I want the word "liberal" BACK!

I want liberal to mean what is used to mean, progressive thinking, looking out for america, a kinder vision of a harsh world, I miss old liberals.

I want liberal to mean what is used to mean, progressive thinking, looking out for america, a kinder vision of a harsh world, I miss old liberals.

I miss the "old line" democrats. Those that had a backbone and wanted what was good for America!

I want the word "liberal" returned to those who are inclined to PROTECT liberty, not destroy it. There are plenty of other, more appropriate terms for the American left.

Sorry, the loony left has absconded with it.  You will have to chase them down the rabbit hole to get it back.

Just to be clear, this is a reaction to a comment I made on Gideon's article about the idea of mandatory government supervision of new families.

While Gideon mounted a spirited and serious defense of his position, he did so with the understanding that I'm a "liberal". This is in fact not true. I'm a conservative. I had thought that, here on JU, I had been a blatant conservative, of the religious kind.

Like Gideon, I'd like to see the word "liberal" come back where it belongs. Unlike Gideon, I don't think the word "liberal"'s current problems are related to anything I've done or said lately.

Now, if Gideon wants to complain that I've corrupted the word "conservative", with my willingness to contemplate state intervention in familiy affairs, that's another story altogether...

stute,

The article was precipitated by your comment, yes, but it's something I've wanted to post for a long time.

For the record, the reason I assumed you were liberal was the fact that you were endorsing one of Hillary Clinton's key policy proposals.

..

Ah. Well, that makes sense, I guess.

"The word "liberal" used to, at least implicitly, refer to a person who believed in the protection of individual liberties."

If Liberal ever really meant that, it hasn't for a more than one century. If you go back and look at people who called themselves Liberal in the 1700's, you find much of the "anything goes, down with the establishment" ideals we endure to this day. The terminology is different, but they were still dealing with this insipid hippy crap 200+ years ago.

Look at the history of the Liberal party in England. For a century they had Liberal/Conservative system like we have, until Liberalism was twisted into "Labor". Look at the Romance era in literature, look at the cyclical junk we have to go through every few decades when a new generation rediscovers all these discarded fallicies.

I know you want Liberal to mean what you state it to mean, and maybe a lot of Liberals try to practice it that way. "Liberalism", though, is the same old beast from decade to decade, century to century. We just grow more complacent, more 'tolerant', and they feel freer to say more and more.

For the record, the reason I assumed you were liberal was the fact that you were endorsing one of Hillary Clinton's key policy proposals.

Ewwww......Stute, you got dog germs!  Grab some mouth wash, a case of disinfectant, and call the doctor in the morning!

i want it back too

I know what you mean. Speaking of which last wedneday there was a show addressing just that. The change of liberty within the us Link. You'll need broadband but it is worth the time.

So, I noticed that there was a North-American-looking guy (let's call him "Bill") in a suit with some of the followers on the other side of the street. When I approached him, he spoke to me in English and we had a short conversation about Scientology and he invited me up to the hall. I rejected his offer, and pointed out that they were trying to recruit people for the "Church of Scientology" in front of a Christian church, and that might not be very successful, as the Holy Spirit would protect people passing by the building against false prophets, and that they would be more likely to gain converts to Christianity by staying there.

He got rather hostile, and started to withdraw back up to the hall, and since I was going there anyways, I walked along with him. He gave me this weak excuse that they didn't realize it was a church, as there is a book store attached behind the building. So, I told him that the kanji on the wall said "nihon kurisuto kyoudan" and that meant it was a Church, and that as a member of the UCCJ, I wanted his group to stop recruiting in front of the church. After a little argument, he agreed, and I told him I would be back every day to check.

Obviously, Bill didn't think I'd come back. Well, I had to go to work...

To make a long story short, there were 2 other really funny incidents:

1. I checked out the scientologists on the net, and I would walk up to the Japanese and ask them "Are you clear?" Tell them "I'm a level 9 Thetan" and other stuff that only scientologists would know. And they were so mindwashedly gullible, that halfway through the conversation, they were stunned silent as I made the Sign of the Cross over their heart and recited the Lord's Prayer in Japanese, followed by a direct order for the forces of Satan to leave.

