The Violence Worker!

Labels

Labels are funny things.  We use labels because we have a need to identify differences and we label everything.  We use labels to identify and classify every part of our life.  If I buy a bottle of beer, how would I know a Budweiser from a Samuel Adams without a label?  Both come in brown bottles and you cannot tell the difference just by looking at a plain brown bottle.

We classify everything from greater to lesser in order to better define our own little place in the great human catalog.  People often complain about political labels, but it's essentially an empty bleat.  We need to classify our foes and our friends.  Loyalties and beliefs are sometimes a shifting dune, but wherever we are at, we use labels in order find our place in our world.

Today, we identify those who believe in limited government and greater individual freedoms as "Conservative".  We classify those who believe government should have greater power and involvement in our lives as "Liberal".  To be honest, those are pretty broad labels.  There are people who have a foot in both circles.  We all probably blur the lines from time to time, but most of us have a set of core beliefs we adhere to that anchors our life.

When it comes to labels, I'm not a Republican. Yes, I supported McCain/Palin in the election and it's true that I oppose much of the Democrat Party agenda, but I'm not a Republican.  I used to be a Republican several years ago.  For a couple of years, I sent them 50 bucks and carried around a card in my wallet that said I was a member in good standing.  When the Republicans started tilting towards the Democrats in their spending and support for amnesty for illegals,  we parted ways.  I wrote them and told them I would no longer support them financially and why made that decision.  I told them I would now just support individual candidates that were closer to my ideology.

In today's parlance, I'm a Conservative, but I think definitions have changed over the years because I'm probably a Liberal in the classic sense.

As Scott, one of my commenters, pointed out: 

[S]omeone who is "liberal" believes in "ideals of individual (especially economic freedom), [and] greater individual participation in government." That's from Merriam-Webster, the (political) definition of a noun that dates from the 14th century. The more modern definition of the word "liberalism" (from 1819) is "a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties."

Then count me as a liberal.  I believe in the ideals of individualism, economic freedom and greater individual participation.  I believe in protecting political and civil liberties.  I believe that most people are good people who essentially want to live in peace and have the opportunity to prosper.

The concept of America was a country with a limited federal government.  States were given the primary responsibility to govern.  The founders of this nation believed in individual liberty and limited government.  They had a belief in the goodness of people and that it was the people, not some legislator or President  who could best decide their needs.  With the advent of "cap and trade" and "Obama care", we are seeing the end of our run.  We've surrendered our freedom to people who are definitely not liberal.  They are not interested in liberty or freedom as they seek to take those things away.

Cap and Trade is not about "global warming" or "climate change".  They even admit it would have little or no effect on climate.  It's about the government controlling energy; who has it and how much it will cost.  Health care is more about making us wards of the state rather than freedom of choice.  We complain that insurance companies have too much to say about our care, but wait until a government bean counter mandates what you can eat or drink because it's too expensive for you to gain weight.

I label myself a Conservative, but in fact, I'm a classical Liberal.  I want freedom and liberty.

VW

Dominick Sergio Maldonado Redux

Why is everyone all of a sudden Googling "Dominick Sergio Maldonado"?

Dominick is (in)famous for shooting up the Tacoma Mall almost four years ago in November.  He was a little punk with a big chip on his shoulder who decided to get a little attention for himself.  He didn't kill anyone, but he did wound one person severely enough and that person is now crippled for life.  He got 163 years for his little tantrum.  That means he'll be about 125 years old when he's eligible for parole.

Today, for some reason, I'm getting hits from all over the country by people searching for this guy.  Anyone care to share?

VW

The Slow Joe Biden School Of Economics

Joe Biden is not exactly a towering intellect.  His gaffes are legendary and he makes Sarah Palin look like a genius. The idea of Biden as President should make you pray every day for Obama's longevity.

