Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Best Blogger, EVER, in my whole mind!

.. to put things in perspective, is this retired LA Cop blogger:

Brutality was what {Democratic} Mayor Tom Bradley encouraged from LA cops throughout the 1980s. At the time, we couldn?t understand why Bradley?s Police Commission required us to use metal pipes on psychotic arrestees; nor did we know why Bradley forced the LAPD to welcome incompetent applicants, gang members, and drug dealers into our ranks as police officers in the name of diversity. After a while, I found that the more LA cops were viewed as thugs and criminals, the wider the chasm grew between the LAPD and the community we served, and the stronger LA liberals became politically.

Hmmm... not that I REALLY believe in that whole conspiracy thing... oh, wait, that's what I've been saying for years!
- read the whole thing for other significant background

Then, there is This, On War...
Some years ago, my partner and I responded to a domestic violence call. When we met the battered and shaken woman, she described how she was beaten and choked as her adult son stole her money and jewelry. After stripping the wedding ring from her finger, he left her bloody, bruised, and crying on the kitchen floor.

As we completed our report, the son returned. When we tried to arrest him he began to struggle against us. Fueled by PCP and cocaine, the man was almost impossible to control. When my partner and I pulled him onto the living room floor the fight was ON with no rules, no help, and no recourse. We were alone with a deranged man who wanted to kill us.

We were at war.

Don?t hurt my son!

As we grappled and fought with the desperate man, his mother closed in and began to kick, pull, and tug at our arms. She was a nice lady who meant well. She didn?t like violence and didn?t want anyone to get hurt. But by interfering with our attempts to control her son, she endangered herself, her son, and those who had come to protect her.

As the woman screamed and fought, she emboldened her son to resist further. By interfering with those who had come to defend her, our victim had become our enemy. Had Democrats conducted a poll, 100% of the residents would have viewed us as occupiers.

Which brings us to this letter to Senator Pelosi on the GOP 'Bird-Flu Scheme'.

All the corporate greed and avarice, lamentable and outrageous as it is, cannot equal the harm done by the cynical manipulation and exploitation of the disadvantaged in order to gain and retain political power.

Because there are non-political checks on the abuse of corporate power.... there seem to be few on the Jesse Jacksons and Chuck Schumers of the world.

Saturday, December 17, 2005

On rejoining the Flock..

After 25 years of non-attendance at any church, save for funerals or weddings, I am starting to look for a church to attend.

I thought I had found the perfect fit, years, ago when my family joined a fairly large Southern Baptist congregation in the larger town down the road. It had everything we were looking for.

It was basically made up of young families, was centered on the Gospel, the officers and pastors non-judgemental in matters of dress or lifestyle or income and emphasized the triumph of faith over the foibles of humanity.

Little or NO time was spent on the politics of the Bible, whether they be literal reading of events or prophecy or taking of chapter and verse meanings.
I think I had better illuminate that:
The ONE topic of continual discussion was submission of the wife to the husband, as the church submits to Jesus as the messenger of God. e.g; NOT equal partners.. but that is itself open to interpretation, as the wife may indeed be the bulwark of the relationship. I saw no reason to use that to deny deacon-ship to a woman member of the Church, for instance.

But here's where it fell down:

Meetings, beside Sunday School and Church on Sunday, on Sunday night, Wednesday night, then some set for Monday night, something else Tuesday evening.. Bible Study or group education in other forms of ministry. Then something specific for Thurday evening.

And often some activity set for Saturdays, be it door to door testimony, or some public service project.

Nothing wrong with all that, surely, yet it ultimately soured me. Why? Because of the constant 'encouragement' of other members and church lay-officers to participate in all these.
One surely can politely beg off.. yet the niggling little hook remains in the conscience. "Am I a good believer and practitioner?".

The good folks down the street and those in the meeting rooms didnt MEAN to do it, but the effect, in my mind, persisted as 'judgement'.

And finally, it became to much to bear and I, sadly, drifted away from all of it. First the midweek activities, then Sunday School.. and, finally, going to Services.

All of this NOT helped by the well-meaning greetings I got when I DID attend.

"We've missed you." is indeed a loaded statement under those conditions. Yeah, yeah.. I can analyse out of the motivation of those words, but still..

And something ELSE! It was at this time that the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention was taken over by the conservative wing.

Though the best spin was put on intent, I could read between the lines; more literal interpretation of the Bible, emphasis on acts as testimony to faith, less tolerance of non-compliance within the community.

In other words, the newly joined member of my own Church who ran a bar which had been in her family for decades (imagine!) would be prodded to divest of it. Not left to do so of her own volition.
Now, the pastor HAD publicly rebuked her for serving another member who was an alcoholic, and I agreed with that, but it became clear that if you wanted to be a Southern Baptist, at all, you certainly would not drink or smoke.

Caffeine addiction, however, was still tolerated. {Those of you who've been to SBC churches will appreciate that: coffee = 'Baptist Beer')
And the position on school prayer shifted.. the SBC had previously been notable for opposing teacher-led prayer in public schools, and had biblical grounds to do so.

At any rate; now I am looking, again.

And this is what I'm gonna be looking for:

Emphasis on the Gospel and WHY God sent his Son to us.

Proper interpretation of Jesus' sayings; e.g; "I tell you if any man looks at a woman with lust, he has committed adultery..."
- That cannot be used in one Sermon to emphasize the "Good News" over the 'Law', then in the next to cast guilt on fallen believers.

