Am I a liberal?

I've decided I should answer this comment in the form of a post. It's from someone who I believe I have been hearing from quite a bit lately.

Anonymous said...
Are you a liberal?

If you aren't one, the more you are in the liberal environment you are in the more liberal you will become.

Either you will become more liberal or you will be emotionally destroyed.

Or you will lose your job.
For it is compromise, hide or be destroyed. Those are your options.

I'm sure I don't claim to be all sufficient in my strength, nor do I claim to have all the answers. But honestly, I wish you could hear yourself! That sounds like it's a movie line or something. Am I right?

No I'm not a modern liberal. I'm a classical liberal, in the vein of John Locke and Edmond Burke. I'm sorry if your life is like a movie--mine isn't. I don't depend on my own strength to stay firm in my convictions. I simply use the mind God has given me and exercise it responsibly, which means learning in whatever situation I find myself--be that here in a bastion of secular humanism, or in my church, or pounding in nails on the job. By God's grace, I can trust Him that as I hold fast in my convictions, whether I receive reciprocation or not, nothing can shake my faith or push me from the good path God has ordained.

I would encourage you to take heart and trust in the Lord. Don't put your faith in political leaders--you of all people should know they are not the answer to the world's problems, much less your own.

"Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him and He will direct your paths." Proverbs 3:5.6

Just the beginning

I won't be sappy and say this is a tragedy because it's totally the president's prerogative. I'm sure he had his reasons for withdrawing Harriet Miers’ nomination. I guess I figured it would be better to just give her a shot at the hearings instead of preemptively "borking" her. Not only did a potentially good justice not get a fair shake, the White House also just shot itself in the political foot. What chance is ANY candidate from Bush going to get if he is subject to the whims of political know-nothings like you and me and the far left in an area that the constitution gives him the sole prerogative. It's his job to do the nominating. The only veto we have is from the Senate. So why didn't the Senate get it's say?

I have never seen so many political opportunities open for the Democrats. Not only did they get to say she was a bad choice--and have Republicans agree--they also get to criticize conservatives for acting like liberal jerks. So what now? If the conservatives are happy with the next nomination, the liberals will be mad. Oops...

Amy Goodman teaches reporting

So I spent over half an hour listening to a far left propaganda machine this afternoon.

My professor admitted jokingly he was probably force-feeding...his reasons for playing a pod cast of DomocracyNow! in class is still a bit obscure, besides the fact that he "highly recommends it." You see, he probably thinks it's time we graduated from the elementary and archaic elements of journalism like, say, objectivity.

The pod cast was an interview with British Indy journalist Robert Fisk, a "veteran" of numerous conflicts and, from what I could tell, a pacifist as well. His rant was one continuous stream of deranged pessimism regarding Iraq and how it is simply a mess and he suspects he might not be brave enough to risk another trip.

One half-hour later, as he finished his rant, Goodman asked a final question after the audience finished applauding...

After all you have been through, and all the wars you have covered, all the death you have seem, "what gives you hope?"

...*silence*... "...Nothing...nothing. *shaky voice* I'm sorry, maybe ordinary people speaking out, but nothing really."

I didn't know whether to laugh or to cry. I should choose the later I suppose because, as a Christian, I hurt for people who have this kind of empty hopelessness. That's got to be an awful way to live.

The prof finally made some point about this can teach us that we should never hesitate to challenge power...

Ok...is that all? Can I go now?

Crossposted at Western Washington Unraveled

Rising above

I just checked my ranking in the TTLB blog ecosystem...it's a huge blog ranking system...I've been a "large mammal" for quite some time. But I just checked and I'm ranked right above Moveon.org! I haven't a clue how that works but here it is for your own viewing...maybe it will have changed by the time you check though. As of this posting, I'm numbered overall at 443.

Not too bad!