Whenever Biden opens his mouth, he never fails to deliver a world class "Huh?", and today was no exception:

“And folks look, AARP knows and the people with me here today know, the president knows, and I know, that the status quo is simply not acceptable,” Biden said at the event on Thursday in Alexandria, Va. “It’s totally unacceptable. And it’s completely unsustainable. Even if we wanted to keep it the way we have it now. It can’t do it financially.”
 
“We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation,” Biden said.

“Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.”

I think I get it.  It's like a alcoholic running out of booze.  If we ever want any hope of curing him, we have to get him more booze.  Clear as mud!

Slow Joe and company are telling you these things, not because they are true (they know they are lying) but because they think you are so stupid, you'll nod your head like the slow-witted animals in ANIMAL FARM when Gibbs Squealer explains another one of Obama's Napoleon's broken promises.

I don't care how you spin the language, you cannot fix runaway spending by spending more.  It is not possible.  If you have a credit card and you have a 5000 dollar limit and you are barely making the minimum payments, you are in trouble.  The credit card company then doubles your credit limit and you go one a spending spree.  The bill comes due, and you cut your cable TV, and try and save a few bucks on your energy bill, but it's not enough.  You even beg a small raise, but in the end, the money is going out faster than it's coming in, so you go spend more.  See how that helps you?  In no time, your financial worries are over.

The trouble is, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office said today:

Under current law, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path, because federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run. Although great uncertainty surrounds long-term fiscal projections, rising costs for health care and the aging of the population will cause federal spending to increase rapidly under any plausible scenario for current law. Unless revenues increase just as rapidly, the rise in spending will produce growing budget deficits. Large budget deficits would reduce national saving, leading to more borrowing from abroad and less domestic investment, which in turn would depress economic growth in the United States. Over time, accumulating debt would cause substantial harm to the economy.

Rapid increases in revenue would also kill the economy.

In other words, folks, the economy is headed for a train wreck of epic proportions if we don't stop spending and and start cutting expenditures. 

Get ready to become a third world nation under comrade Napoleon Obama.

VW

Busy

Been busy with the yard and with family.  Back at it tomorrow.

VW

The Great Palouse Earthworm Caper

The Palouse is a region south of Spokane that covers about 18,000 square miles of eastern Washington, northeastern Oregon, and northwestern Idaho.  This area produces about double the national average of wheat per bushel per acre.  In other words, it's probably no stretch to say that the Palouse feeds a good share of the world.  But if some eco-tyrants have their way, it might all come to a crashing halt.  The Palouse is allegedly the habitat of the mythical Great Palouse Earthworm and they want this worm to be declared an endangered species.

From KOMO-TV NEWS:

The worm is said to secrete a lily-like smell when handled, spit at predators, and live in burrows 15 feet deep. There have only been four sightings.

But scientists hope to change that this summer with researchers scouring the Palouse regoin in hopes of finally finding the giant earthworm. Conservationists also want the Obama administration to protect it as an endangered species, even though there is scant scientific information about its existence.

"It absolutely exists," insisted Jodi Johnson-Maynard, a University of Idaho professor who is leading the search for the worm.

To prove it, she pulled out a glass tube containing the preserved remains of a fat, milky-white worm. One of Johnson-Maynard's graduate students found this specimen in 2005, and it is the only confirmed example of the species.

I'm no expert wormologist (or whatever they are called), but usually, if something is without color, it's either an albino, or it spends its time completely out of the sun.  The color of this worm is, to me, indicative that it just might stay 15 feet below the surface.  What if the reason no one hardly ever sees it is because it stays deep down in the ground?

All that side, if they can convince the Obama administration to declare it an endangered species, it could be a problem.

Farmers are keeping a wary eye on the process.

"The concern is whether a listing is going to end up curtailing farming activities," said Dan Wood of the Washington State Farm Bureau. "I dont know if people plan to stop all farming for the possibility of a worm being somewhere."

They should be worried and those of us who must eat to live should be a little worried as well.