Acknowledge that we do not understand HOW God created us and the Earth. And that it doesnt MATTER, only matters that He DID. i.e.; God created Darwin, too.
Likewise it makes not a hill of beans difference how OLD the Earth is.. maybe God ALSO created carbon isotope decay.

I shouldnt even include this as it's obvious to any bible reader or one raised Protestant; but, anyway, Rome or Pilate did not kill Jesus, Jews didnt kill Jesus, it was WE, in the form of the POLITICAL 'CHURCH', that killed Jesus.

Why can't we recognize we are doing it, AGAIN!

And MOST important, Jesus was NOT a Socialist and DID NOT advocate for taking from the rich and giving to the poor.. I cannot find ONE reference of him preaching to his flock to lobby Rome for more social programs. He preached good works for the INDIVIDUAL and congregations.

Finally, the Church I select will have some form of Confession..Baptists use the method "Going up". Many mainline churches dropped this LONG ago.. but it is good for the soul to renounce your slips.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -
I suppose I will refine all the above and send it out in form of a letter to local churches, asking the pastor to have the ELDERS respond to it.

We'll see and I am looking forward to it.

And, while I've been thinking along these lines a long time, here's the guy that incented me to do this.

Peace in your heart, first.. at least try!

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Murtha: When is it dared to compare?....

Jack Murtha has come out of nowhere in the last months as a spokesman for capitulation in Iraq.

He is given credence, and some respite from outright criticism, because of his record as a decorated Marine Officer. Yet his solution to Iraq is hardly in keeping with any military tactic taught anywhere, unless the strategy is to retreat to "Fortress America"
See 'Powerline' posting

I would like to remind everyone that Benedict Arnold was ALSO a higly regarded and decorated war veteran..

He just didnt think he'd gotten his proper rewards and recognition; and he thought the British would win out, in the end.

So I... this humble Joe-Blow in flyover country... will add Murtha's name to the list that is compared to Benedict Arnold and 'Quisling' in the ranks of those who submit for personal gain and politics.... oh, wait, they ARE the same, arent they!

Saturday, December 10, 2005

Situation Planning in the White Flag fortress

"Yep, Jack.. we got them right where we want them. Running our sound bites, and the dumb schmucks in flyover are gonna think they're mean."

" Heh... we can always fall back on context and nuance!"

"Now, it's coming out that after the Iraqi elections, they're going to pull out about 20,000 troops."

"I know, the timing couldnt be better. Either the voter thinks we forced their hand.. or that Dubya's gotta limit his casualties.. either way, win-win."

"But Howard, didnt that General Casey announce that back in July?"

"Sure he did, Nancy.. please try to concentrate, dear... but our boys at the Times and Post and CNN downplayed that, the yokels will never remember it."


"Uh-huh. Even if I do say so, myself. Another Guiness?"


Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Bush lied, hundreds of thousands died...is, indeed,
true. I must admit it!

But it wasnt THIS Bush.. it was the elder who has to
bear that stigma.

For the history is fresh enough that we know the
withdrawal from boots on ground in Iraq was coupled with
incentives for southern Shia and Northeastern Kurds to
rise in rebellion against Saddam. With the implication
that the US would be supportive of that effort.

Just WHO it was made that promise is unclear, but it
doesnt matter, in the end. Because it was made, and
Saddam killed tens of thousands as a result.

Would the result have been any different if Saddam had
waited for Clinton to take office before invading
Kuwait? We cant know that either... but what we DO know
is that the US in forgoing the chance to take Baghdad,
then, was mindful of our 'allies' opinions' on the
matter. It was certainly Powell doctrine, after all.

We had air cover for those areas, yet Saddam was free to
go in and massacre whole villages. One would think the
CIA or NSA would have people on the ground in there..
certainly we had gained the local Iraqi trust.

But we cut and ran.

And today, there are voices howling for us to do exactly
the same.

The only debate among most of the center/left is:

1. Cut and Run now

2. Cut and run after we make and publish a timetable for
cutting and running.

We hear that Bush 'has no plan'. And evidently that is
so because there are no clearly established 'deliverable

That's of note.. suppose our progress in Europe had been
predicate on meeting deadlines in the advance into

We would have pulled back from the "Bulge" and,
possibly, we would have been forced to reload troops on
the beaches of Normandy and scuttle back to English

Plans cannot always be used in war, and certainly not
this war. Seems to me a good plan here would be to base
success on ability of the Iraqi's to defend themselves
against terrorist/insurgents.

Wait, isnt that what we are trying to do? Isnt that the
greatest FEAR of the insurgents?

Else why would they be bombing Police training

The ONLY thing the Dems are right about is that "WE"
cannot win this war.
But the Iraqi's can... and we can do everything in our
power to help them do it.

By 'staying the course'... which, to me, sounds like a

Monday, December 05, 2005

Hypocritonia II

Along with the previous notes, I am often amused by the ease in which the 'civilian' Liberal will slip into gay-bashing.

If the gay community is one of the staunchest supporter groups of Liberal causes, then why is it "That's just GAY!" is used so much?

Why is the suspicion that a politician of the right is 'gay' is so often pronounced by a lib commenter?

Because there's still a stigma in being gay... or because he's in the closet? I dont think so.. I think the key is in the use of expletives in particular the 'F' bomb.. while we ALL tend to use that too much, the word itself should only be used in tender moments when you really think about it.

Come to that.. I'm thinking there's too much sexual reference in all political discourse.. maybe hetero's should stay in the closet, as well.