Truthful reporting..and bluffing

Drudge is reporting an ABC reporter tried to bluff the White House into revealing more information about possible indictments in the Plame/CIA outing affair. The reporter apparently said to a White House spokesman "We have double sourced that the vice president's chief of staff has been indicted."

Later ABC disclaimed the statement: "There is nothing at all true about us having double sourced anything."

One word: pathetic

So conservative they look liberal

I had an early distaste for the tactics that GOP haters...er...critics of Harriet Miers have employed in trying to scuttle her nomination. They have fooled themselves into thinking they are taking a stand for principled conservatism, while all the while missing their own hypocrisy. The confirmation of Roberts was won primarily by debunking the myth that nominees needed to answer personal question and reveal privileged documents. Roberts stood fast and refused to answer hypothetical questions, brilliantly citing the Ginsberg confirmation hearings as precedent for his silence, winning general admiration even among those who were frustrated by his dodge.

And now...as soon as the "base" thinks they can't totally trust a nominee to be a carbon copy of themselves, they jump on the liberal bandwagon demanding the very hypothetical answers and privileged information Roberts and co. fought so hard to protect.

So for the first time, I suspect we are having conservatives partaking in the so-called "borking" of a nominee. I'm incensed. I began with just as much skepticism and disappointment as everyone else, and now I find I am totally dismayed. You see, if Miers is successfully borked by her own friendlies (as seems likely), there is an even greater chance of never again getting a strong constitutionalist on the bench of the United States Supreme Court.

Coburn: marking the boundries

I wonder if he will ever go to another dinner party again. Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma defied the Washington establishment by introducing legislation to slash pork spending to pay for Katrina rebuilding. Other senators, interested in keeping their precious pets back home happy, were quick to get hopping mad, as Mark Tapscott from the Heritage Foundation explained:

What Coburn got in response was pure bipartisan outrage. Sen. Patty Murray, the very liberal Washington Democrat, warned that any senator supporting the Coburn amendments would find projects in his or her own state getting the evil eye by annoyed colleagues who don't want to rock the log-rolling boat.

And Alaska's Ted Stevens, the Old Bull Republican moderate who has been one of the biggest obstacles in Congress to conservative reform since the Reagan administration, stood on the floor and thundered that he would leave the Senate if the Coburn proposal passed.

The amendments fail by a huge margin. Tapscott is a good read, though. Check it out. I heard elsewhere that Murry was angry at Coburn for condemning a proposed statue park (or something like that) somewhere in Seattle. The only way they have justified the project is by saying that they just need to make the land useful...

Coburn is one of the most principled people in America. He first served in the House of Representatives, but didn't stick around because he believes in term limits for congress members and had promised he would only serve a set number of terms. He kept his promise, took time of and then ran for the Senate and won.

Go get them again Tom!

Tuskegee goes over there

Good!

That's all I can say--this is good. This is what support-the-troops looks like.

Lt. Col. Herbert Carter is 86 years old and ready for deployment. More than 60 years after his World War II tour with the pioneering black pilots known as the Tuskegee Airmen, Carter's new mission will be shorter, though no less courageous.

Carter is one of seven aging Tuskegee Airmen traveling this weekend to Balad, Iraq--a city ravaged by roadside bombs and insurgent activity--to inspire a younger generation of airmen who carry on the traditions of the storied 332nd Fighter Group.

"I don't think it hurts to have someone who can empathize with them and offer them encouragement," he said.

My small corner

It was an interesting day...I got most everything done at the last minute. Now I'm sitting in the Underground Coffeehouse. Upon walking in the door, I was shocked by the crowd. The place is packed for the open mic.


I ran into Caleb H. who said this is insane compared to the 10-or-so that are usually here. I wouldn't know because this is the first time I've been here for this. It's almost funny to think that I actually came here to get some quiet reading/writing time. Instead, my brains are being pounded out by anyone with the faintest notion of musicianship.


For my part, I'm just happy to have found a place to sit--here in the corner...


...with a nice wireless connection at least. The night is not lost totally at least.


