionately demand a smaller role for the federal government in every aspect of American life, while simultaneously insisting that Washington should play a more activist part in world affairs?

Second, why should liberals who trust the federal bureaucracy to address nearly all our domestic problems feel such powerful, palpable reluctance for that same government to assume a leadership role in the international community?

The answer to both questions centers on contrasting notions of American exceptionalism.

Nearly all citizens of the U.S. believe that our country counts as unparalleled and set apart from the rest of the world. The right views America as exceptionally blessed and righteous - chosen by God (or fate, if you prefer) to inspire humanity with distinctive ideals of liberty, self rule and free markets. The left, on the other hand, expresses an intensifying tendency to see the U.S. as exceptionally guilty (for slavery, "genocide" against Native Americans and arrogant imperialism) and exceptionally backward when it comes to "social justice." Progressives never tire of reminding us that the United States lacks the welfare state guarantees that characterize other wealthy nations, and that it tolerates a vast gap between rich and poor.

These sharply conflicting world views (or nation views, at least) inform dramatically different approaches to domestic and foreign challenges.

For conservatives, sweeping federal action is unnecessary and counterproductive when it comes to economic or social problems here in the USA. On the economy, they argue that normal business cycles would bring recovery if only government got out of the way. They point to more than a dozen downturns, all of which quickly gave way to powerful spurts of growth - except for the Great Depression which, according to the right, FDR needlessly extended with his wasteful New Deal. Republicans maintain an almost mystical faith in the American people and the powers of the market. That's why the only federal reform programs they promote with a true sense of urgency involve tax cuts, allowing more resources to remain in control of enlightened private citizens who can use those assets to repair problems more effectively than bumbling bureaucrats.

When it comes to the rest of the world, however, the right maintains far greater skepticism. The so-called community of nations (a musty euphemism that seems almost laughable today) can't heal itself without American direction and assistance. We tried leaving the world alone to solve its own problems in the isolationist 1920s and '30s, but then had to face Hitlerism and Stalinism, along with 60 million corpses in World War II.

Conservatives passionately embrace the idea that the United States is better than the rest of the world, so the American people need a strong hand from Washington far less than do beleaguered hordes in less fortunate societies around the world.

Progressives also believe that the U.S. stands out from other nations, but they tacitly or explicitly assume that we distinguish ourselves in a negative sense - encouraging greed, environmental pillage, materialism and neocolonialism. This vision of the United States gives rise to the claim that long-suffering citizens of this republic need decisive, reformist leadership from the nation's capital in order to drag the benighted USA into the 21st century, at the same time that the nation will fare better in the international arena by following the lead of multilateral organizations (as in dealing with Libya) and learning from governments with more advanced ideas.

These radically contrasting attitudes toward America and its position in the world shape the polarization at the center of today's politics. The fundamental questions that divide left and right nearly everywhere concern assessments of the United States. It's those questions that determine the point on the spectrum where individuals locate themselves:

• Is America a gift or a threat to the rest of humanity?
  
• Do American values count as nobler - or more dysfunctional - than, say, European values?
  
• Should the United States continue to lead the world or would the planet benefit from swaggering Americans learning from more civilized societies of Europe and elsewhere?
  

Given the sharp disagreements about the very nature of our distinctive national identity, it's not surprising that conservatives want less Washington interference at home and more Washington determination abroad, while liberals hope for less influence by the American government overseas along with a more muscular federal role in reshaping dysfunctional realities of the homeland.

In this context, Barack Obama is perfectly consistent in demonstrating aggressive leadership in stateside politics but a timorous, reluctant role in foreign affairs. His conservative critics also apply their own philosophy with unassailable coherence by demanding more American power abroad but less meddling with citizens here at home.

An outrageous crime in Afghanistan produced an outrageous headline in the New York Times. AFGHANS AVENGE KORAN BURNING; PROTEST KILLS 12, proclaimed America's so-called "Journal of Record," suggesting that a frenzied mob storming UN headquarters to murder aid workers somehow achieved appropriate vengeance for a stupid gesture by a Florida pastor of a tiny fringe church.