2. This led to the big boss, let's call him "Ted" to come out. He was an Aussie. And the final argument went like this:

"You fucking Christians don't know shit, I was a Christian, and now Muslims are taking over, you're history, and we are the fucking future, so you don't know shit. What do you think about that?"

I responded "At least I'm not standing in the middle of the street yelling obscenities to defend my religion."

He kind of shut up and limped away, and then they pulled their people off the sidewalks and onto the road.

Was that just a blog in the middle of a series of responses to Gideon's blog? Oi vei iz meir!

I have to agree with BakerStreet here... our ancestors (historical if not blood) did dress like Natives and dump tea in the bay because the Brits were selling it for CHEAPER than they (smugglers) could. Reminicent of protests in the 60s and now, eh? They did a lot of really "liberal" things.

They knew even then that slavery was a problem -- but they just inherited it. And they passed it forward not wanting to touch that bugabear. Seems a lot like today's libs. A lot of talk about a lot of things but nothing really done about it. A lot of money thrown at Africa, and yet we still have a homeless problem here. We have a serious problem with the way we treat and even view homeless people. For the most part, we IGNORE them. Libs included. How's that for a double standard. Living in the south, perhaps that skews the percentages, but the soup kitchens are manned with the conservative Christians Libs love to hate.

Hippy crap is usually a lot of talk. That stuff doesn't get passed by law making assemblies. It gets ordered and pressed upon people through the judicial oligarchy and we're a litigious society. Liberal has always meant liberal. That doesn't mean everything the libs have accomplished is wrong or bad ... just often, it's the way they go about it that sets them apart.

You have to have a license to own a dog, hunt a deer, catch a fish, and even to own a dog in some localities. But any dummy can have a kid. I'm all for breeding laws, and trust me, that's not a popular sentiment even among mainstream liberals.

Cheers.

With regard to the original message, I'm a liberal and prowd of it. Though some people who call themselves liberals want to take away individual rights, I don't think that parents who do not allow their children to be inspected by Child Protection Services should be allowed to keep them, for the sake of the child. Parents can raise their children in any manner they see fit, on the stipulation that society can be assured that no abuse is taking place against the child.

It is really a shame that people don't recognize the open-mindedness of the liberal camp. There are many of us who disagree with homosexuality or abortion but believe that it is the choice of the individual, not society, which ought to determine the final course of action (another way to say that we believe in individual rights). A sermon I was listening to last week pointed out the interesting fact that historically, regardless of other circumstances, when liberal-thinking groups were in power, both sides of the issue could be heard; but when extremists were in control, only their opinions could be heard. This doesn't refer to the extreme ends of American politics, because I think that liberals are already moderate enough in the current political atmosphere, while the conservatives are much closer to the absolute right than liberals are to the absolute left.

The sermon I heard referred to Hillel and Shamai, but you can really see that the same idea applies here: When the liberals were in control under Clinton, people were allowed to have a good deal of input against what Clinton was doing. Bush made it illegal to bring coffins of American soldiers into the country except between 2 AM and 4 PM (so that the media would be discouraged from collecting footage of them), silenced us with his "USA PATRIOT Act," and called ones who disagreed with his policies unamerican (even if not in so many words). Real liberals respect human rights.

It is really a shame that people don't recognize the open-mindedness of the liberal camp. There are many of us who disagree with homosexuality or abortion but believe that it is the choice of the individual, not society,

You want to talk this after saying this?

With regard to the original message, I'm a liberal and prowd of it. Though some people who call themselves liberals want to take away individual rights, I don't think that parents who do not allow their children to be inspected by Child Protection Services should be allowed to keep them, for the sake of the child. Parents can raise their children in any manner they see fit, on the stipulation that society can be assured that no abuse is taking place against the child.