In the San Joaquin Valley, irrigation water is being denied many farmers because of the Delta Smelt.  No water, no crops.

I understand the need to preserve nature, but we need to make decisions based upon common sense and priorities.  If they are successful in getting this worm declared an endangered species, bread might just become a little harder to come by and a lot more expensive.

VW.

The Great Western Heresy

Let me preface my post today with this:  If you've read this blog for any length of time, I generally don't spend much time discussing religion.  While I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and consider myself to be a Christian, religion is not the focus of this blog.  Suffice to say, I'm not exactly the evangelical or fundamentalist type.  However, every once in a while, a news item crosses my screen and it almost demands comment.  This is one of those news items.

The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori,  recently raised some eyebrows with her opening remarks to their 2009  general convention.  In part she said:

The overarching connection in all of these crises has to do with the great Western heresy – that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God.  It’s caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus.  That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of being.

For an explanation of what she meant, I found this from a Father T. (Terry Martin), an Episcopal Priest:

My salvation is yoked to your salvation!

If we look at so many of the messes made by humanity, throughout history as well as in our current time (economic downturn, for instance), we can see at their root a fixation on the illusion of individuality. The unspoken ethical standard today is no longer classical deontology (focusing on the morality of the act itself) or consequentialism (focusing on the result of the act...seeking the greatest good for all) but instead a hybrid notion of hedonism (the greatest good for me is the right thing to do).

And for too long we've baptism this notion, acting as if there was such a thing as "Christian Hedonism." You don't have to look too far to find it. Is Christianity all about getting my personal ticket to heaven? If so, personally, I'd rather not.

Since that kind of blatant "Christian Hedonism" has made a few folks uncomfortable, it's often masked in various ways...but still amounts to the same thing. My "Christian duty" is depicted as taking care of my family, my neighbrohood (sic), my church, my country first. Let's be honest for a minute. Isn't that kind of rationale nothing more than an expansion of our personal ego?

This "Christian Duty"  the Reverend T alludes to is the basis for our entire civilization.  His own "rationale" that this is some kind of an expansion of our ego is at the core of Socialism.  Socialism seeks to destroy individualism by putting the society first.  (Keep in mind that where ever this has been tried, totalitarianism reigns.

I'm obviously no theologian, but it is readily apparent to me that Bishop Jefferts Schori either thinks the New Testament is some quaint little book that has little relevance or she's thrown out the book altogether and Jesus is just this nice guy who said some really socially responsible things now and then.  

In John, Chapter 14, Jesus said this in answer to Thomas asking how they will find their way:   "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."  Note the lack of the collective. You must find the way and the ONLY way is through Jesus the Christ.

As I read my bible, I keep seeing verses that tell me that I must have faith, that I must act.  Not in some collective, but personally.  I must have faith and once I have that faith, I am responsible for my action.  We are baptized as individuals.  

I do agree, there is no prescribed prayer of salvation.  The thief on the cross did not say a prayer.  The thief was saved for his faith, not because he was part of some greater effort or because he said some prayer.  His Salvation was his own and not linked to anyone or anything.  He alone spoke up.  The other thief was not in the least repentant.  His lack of salvation was his own and not linked to anyone else.   I do believe, however, that if a prayer is offered, I don't think God will turn a deaf ear.

Here's my problem with liberalism in the church.  When my life is over, God isn't going to ask me what my church did or how much of my income I was willing to pay in taxes.  I will be responsible for my life, not a collective and that is the great message of Christianity.  I must choose to do good.  God gave us an intellect and an ability to make choices.  He gave us different talents and expects us to multiply them by making wise decisions.

I believe it is people like Bishop Jefferts Schori and The Reverend Martin that are the ones introducing heresy into the Church.  The social Gospel and/or liberation theology are nothing more than socialism creeping into the church and that eventually, they will start to even deny Christ.  Wait! Some already are.

VW

From The American Spectator Blog

Support A Woman's Right To Choose