In its reporting, the Times expressed more disapproval of the clergyman who burned one copy of the Koran in front of thirty people than of Muslim leaders who urged crowds in their mosques to murder people in response, promising more killing unless President Obama arrested and punished the pastor. Militant Islam and the US liberal establishment share an apparent willingness to treat beating human beings to death as apt response to a disrespectful publicity stunt on the other side of the world.

On Broadway, the creators of the "South Park" TV show have put together an irreverent musical called "The Book of Mormon." The show depicts clueless missionaries trying to spread their faith in Africa, along with interludes depicting Mormon prophet Joseph Smith as a con man.

The LDS church didn't boycott or denounce the show, and the press reported on reported on faithful Mormons who traveled far to see it. Muslims would react very differently to a satirical Broadway show called "The Koran." A tiny gesture of disrespect in Florida led Islamic mobs to murder UN workers in Afghanistan. The contrast between Mormon and Islamic responses to provocation shows the difference between people who are secure and confident in their faith, and those who treat even the slightest disrespect as potentially lethal to an ancient but troubled religion.

On Broadway, the creators of the "South Park" TV show have put together an irreverent musical called "The Book of Mormon." The show depicts clueless missionaries trying to spread their faith in Africa, along with interludes depicting Mormon prophet Joseph Smith as a con man.

The LDS church didn’t boycott or denounce the show, and the press reported on reported on faithful Mormons who traveled far to see it. Muslims would react very differently to a satirical Broadway show called "The Koran." A tiny gesture of disrespect in Florida led Islamic mobs to murder UN workers in Afghanistan. The contrast between Mormon and Islamic responses to provocation shows the difference between people who are secure and confident in their faith, and those who treat even the slightest disrespect as potentially lethal to an ancient but troubled religion.

Guest blog by Diane Medved

Diane's Blog: http://brightlightsearch.blogspot.com

Here in the Seattle, I chuckle at the newspaper forecasts, since like the proverbial Eskimos who have a dozen words for snow, we have an equally ample vocabulary for that wet stuff that incessantly batters the roof.

"Showers turning into rain," was today's forecast. "Rain at times," which translates to "rain at ALL times," earned two days this week. When the weatherman's especially frisky, he predicts "chance of sun," or the ever-optimistic "Rain with sunbreaks." That means that if you keep your eye out, you'll get a chance to run outside for a quick Vitamin D blast in the ten seconds before the sun is again obscured. The word "drizzles" does not exist; instead it's "partly cloudy."

Right now a blanket of gray hovers above us, with lighter and darker shades woven within it. An article in yesterday's New York Times Science section comes to remind me that I ought not be glum, and instead should start admiring the moving show above me, cast in silver, pewter, or as Pantone suggests, flint gray, frost gray, feather gray, chateau gray, smoke gray, steeple gray...

Admittedly, the whole thing looks like one big shaded low ceiling, which would be perfectly fine--occasionally. But clouds, when they're distinct, have a lot to offer, their negative reputation notwithstanding.

The article describes a new book by cloud-spotter Gavin Pretor-Pinney that validates my fascination with these amazing entities. He says clouds are "magicked into being" by natural forces, but I usually think of them as God wielding an enormous paintbrush on the blank canvas of the sky. Pretor-Pinney's Cloud Appreciation Society boasts more than 25,000 members in 87 countries, and awards its adherents 10 points for sighting a normal nimbostratus rain cloud, up to 40 or more for rarer formations. What you win for collecting all these views is unclear. Heh-heh.

Cloud Society advocates have "had enough of blue-sky thinking," and of "people moaning" about their fluffy friends. For the record, I do not "moan" but simply prefer clouds that are actually discernable rather than one heavy, smothering mass. (OK, I do moan about our blanket.)

But whenever and wherever the sky boasts beautiful clouds, I'm the first to extol them, and always run to get my camera to capture their ephemeral magnificence. Many of my best cloud shots are from visits to Hawaii, and in this post are a few I've taken there over the last few months.

Pretor-Pinny did express a worthwhile sentiment for those of us who grumble when sunshine is a mere memory: "Happiness does not come from wanting to be somewhere else. Happiness comes from finding beauty and a stimulation or interest in the everyday surroundings in which you find yourself."

