Preface:  I have never pretended to be perfectly neutral.  I am non partisan, not anti ideological.  I easily favor a conservative value set.  Where I bring my moderation is that I will attempt to look at both sides of an issue and find the truth.  In so many issues the real issue is so clouded by the partisanship that it is lost.

All of these blogs in this series are directly linked to something current and relevant that irritates me.

I irritate easily I admit.

If there was one area that illustrates the inherent differences in conservatism and liberalism most, I personally think it is the concept of personal responsibility.

What I mean by that is fairly simple.  Take Cindy Sheehan for example.

Her son joined the Army eyes wide open.  He reenlisted knowing he would be deployed.  He volunteer to assist on a rescue mission and paid for it with his life.  His mother took one look at his death and blamed the Army, blamed Bush, blamed America and blamed everyone except the two people who Killed her son:  Her son and the terrorists.

Seriously.  Her son did not choose to die, but he chose the path that lead to his death.  It is called a personal sacrifice, valuing the lives of others even if your own life is at risk.  I honor him for all measure.  But his death was anathema to his mother, because she is intrinsically anti war.  His choice was diametrically opposite of her values so rather then accept the fact that her son did not share her values, and embrace his sacrifice she instead blame shifts, accuses and does everything she can to shelter the fragile memory of the son she wanted, who she pretends was tricked and duped and murdered.

The bottom line is that choices have consequences, and when we have the ability to choose, we have to take responsibility for those consequences.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/322748_ltrs8.html  

P-I's pious proclamation ignores Bill Clinton

The P-I Editorial Board piously proclaims, "President Bush's commutation of a pal's prison sentence counts as a most shocking act of disrespect for the U.S. justice system."

While I feel there is plenty of room to discuss the merits of Bush's use of executive clemency, I have to point out that Bill Clinton's outright pardoning of his brother Roger, 16 members of FALN (convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making and sedition). Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory (at the request of his brother-in-law Tony Rodham, who had received more than $100,000 in unrepaid "loans" to lobby for them, Carlos A. Vignali and Almon Glenn Braswell (this time at Hugh Rodham's behalf after they each paid Rodham $200,000 -- he returned the money after it was made public), former Rep. Melvin Reynolds and, finally, his pardon of Susan MacDougal (who was also jailed for refusing to testify about Hillary Clinton) would seem to indicate that a commuted prison sentence, although of concern, is hardly "the most shocking" use of executive clemency.

I know you are a mostly liberal Editorial Board, but at least try to be fair, huh?

George W. Bush

Pardons: 113

Commutations: 4

Bill Clinton:

Pardons: 396

Commutations: 61

You do the math.

Karl D. Swenson
Issaquah

It should come as no surprise that conservatives and liberals are wired differently, have different priorities and think differently.

As public service, I am going to do a week long series detailing some of the fundamental differences in how they think.

As a quick disclaimer, as in all things any time you resort to generalities you risk finding and offending the exceptions.  It will be pointed out to me that not all Liberals think this way, or that way, and the same will go for the Conservatives.

I readily admit that.  This is not a scientific study, and I make not claim about anything beyond this:  These observations are my own, based on the people I see locally, in the media and on the national stage.  I humbly defer to any exception you may note.

Todays lesson is about Patriots and Traitors.  First, let's agree on the simple definitions:

• trai·tor (trā'tər) 
  n.   One who betrays one's country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason.
• pa·tri·ot (pā'trē-ət, -ŏt')  
  n.   One who loves, supports, and defends one's country.

Ok, that seems straightforward. 

Now the baggage.  The use of either of these two words in a conversation brings howls of outrage.  And in candid moment, I admit that they do get tossed into peoples faces a bit too often.

But the lingering question is how do the two sides see and define these two classes of people.

For example, the conservatives consider people who fight terrorists to be Patriotic and those who interfere in that fight, or those who provide help to the enemy unpatriotic.  They feel that finishing the war and defeating the enemy is a worthy and necessary goal.

The liberals object to this.  They feel that the war on terror is too nuanced to have such cold hard definitions.  Going a step further, they feel that ending the war now regardless of whether we leave behind more chaos and an emboldened enemy is in itself patriotic because it goes to saving the lives of the troops in harms way.