Nice troll, Martin. I feel obliged to affix you to the wall with your own nails though...

Step 1: Admitting that you're a liberal

Yep. Per our friendly Guest above, "Directed to general broadening of mind,..generous, openhanded,..not rigorous or literal,..open minded, candid, unprejudiced..favourable to democratic reform and individual liberty." Proud to be so. Are you proud to say that you don't fit any of those categories? And incidentally, in the last three UK elections I've voted Liberal Democrat.

Step 2: Pledge to support your beliefs with facts

Yep, always do. I don't need to blindly believe that WMDs really were out there, or that Saddam really had links to Al-Qaeda, or that the Department of Homeland Security (and the corresponding UK Home Office section) are really making our lives safer, or that imprisonment without trial or even telling prisoners what they're imprisoned for in the UK and US (and certainly not presenting that to the public) is for everyone's good. If we can't believe that the government is efficient, can we trust them to behave morally without people being able to speak up in opposition to them? After all, if you couldn't trust JFK, Nixon or Clinton to behave morally, where's your guarantee from Mr. "Now Watch This Drive" and his appointed officials?

Step 3: Love America

Certainly do. It's a great country (even though I don't live there myself) and the bravery of its founding fathers is an inspiration to us all. However its recent leaders have been less inspiring. Think McCarthy and J Edgar Hoover's witch-hunts, JFK and Clinton using their presidential status to get laid, Nixon, and the various undignified involvements in Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Cambodia, Grenada, Somalia and Iraq. Please don't think I'm singling out the US government for particular attention - I know the UK government's record in Aden, Indonesia and Northern Ireland (to name just three) isn't anything to be proud of. My point is that you can love a country and still be clear that the actions of that country's present government are unjustified and/or immoral. I mean, as a Republican you're totally prepared to call Bill Clinton a "a lying-cheating-sexist-racist-rapist jackass", even though he was your president. Why are we not allowed to make similar criticisms of politicians and their actions when they're in power?

Step 4: Take a college level economics class

Sorry, I can't make this one. I looked at the careers path for economics and it was basically empty. That sounds like some kind of economic truth to me - if there's no future in spending 3 years and a bunch of your own money studying something, you're better spending the time and money somewhere else...

Step 5: Say "no" to Communism and Socialism

I'm with you on the former. However Europe has a long history of "Social Democrat" and "Christian Socialist" parties, who represent centre-left AND centre-right positions. There's a big spectrum of opinions in the socialism arena - if you doubt that, remember that the UK is being run by a socialist government right now, and very few would say they have much to do with Communism!

Step 6: Corporations are not evil

So far so good. However that doesn't make them benevolent either. In law, a corporation is its own entity, like a person. An individual can be held responsible for their actions, but it's less easy to be clear about a person taking some illegal or immoral action for the good of their corporation. For that reason, there are rules on what corporations can and can't do.

Step 7: The government is inefficient

Yep. So is any large company though. The private sector will *not* necessarily put your money to better use. The UK government has contracted out many IT projects to the private sector over the last 20 years, and I cannot remember a single one that came in on time and on budget, due to the failings of those private-sector companies.

Also bear in mind that the private sector is required to make a profit for private owners, where the public sector is required to work for the public users. So to take an example, a centre to look after aging diabetics will make a large profit by looking after a few rich people, but a centre to provide basic healthcare (setting broken bones, immunisation, etc) in an inner-city area is unlikely to turn up much income, even though it is helping many more people.

By the way, I'm interested in the way it's axiomatic that "government is inefficient", and yet other actions such as military action are beyond criticism. Where's your threshold for allowing constructive feedback on government actions?

Step 8: The earth is not your "mother," and she's not dying

"Face the reality that the earth, society, and our environment are better off today than ever in recorded history and that they are continuing to improve." Well, some places certainly are. Other places certainly aren't. Much of Scandanavia has suffered from acid rain, to the extent that nothing can live there. The Exxon Valdez didn't do much good to the Alaskan coastline either. And whilst the world currently may be in a good state, someone has to keep an eye on what's going on. Corporations aren't going to, because they maximise their income by clear-cutting the forests. Maybe in 100 years there won't be any forests to clear-cut, but this doesn't bother a corporation when tomorrow's share price is the prime concern. For a good example, look at Canada's Grand Banks which are now fish-free and may never recover after massive over-fishing - even when it was clear that over-fishing was destroying the fish stocks, it carried on until there was nothing left to catch. This is one part of economics maybe you missed?

Step 9: Stop smoking the wacky tobaccy

Doesn't do anything for me. I'd get your president to lay off the Jack Daniels though.

Step 10: Eat a hamburger

Yep. Not from McDonalds though, since their own literature makes it clear that they're 50% water.

Step 11: Stop re-writing political history

OK - in spite of any disagreements in there, those events are gone. Please can we also be clear though that there were *no* WMDs in Iraq, and that war-crimes were committed in Vietnam and Cambodia, and that there is no reason to maintain sanctions against Cuba? The current US government is not prepared to own up to any of these. (As an interesting aside, the governments opposing the creation of a independent UN war crimes court look like a list of the world's rogue states...and the US. Why? Because if this was ever set up, Henry Kissinger would be liable for war crimes committed by US forces in Vietnam and Cambodia. But Kissinger is now an "elder statesman" and a respected US envoy. How's that for re-writing political history?)

Step 12: Be a missionary

Oh, I am, I am. I'm spreading the righteous word, man, and the word is "LIBERAL"...