I did it.  I had to.  I’ve removed BoingBoing from my daily reading list.  I’d originally added it because it promised to be a good source for story ideas.  Unfortunately, the thing that completely turns me off to it is the constant barrage of partisan news stories and commentary by a couple of the site’s contributors.  It wouldn’t be so bad if there was some balance, some representation of both sides of various political figures and issues, but the way things stand currently, I can’t stomach the politics.  So, in the trash bin with that feed, and good riddance.  I’ll glean ideas elsewhere, thankya kindly.

Is it just me or does it get increasingly more difficult to vote each election cycle?  I don’t know how it used to be 20, 30, even 100 years ago, but in the last 9 years, since I became eligible to vote, it seems like the political demagoguery has become even more juvenile.  Rather than seeing politicians with a plan and positive agenda to make things better in our local, state, and federal governments, what I see are young, immature preschoolers throwing temper tantrums and verbally slapping one another around.

Part of me keeps hoping beyond hope that someone will figure out that the American public is tired of these mudslinging campaigns, that political candidates will, in fact, remember that the best campaign is one that tells what they can actually do and contribute, instead of one that drags their opponents’ names and characters through the mud.  The thing that is so hard about voting is that no candidate ever seems qualified for the job anymore.  We know all too well why every candidate is wrong for the job – every campaign ad proclaims in large letters and loud voices why political opponents ought to be locked up in a jail cell in the deepest, darkest dungeon somewhere, why every political opponent is somehow personally responsible for high crime rates, high taxes, and poor public services.  No candidate seems able to tell, though, why they are best suited for the position for which they are running, let alone what their plan is to improve every service in their care, should they win that seat.

I know it’s too much to hope for, but the idealist in me persists – I’d love to see just one political candidate run on a platform that never once resorts to mudslinging and that focuses solely on telling me that candidates qualifications and plans for bettering his government for the people he (or she) represents.  I’d love to see even just one campaign that is built upon a solid foundation of truth rather than one slapped together on lies and misrepresentations.  Chances are good that candidate would have my vote in a heartbeat.

Adam over at Ochuk’s Blog points out some comments regarding the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.  One in particular stands out to me:

What was delivered was retribution, not justice.

This could be quibbling semantics here, but I have to wonder about the choice of words.

retribution

1. Something justly deserved; recompense.
2. Something given or demanded in repayment, especially punishment.

1. Theology. Punishment or reward distributed in a future life based on performance in this one.

   justice

2. The quality of being just; fairness.
3. 1. The principle of moral rightness; equity.
1. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.
3. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
1. Law. The administration and procedure of law.
4. Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason: The overcharged customer was angry, and with justice.
5. Abbr. J. Law.
   1. A judge.

1. A justice of the peace.

I’m not sure I yet understand the outrage expressed by those who have given voice to their opposition to military strikes like these. Zarqawi, a man whose only ambition was the death of others, was killed during an air strike.  It was his job to take out as many ‘infidels’ as possible by whatever means necessary.  And now his own actions have come full circle and returned home to him. 

Retribution?  Justice?  I think perhaps it was both, and what’s more, I believe his death was both fair and deserved.  Don’t get me wrong – I do believe in the sanctity of human life.  I believe that life is a precious gift, something that we are all entitled to as God’s creations.  Yet, I also still hold to the notion that if you take the life of another human being, your own life itself becomes forfeit.  True, the taking of the life of the murderer does not set right the wrong of taking another life.  There is nothing that can rectify that wrong.  But in snuffing out another’s life, you have stripped them of all their rights, and a cost must be paid for such actions.  In case of a mass murderer like Zarqawi, I believe that taking the life of the murderer is the only way to ensure that such atrocities do not continue.¹

Remember, this is a war we are engaged in.  It is a war of ideologies in which the antagonist would wipe out every single person who does not believe exactly as they do.  Many have fallen victim to these attacks, and we have every right to defend ourselves.  Personally, I think that both retribution and justice² have been meted out here. 

