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.

The Healthcare Debate

Some time ago, I had a lengthy and at times heated debate via Facebook regarding the healthcare bill. Today, sadly, I revisited that conversation. What was intended to be a candid discussion about the government's role in this important legislation turned out to be a "schooling" about Christianity by someone who quotes the Bible without believing in either its divinity or authority.

Not wanting the federal government to control the healthcare industry does not mean that I am against taking care of the poor. This is an insanely illogical leap. But this is the leap that many take in this pitiful and hateful debate. Because of this leap of logic, I have been labeled un-Christian, greedy and ignorant. I am none of those things.

But the biggest point of all that I tried to make, and the one which was completely unaccepted, was that forcing charity is not what Christianity is all about. Indeed, once forced, as it would be under legislation, it is no longer the "charity" that was being preached to me but rather a form of oppression.

I somehow don't see myself standing in front of God on the day of my judgment saying, "No, Sir, I didn't give my money to the poor. But I sure did pay my taxes."

Greece Fire

The Associated Press reported today that labor strikes shut down public transport, schools and state hospitals in Greece.

The report goes on: "But unions say ordinary Greeks are being called to pay a disproportionate price for past fiscal mismanagement. 'They are trying to make workers pay the price for this crisis,' said Yiannis Panagopoulos, leader of Greece's largest union, the GSEE."

Gee, did they think the non-workers were going to pay for it?

Will these scenarios become commonplace across the globe as governments, no longer trusted by their citizenry, face economic demise amidst massive debt and shrinking GDPs?

What about the United States? Will our children be the ones picketing in the years to come? Will they be the ones being called to pay for our government's fiscal mismanagement and its burgeoning debt?