Anyway...that's, a little of what I'm looking at right now. Be thankful you are don't have to have the audio accompaniment.

Context

For all those who are interested in the context of that crazy mugshot, here's the real deal. It's from Summer 2004 encampment at Fort Lewis--my last CAP activity to date. It's one of the pictures of the command staff taken for the yearbook.

Moving right from myself (Executive Officer): Chief Master Sgt Jason Jurca (Command Chief), Lt Col Talor Black (Commander), Maj Sidonie Schnabler (Deputy Commander)...


All clear?

Arkansas newborn is sweet 16

The Duggar family of Arkansas is going long and strong. They have garnered plenty of attention from the local and national media because Mrs. Duggar just gave birth Tuesday to Johannah Faith, otherwise known as number 16. Jim Bob, a former state representative, and Michelle both say they aren't done yet, quoted here in the AP:

"We both just love children and we consider each a blessing from the Lord. I have asked Michelle if she wants more and she said yes, if the Lord wants to give us some she will accept them." -Jim Bob Duggar

Their oldest child, Joshua, is only 17-years-old.

Elitist fury: Miers in the line of fire

It's coming to the point where the liberals may look on all she has endured and say, "you've earned a seat on the high court. Here, if it really makes Republicans that angry, take it."

It's getting beyond the point of pathetic. I'll admit to being a little disappointed at first at Miers nomination, but only because she didn’t fit into what I considered was the only thing we needed–a carbon copy of Scalia or Thomas. I'm definitely over it after, having gotten a more complete picture. One thing is perfectly clear--it's no longer ordinary pro-life advocates who are blubbering. Indeed, they should be very pleased with her appointment if they know anything about her.

Since the initial din of protest, the current noise seems to be mostly from Washington insiders upset she isn't stereotypical. No Ivy League school, no long record in politics, no party-line Republican history, nothing...nothing except a pristine record of skillful practice and conscientious, selfless service to God and country–how shocking someone would think that enough!

I think we've spent so much time fighting a politicized judiciary, we've forgotten what it could and perhaps should look like!

I half expected WORLD Magazine to reflect this kind of exasperation when I read their cover piece on Miss Miers. Marvin Olasky, in his usual level-headed way (as opposed to a Coulteresque tirade), examined her in great detail and as well as some of the reactions that have been going around. He did a lot of talking to those who know her best:

They see her as an evangelical who is meek—in the biblical sense of humble strength. For 25 years she has been a member of Valley View Christian Church in Dallas, a conservative evangelical church and not one of the city's fashionable ones. Never married, she has devoted herself to work, her extended family, and her church, serving on the missions committee for 10 years, teaching children in Sunday school, making coffee, and bringing donuts.

At the same time, she's practiced corporate law in a major Texas firm. Mr. Kinkeade calls her "a superstar here in Dallas before George Bush ever entered the picture." He believes that some critics are attacking her because "she's not from the East or West coasts—didn't go to an Ivy League law school. They don't like that."

I think it's time some people shut up and sit down. Stop ranting about Souter, OConnor and judicial trends, and just recognize that she is different from any previous nominee. If I black out all the naysayers and just look at her for who she is, I really like what I see.

One more thing: Rehnquist wasn't a judge before he was nominated to the supreme court. Why should that be a problem now?

Laughing and wondering

I really could care less about PETA's vendetta against Vogue Magazine's editor or about the two times they have thrown pie her way. In fact, I'm sure most people just find it amusing. What I do wonder is what on earth happens to people in France when they throw pie.

Really, this story is so definitive. Over here, PETA has allegedly stolen animals from some of the biology labs at Western...true, that was many years ago. In France, they apparently like to through tofu instead. Not only that, the AP story didn't say if anyone was arrested, which makes me think I might get a free pass if I decide to have a little pie-throwing fest outside Jackie Chirac's house. Come to think of it, that might be the easiest way to gain control of the french military--if that was something worth doing that is.