Because of that, and Jewish tradition, I thank God every morning, even before looking outside. And tap people, not periphery, for joy, as it says in the song: "You are my sunshine, my only sunshine. You make me happy when skies are gray..."

The reason the Israeli flag is blue and white even relates to the sky. The blue color, called "tichaylet" in Hebrew, is biblically-rooted, and inspires one to look to his world--to the sea, and from the horizon upward, to remember the source of it all. We're presently not sure which animal originally produced the dye, but some researchers in Jerusalem have isolated a sea snail found off Israel's coast, and have started producing special garments which include a thread of this hue.

There's also the biblical story of Moses leading the Jews in battle; as long as his hands were raised skyward, focusing soldiers on God, the Jews prevailed.

So wonderment at clouds isn't so trivial after all. If nothing else, we're reminded how small and inconsequential we are, and how subject to God's elements we remain. It's amusing that even the website of Pretor-Pinney's society is "powered by...cloud hosting." It seems even techys who rarely venture outdoors are giving a lot more attention to clouds.

All photographs copyright Diane Medved, 2011

Sometimes, justice prevails - even in Hollywood. Warner Brothers recently invested more than $100 million in an unspeakably ugly sleaze fest called SUCKER PUNCH, featuring lingerie-clad hotties tortured and lobotomized in an insane asylum, then forced into prostitution and martial arts confrontations.

Because writer-director Zach Snyder previously crafted the hit fantasies "300" and THE WATCHMEN, industry insiders predicted a major hit, but SUCKER PUNCH earned only $19 million-a showing the New York Times described as an "embarrassment."

Meanwhile, the top movie in the country cost less than one-fifth of SUCKER PUNCH's budget and aimed squarely at family audiences. DIARY OF A WIMPY KID 2: RODRICK RULES is a funny, touching comedy-drama about two quarreling brothers in a likeable church-going family. Despite Hollywood's unquenchable taste for sadistic and degenerate content, the American public frequently shows a strong preference for decency.

Guest blog by Diane Medved

I was still snoozing at 6:30 this morning when the phone rang. I guessed it was a radio interview for my husband who arises early, and let him pick it up. But soon he was calling my name--saying it was our son.

"Bad timing," I thought, assuming our 18-year-old wanted the flight information for his return home for Passover. But no. "Mom, I'm all right," he began, and I bolted upright.

"There was a terrorist attack at the bus stop today, and I just wanted to let you know I'm okay." My son is spending the year in Jerusalem studying at a yeshiva, a post-high-school program focusing on Jewish texts designed to set him on the right path spiritually for life. The only transportation he uses in Jerusalem is busses, and he rides them from one end of town--where his school is located--to the other, where we have friends and family. Yes, my son told me, he stands at and rides by that bus stop often, including the day before.

"Well don't ride any more busses," I told him firmly, recalling placing the same restriction on our daughter when she spent 2004-5 in seminary there.

It's only moms who are far away giving such admonitions. The rest of Israel, including all of Jerusalem, soon went about its business in normal fashion. The modern, fast-paced nation doesn't let one incident slow it down, and in fact, the attitude is that a strong and vibrant culture will repel repercussions better than dwelling on injury.

And Israel is definitely strong. Both men and women serve in the military, wearing their M-16 guns slung across their backs even when off-duty. The sight of well-armed and well-trained youth on the streets brings a feeling of security. As do careful inspections of trunks of cars as they pull into parking lots and structures, and watchful door guards at cafes and gathering places.

I'll never forget the sight at my nephew's wedding three years ago--his army buddies dancing around him link-armed in a circle, their long guns flapping against their backs as they jumped and high-stepped in joy. This is a society that trusts in God, but knows that man must do his part as well.

So, there was a a bomb, perhaps remotely controlled to hit a passing bus, left next to the bus stop. A woman died, three are in critical condition, twenty are injured. President Obama "condemns in the strongest possible terms" the bombing and in the same paragraph expresses "deepest condolences" to the families of 4 Palestinians accidentally killed in a Gaza airstrike aimed to stop the "dozens of rockets" that Benjamin Netanyahu says Hamas has "rained down" on southern Israel targets over the past several days.