1. This is also why I believe that there is both room and a place for capital punishment in our justice system.[back]
2. Justice does not necessarily mean that the moral scales have been balanced.  In many cases such balance is impossible to achieve.  In this case, a man who has taken many lives has, in turn, had his own life taken.  This is fair and an enforcement of a higher moral standard.[back]

It’s strange – even though I’ve alluded to the fact that most of my views and beliefs tend to fall at (0,0) on the Cartesian coordinate system, I still tend to think of myself as a full-fledged conservative.  Maybe this is because I know for a fact that I am not a liberal and from what I can determine, my philosophies don’t even fit cleanly into the traditional moderate worldview.  I just know that whenever I hear someone refer to ‘conservatives’ or ‘religious fundamentalists’ or whatever, I immediately think, “Oh, so-and-so is talking about me,” which is, strictly speaking, not actually true.  They are talking about the people with whom I tend to associate, but ideologically speaking, even I tend to fall outside of those same groups.

I think what it really boils down to is that when I hear the word ‘liberal,’ I think of someone who does not believe that absolute truth exists, that truth and reality are both what you make of them for yourself, who believe in evolution and the Big Bang, and who tend to espouse and follow religiously liberal political agendas.  Conversely, when I hear the word ‘conservative,’ I think of someone who does believe in absolute truth (and that that truth can actually be known and practiced), that there is a fundamental and unchanging foundation for truth that is external to the human experience, who, at the very least, tend to doubt that evolution is a valid scientific theory and who, instead, see ample evidence for some sort of intelligent design in nature, and who tend to espouse and follow religiously conservative political agendas.  When I see these two definitions, the one that seems to fit me best is ‘conservative’, and so it is the way in which I most instinctively think of myself.

Of course, conservative and liberal are two extremes in a somewhat linear system.¹ I think Scott Garber stated it best when he said in one issue of his newsletter that we should not be liberal, conservative, or moderate, but rather we should be progressive, striving always to improve our thinking and improve the cultural, social, and religious systems in which we live.  My biggest gripe with true liberals, conservatives, and moderates alike is that so often they fail to actually use the grey matter encapsulated within their skulls.  Too often I see and hear people spout the standard party line that is typical of whatever ideology they follow, and I wonder if they have ever really thought that ideology through to its logical conclusion.  Mind you, I don’t expect that everyone who thinks through an issue will automatically arrive at the same conclusions I have, since everyone starts from a slightly different set of presuppositions.  But I would hope that by engaging in metasystemic thinking, one would be able to revise and alter those presuppositions and, by association, the accompanying conclusions based from those presuppositions.

I hesitate to start calling myself ‘progessive.’ I’m not one to quickly jump onto a bandwagon and rally to a label or banner.  And without providing the appropriate context necessary for understanding, labeling oneself ‘progessive’ could be easily seen as pretentious.  Yet, in every area of my life and my thinking, progression is exactly what I seek.  I seek to progress toward truth and understanding, toward righteous living, and away from untruth and falsehood and selfish, vain lifestyles. 

So I view myself as conservative when in reality I am more progressive in nature, and I wish that more people were like that, willing to actually question their beliefs and examine them.  In the end, I think it’s ok if they find that they do still actually believe all those things; it is certainly their right and their freedom to, whether those beliefs are right or wrong.  But I do think it’s important that everyone know and understand why they believe and live by the things they do, be able to defend them by arguing for them intelligently and with evidence.  Call it a product of postmodern culture, but every year I see fewer and fewer people who are able to do this, who simply take on whatever belief systems feels good to them, never fully understanding or grasping what philosophy it is they live by.

I’ve said it before, certainly, but I think this is why I devote so much of my time and energy to writing in a public place – to examine my own thinking and philosophies in a critical manner, and to cause others to examine their own in a similar fashion.  We’re not mindless robots, people, and it is our personal responsibility to know what we believe and why because someday, we will have to answer for our choices.

1. I could actually expand it to a planar system, but a single line keeps things simpler.[back]