Crossposted at Western Washington Unraveled

[title goes here]

Have you ever taken it into your head to write a piece, but with no idea of what is going to appear in front of you at its conclusion? Good, because neither have I until this very minute of my life. The demands of a captive audience (whatEVER!), compel me to proceed regardless of my heretofar missing thesis.

***

Once upon a time, there was a good little man who lived on his life's savings from the moment he was born. This was, of course, very little to live off since he hadn't found any time to save in the first place. However, this was not entirely true since he had many friends throughout his life, the first of whom were some very wealthy parents, who helped him along the way and always made sure his savings were adequately sustained.

The good little man's name was Tedward, a good little name if not strictly for the fact that it combined three perfectly good and fine names in to one small name. He took a great deal of pride in this and was sure to remind everyone when he introduced himself to any new friend-sustainers he stumbled across on one of his few tromps through the urban forest he called home.

Tedward lived a meager life my most standards. He couldn't afford the cable TV rates in his hole--er house--so he settled for a couple dozen channels from the lowest end satellite deal he could manage. He knew he was severely deprived because of this lack of visual diversity and often petitioned his friend-sustainers at the welfare office to pick up more of his TV bill. He rarely ate at home, finding it was more difficult to use his food stamps at a grocery checkout than not spend anything at all at the local food bank...

***

To be continued...or not...

Minutemen are here

Wherever they go, they make waves. The mere mention of the Minutemen and their activities on the border is enough to make the typical Bellinghamster cluck in disdain. Today I was a little incensed when a fellow Klipsun writer announced her feature on the Minutemen. She felt it necessary to explain who they were... "Those border watchers who carry guns and say they are peaceful but are not..." Objectivity...um...not quite. I felt like calling up the Minutemen and telling them to not give her any interviews because it really wasn't worth their time.

Local coverage hasn't been huge but it's been interesting nonetheless. The first story in the Herald had lot of basic info straight from the project, which surprised me--most papers would consider that level of reliance on one source to be biased. But it was worth it in this case because they had a lot of clarification to do. After their description of themselves, one is hard pressed to think of them has causing any harm--they do some pretty intensive screenings of members and limit themselves to zero contact with illegals.

Harmlessness notwithstanding, the local village idiots still found something to protest on Saturday. What were they protesting? Well from what I can see, I guess they are protesting the border's existence. What else can I conclude when I see a sign reading "No one is illegal?" Huh?

Conclusion: strange events make for strange people.

Crossposted at Western Washington Unraveled

San Fran sleaze

It's the rather unfortunate lot of mine to have roots in the bay area so it's always kind of depressing to read up on the lunacy of that particular concentration of humanity. Zombietime featured some analysis of the September 24 anti-war protests as they were covered in the San Francisco Chronicle--or prehaps "covered" isn't the right term...white-washed maybe?

Here's a quote from Zombietime if you need inducement to see the photos and breakdown for youself:

It turns out that the woman giving directions belongs to one of the Communist groups organizing the rally -- if her t-shirt is to be believed, since it depicts the flag of Communist Vietnam, which has been frequently displayed by such groups at protest rallies in the U.S. for decades.

Check it out for yourself.

Crossposted at Western Washington Unraveled

Two cities: the concise answer

Horace Cooper (from National Center for Public Policy Research) writes in his column, A Tale of Two Cities, what many have been thinking and few have said out loud. He is to be commended:

While it’s true that the two hurricanes hit at different intensity levels, the important differences can best be described as a tale of two cities – New Orleans and Houston.

No two neighboring towns better embody the differences between the two main political philosophies competing in the U.S. today – Houston, Texas which is the embodiment of the Lone Star State’s can do spirit of limited government and self-reliance versus New Orleans, Louisiana, aptly nicknamed the “Big Easy” and perhaps the embodiment of welfare state dependence in the South.

Catch the complete piece at Townhall.com

Crossposted at Head West, Turn Right