I don't think the latest attack affected the safety situation in Israel overall. The modern, achieving people in that tech-savvy country are aware that some of their Jew-hating neighbors want them eliminated. They continue to carry out their usual activities, with a prudent sense of caution, aware that in the broader context, Israel has a very low intentional murder rate--2.1 per 100,000 population compared to the U.S.'s rate of 5.0 per 100,000 people. (Mexico and Russia both show 15 murders per 100,000 population in latest figures.)

As a mom, I'd rather have all my children close to me, and certainly prefer to have my son within my protective purview. But I also know that this is a precious year for him, a year when he can gain independence within the structure of a grounded program that will reinforce solid values. He likes his teachers and feels he's maturing and gaining insight. So, happy as I'll be when he returns home for Passover, I also know that there's something worthwhile about this special time in Jerusalem, center of spirituality.

I don't relish unexpected phone calls telling me of very frightening events. But being a parent means that unless your kids are sleeping soundly under your own roof, you're bound to have a tinge of worry, and if they're old enough to be on their own, I'd rather their early morning phone call begin with "Mom, I'm all right..." Somehow, I believe (though I continue to pray) that Israel will be all right, too.

DIANE'S BLOG: http://brightlightsearch.blogspot.com/

Liberal commentators blame the Bush tax cuts, not runaway spending, for the budget crisis.

They insist that slashing rates on income taxes, which means smaller percentages of private income going to government, would guarantee red ink even if Congress finds many billions in spending cuts.

The problem with this argument is that it’s clearly contradicted by recent history. Actually, the second round of Bush tax cuts in 2003 brought increased revenues – both in actual dollar terms and as a percentage of the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) -- not falling levels of government support. In 2007, six years after Bush began slashing tax rates, revenues rose above 18% of GDP –more than the 60 year post-war average. Revenue didn’t fall until 2009, when economic collapse meant people earned less money and more families joined the 40% of the population who pay no federal income taxes—leaving top earners carrying more, not less, of the overall tax burden. The Bush tax cuts never increased the federal taxes on the poor, the middle class or anyone else and, in fact, served to exempt millions of Americans from paying income taxes at all. The Bush experience wasn’t unique in demonstrating that lower tax rates don’t cause reduced levels of federal revenue.

The official numbers show that in dollar terms (adjusted for inflation) the money the government collected in taxes went up every single year between 1950 and 2009, even with sharp tax cuts by Presidents John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Even measured as a percentage of the GDP –or overall economy – falling tax rates didn’t produce plunging revenues—government generally got a bigger share, not a smaller share, when tax rates went down.

Reagan sharply cut tax rates twice, and reduced the top marginal rate from 70% when he took over all the way down to 28% when he left the White House. But revenue between the beginning and the end of his two terms went down only from 19% to 18% (of a dramatically expanded overall economy) and in dollar terms the tax collections dramatically soared.

Nor do sky-high tax rates on the rich guarantee substantial increases in government revenue. Under Eisenhower, the top tax rate reached 91%, but the government collected just 19%--almost identical to the 18% it collected after Reagan dropped that top rate all the way down to 28% in 2006.

Yes, government at all levels is broke, but the problem is based almost entirely on over-spending, crippling entitlements, too much borrowing and swelling debt, with stimulative tax cuts contributing little or nothing to catastrophic deficits.

Official government figures rebut the liberal lie that blames “tax cuts for the rich” for reduced levels of federal revenue. Actually, revenues for the government went up every single year between 1950 and 2009, even with sharp tax cuts by Presidents Kennedy, Reagan and George W. Bush.

Even measured as a percentage of the GDP—or overall economy—falling tax rates didn’t produce plunging revenues. Reagan sharply cut tax rates twice but revenue between the beginning and the end of his two terms went down only from 19 percent to 18 percent. Nor do sky-high tax rates on the rich guarantee substantial increases in government revenue. Under Eisenhower, the top tax rate reached 91 percent, but the government collected just 19 percent—almost identical to the 18 percent it collected after Reagan dropped that top rate all the way down to 28 percent in 2006.