Another perspective...

The following perspective is from former SWAT leader and Tea Party activist Doug Dragert:

"I find it difficult to respond to such asinine statements made by Sheriff Dubnik of Pima County, Arizona, or any other leftists for that matter, but I'd like to address Sheriff Dubnik. Sheriff, are you blowing smoke to cover a major problem with you and your department?

If you ran an efficient organization, well trained and professional why were you not aware of the threat that was posed by Loughner? Loughner had numerous contacts with the police due to his bizzare behavior. Was Dubnik so obtuse that he did not see the threat or was he making a political cover up?

When I ran a SWAT team for five years I had floor plans for most of the tract homes in my city so I would know the layout of a house should I need it. I had patrolmen copy me with reports they made concerning mentally disturbed persons. If I felt the person was a possible threat, I would interview the reporting officer and then interview the subject of the report as well as make a schematic of his/her abode for future reference.

Through this simple technique I was able to identify more than one schizo. As a matter of fact, one of the identified paranoid-schizos did in fact "turn the corner". When my team had to make an assault I knew pretty much knew what he was going to do and what type of weapon he'd use. There was no injury to officers or subject.

Am I a law enforcement genius? Far from it! I was a cop charged with the safeguarding of the citizens I served. In my position I had to know what and who posed a threat to my community and be ready and able to neutralize that threat. That is what Sheriff Dubnik is also charged with. Apparently he is not up to the task and would rather blame conservatives for his lack of foresight and concern for the citizens of Pima County. He has sworn to uphold the laws of the State of Arizona and has a legal and moral obligation to protect its citizens. Great job, Dubnik! How dare he say that he would not enforce the immigration law if it were passed! Did he lie when he took his oath of office?

I fail to see what politics has to do with the enforcement of laws, bringing scofflaws to justice and incarcerating those convicted of crimes. Are liberals or conservatives treated differently under criminal laws? If I am a conservative Republican do I only arrest liberal Democrats? Does it matter what political party a crazed murderer belongs to? What party did Ted Bundy belong to? How about Charles Manson?

After the riots in Los Angeles when blacks attacked the Korean community, burned, pillaged and looted, the government sent a commission to find out what caused the blacks to act in the manner they did. WHAT? A group of criminals went on a rampage! That's what happened. It's long past time that we hold individuals accountable for their actions! The only person pulling a trigger in Tucson was Loughner. Loughner is a paranoid-schizo - not a conservative or a liberal. Dubnik failed in his duty to protect the citizens of Tucson.

End of story."

An Arizonan Tragedy

In an unbelievable act of violence, Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head during a rally with her constituents on Saturday morning. As expected, the political pundits immediately started pointing fingers.

Since she was a Democrat, the left blamed right-wing rhetoric from the likes of Sarah Palin and her political target map which showed a crosshairs icon directly over Rep. Giffords' district. Here's one of many: http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sarah-palin-target-list-reason-jared-lee-loughner-shot-giffords-2745667.html.

Right-wing blogs reported that the shooter was apparently upset at Giffords for voting against progressive Nancy Pelosi as Minority Speaker of the House. Here's the most notable on short research: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2653556/posts.

The Tea Party, of course, has not emerged unscathed. When asked if his daughter had any enemies, Giffords' father, Spencer Giffords replied, "Yeah, the whole Tea Party." As unfortunate a comment as this may be in my eyes, I am not so callous as to not understand that a grieving father is looking for fault and a place to lay his anger. And the Tea Party in this Arizona district may very well be deserving of this judgment, especially in light of the quite distasteful ad placed by Giffords' Tea Party nemesis, Jesse Kelly: http://yfrog.com/h5p7wp.

However, certain "facts" have emerged which suggest that the shooter was not associated with the Tea Party. (Quotes here are to pay homage to the fact that not only are experts quite early in their investigations, but reliability of sources is rapidly becoming scarce especially from the biased media and politically active bloggers.) As reported by the Huffington Post, listed among Loughner's favorite books are "The Communist Manifesto" and "Mein Kampf." They are also reporting him as being anti-government. This, and coupled with the realization that there's a distinct lack of information that Loughner himself identified with the Tea Party leads me to believe that there is no concrete connection there.

In fact, the only obvious explanation at this point is made clear in Loughner's own ramblings as shown on his YouTube account and posted by the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/08/jared-lee-loughner-gabrielle-giffords-shooter_n_806243.html.

This man is paranoid, unstable and clearly not grounded in reality. While Palin's target rhetoric is regrettable, its intention was not to incite violence. And while the shooter may have been angry over Giffords lack of support for Nancy Pelosi, there are probably many hardcore Democrats out there who chose to blog, protest, or write Congress to express their disdain.  In either case, shooting her was not a reasonable response by a reasonable personality.

The truth is, this is an emotionally and probably mentally unstable human being who probably decided to do what he did because he is insane and for no other reason.  Assigning political motivation to his criminally insane mind serves no purpose and does not advance any agenda, either left or right.

Until the truth emerges, however, the only appropriate response is to pray.  Pray for Rep. Giffords and the others to recover from their wounds, pray for the families of the deceased and pray for justice to prevail.

Gotta love this line...