Sounds a tad hypocritical to me. I can see no reason for anyone to be inspecting someones child unless there is "suspected" abuse. Other than that, stay the hell out of other people's lives!

Bush made it illegal to bring coffins of American soldiers into the country except between 2 AM and 4 PM (so that the media would be discouraged from collecting footage of them),

And this is a problem, why?

silenced us with his "USA PATRIOT Act,"

I'm no fan of George Bush or the USA PATRIOT act...but since you were able to type what you did, I don't think you've been "silenced."

I'm as liberal as they come, but it's just that sort of hyperbole that makes us look silly.

And this is a problem, why?

Well, it's rather sneaky.

welcome back, myrrander...

Greetings being out of the way, I have to say I find your support for "child licensing" to be frightening. Do you really long for a world where a child is stripped from its mother's breast because the mother can't prove herself "fit" to the standards that a nanny state deems necessary? Come on, I really hope you're playing devil's advocate here!

Myrrander,

Another note: it's more popular among the left than you realize; it was a pretty common topic of discussion in and around Madison, Wisconsin coffeehouses.

And it all underscores further why I find the left appalling. The left, quite frankly, is out to destroy the Constitution while accusing the right of doing the same.

And this is a problem, why? Well, it's rather sneaky.

Lets start with why do you consider it sneaky? What it has done is stop the media from making a circus out of it. And didn't give our enemies the chance to use it as propaganda. And you "know" that both of those would have happened given the opportunity.

No, I long for a world where people are limited on the amount of children they can have, they must pass psychological and financial standards -- literally, people should have to buy a baby liscense. Breeding is out of control.

I'm a sincerely hardcore "zero population growth" person. My wife and I decided years ago to never have children. I'd like to see so few children around that there's not a problem of babies needing to be ripped from a mother's breast because the vast majority of births will be wanted.

This is not a point of view that jives with "democracy," I know. But just because the human estrus cycle is so regular doesn't mean we have to take such advantage of it. We can put a man on the moon and yet we can't stop breeding like rabbits.

I know you don't think there's an overpopulation problem now, and it's an area where I'll respectfully disagree with you with every breath.

And thanks for the "welcome back."

I don't see the right to incessant breeding in the constitution.

Personally, I'd love to make you a gift of the word "liberal," if I could -- I'm rather sick of the label.

*grin*

I don't see the right to incessant breeding in the constitution.

First of all, does a right have to be expressly stated to be understood?

Secondly, I respect your views on population control. The decision you and your wife made is fine...for YOU. One of the inherent problems, however, with such an approach overzealously applied is that we stand to inherit an aging population without a large enough workforce to provide the service needs to the elderly, the national defense, manufacturing, agriculture, and all of the other needs of our remarkably diverse economy (although retraining a few lawyers shouldn't be out of the problem...but I digress).

As for "financial standards", who's to make that decision. As you well know, someone making $50,000 a year could live like a prince in areas such as those where you and I live, while those in Southern California and/or Washington, DC would be barely scraping by.

But the largest, and most pressing concern I have is that the government, like soylent green (lol), is made of PEOPLE. Giving them the mantle of "government" does not make them mystically benign and void of personal biases and prejudices, and when you empower them to make undue decisions on your life and those of others, you enter into a dangerous slippery slope that makes your own rights even more suspect. A family making $20,000 a year in Arkansas and attending the Baptist church might suddenly have a little creative accounting make them to be "fit", while an atheist couple making the same amount of money might somehow be determined to be unfit. In all reality, given their income levels, the family would be unlikely to afford a lawyer to litigate the case to the highest courts.

I respect your intentions, Michael, I really do (even as I disagree about the population issue). But I have serious concerns about empowering a government that almost certainly would NOT be as civic minded as you hijacking the power and oversight that you gave them to create a state in which the average citizen has much to fear.

Secondly, I respect your views on population control.

I dont. It smacks of the worst possiblity of a Brave new World. It scares me that there are some people who would actually try to force such a view not through the force of ideas, but through subjugation of body and mind of the individual.

The Ashinn would be proud of such people.