"Game, set, match Tea Party." ~ Regarding the Omnibus spending bill, as reported by the Huffington's Post's Howard Fineman.  Read the entire article here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/16/tea-party-era-begins_n_798036.html

The Establishment Is Taking Its Lumps

    
As a proud Tea Party member, I am thrilled to see the emergence of Tea Party-backed candidates around the country gaining popularity and even winning important primaries over well-established incumbents. It is encouraging to see that the voting populace is no longer voting on
the "name brand" nominee and is instead seeking those who actually stand for something.

For instance, Mike Lee won the GOP bid for a senate seat in Utah, ousting the incumbent Republican Robert Bennett by touting his love for the Constitution and a "practical" understanding of its function.

Ken Buck of Colorado defeated the early Republican favorite Lt. Gov. Jane Norton running on a platform of "bottom-up" governance vs. Norton's establishment mentality of taking care of the status quo. (If you haven't been to this guy's website, I highly suggest you peruse his blog. All I can say is, "Wow!")

Joe Miller of Alaska defeated incumbent Republican Lisa Murkowski who is now running what some call a "sore loser" campaign as an independent. The Murkowski name has been part of the Senate GOP for three decades but the Alaskan GOP still voted her down this year. Joe Miller has promised to "support and defend" our Constitution. This race is reminiscent of Florida where Republican Governor Charlie Crist is now running as an independent in that state after being defeated by Marco Rubio.

And then there's Christine O'Donnell who is referred to as a "Constitutional conservative" by her endorser, Sarah Palin. In Delaware, Ms. O'Donnell defeated a nine-time senator and former governor to win the GOP bid for senate in the most surprising upset this primary season.

Those of us who are active in supporting the Tea Party movement know that what this country needs is a return to core American values such as individual liberty and sanctity of life. We need to take a fresh look at the timeless document we call our U.S. Constitution which protects those ideals. The outcomes in these races are evidence that more people are not only waking up to that knowledge but are flexing their political muscles and exercising their right to vote with that strength.

The establishment called the GOP has certainly taken its lumps this primary season. As the Tea Party brews another pot for November, it will be fascinating to see how the Democratic establishment fares when those final votes are tallied.

So, how's about it, Dems? One lump or two?

Social Justice - Part III

From Dictionary.com, justice is 1) the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause, 2) rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice, 3) the moral principle determining just conduct, 4) conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment, 5) the administering of deserved punishment or reward, 6) the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings: a court of justice and 7) judgment of persons or causes by judicial process: to administer justice in a community.

Once again, I have omitted some definitions such as those that refer to the Justice Department or an alternate name for a judge. Feel free to check out www.dictionary.com for yourself.

As you can see, justice is inextricably bound to righteousness and morality. Without righteousness and morality, or the ability to judge between what one thinks is right and wrong, justice cannot exist. In addition, justice is of no effect without comparison. One man cannot be unjust to himself.

Thus, justice is the moral determination through righteous decision regarding whether or not ideas and actions are fair, or equitable, between one person or act and another. Further, once a comparison has been deemed unjust, or unfair, justice is also the action by which equality is achieved.

Combining this with the definition of "social" established yesterday, "social justice" is a determination, based on righteousness and morality, made by a community or group of people, upon comparison to another community or group, that an inequality exists. Social justice also necessarily includes those actions taken by a group to restore equilibrium.

Social Justice - Part II

Upon consideration, I felt it prudent to start with the basics - definition. If we can't agree on what we're talking about, we have no basis for debate.

Therefore, from Dictionary.com:

Social means 1) pertaining to, devoted to, or characterized by friendly companionship or relations, 2) living or disposed to live in companionship with others or in a community, rather than in isolation, 3) of or pertaining to human society, esp. as a body divided into classes according to status, 4) of or pertaining to the life, welfare, and relations of human beings in a community or 5) noting or pertaining to activities designed to remedy or alleviate certain unfavorable conditions of life in a community, esp. among the poor.

In Webster's Dictionary from 1913*, "social" was known to mean 1) Of or pertaining to society; relating to men living in society, or to the public as an aggregate body; as, social interest or concerns; social pleasure; social benefits; social happiness; social duties 2) Ready or disposed to mix in friendly converse; companionable; sociable; as, a social person or 3) Consisting in union or mutual intercourse.

For expediency, I left out the definitions that included references to zoology, botany and parties. :)

As you can see, the word has metamorphosized from meaning simply "about society/relationships" to include ideas about status, unfavorable conditions, the poor, etc. I point this out only to emphasize why the definition itself may be fuzzy as it is currently used. For our discussions, I will be referring to "social" as merely regarding the "group" or "collective" and leaving out subjective terminology such as status and poor.

That being said, the definition of justice has proved to be much more difficult and will be the subject of my next post.

*As an aside, I found it rather interesting that the 1828 version of Websters included the sentence "True self-love and social are the same" and then went on to define self-love as synonymous with selfishness. This sentence was removed in the 1913 version.

Social Justice...Is It Really Just?

As an aside to my post from yesterday, I am settling in on a heap of documentation pulled from the internet both pro and con regarding this vague and unsettling term "social justice."

I think I understand the conservative view. I think I understand the progressive view. I know I need to study it more.

Tonight, I'll be organizing and sorting, trying to form questions without answering them, and trying to look at the issue from a logical perspective, a Christian perspective, a political perspective and any other perspectives that I can think of.

Feel free to comment and let us together push ourselves toward truth.