Scott brought up a great point in the comments to this post that I think is worth discussing.  We all use labels for things, groups, and even individuals.  My definition of a liberal or a conservative may be (and probably is) different than others - including someone who shares my world view.

I'm reminded of a definition of communication I learned at the TAC NCO Academy many years ago that really stuck with me.  It goes like this:

"Communication is achieved when the message sent is similar to the message received."

Nothing you say, write, or convey in some manner will be received by someone exactly how you intended it.  Only you fully understand the depth of your own emotions and intent.  The rest of us must try to understand your meaning given commonly accepted and learned patterns.  We listen for verbal clues such as tone and speed, or we look for visual clues in your body language, but we can never fully understand the depth and meaning of your words.  Sometimes, the clues are hard to come by.  An example might be if I say:

"Let's go to the park." 

Does that mean that I think we should drop what we are doing and go to the park? You don't know.  I might just be throwing out an idea or I might have already thought about it and I've made up my mind.  Unless I give out some other clues, or you ask me to clarify my intent, you aren't really sure what I mean.  If I'm just tossing out a suggestion and you think I have already made up my mind, it could be a problem.

And so it is with the labels we use, often casually, to catalog everything in our sphere including people and ideas.  On a certain level, it's human nature. We seek a certain order in our lives.  My desk at work is usually cluttered with papers and notes.  My desk at home seems to be a catch-all for half the house.  What matters to me is that I have everything  ordered in my head.  My space around me can be in total chaos, but as long my thoughts are organized, my external space is secondary.  Your definition of organization or need to organize might be totally different and probably is.

So when I use the words liberal or conservative, I have my own definitions.  They might be similar to yours, but not necessarily. Long ago in some forgotten English class, probably in high school or even junior high school (now called middle school in most places - see how labels change), I was taught that your writing should  be adjusted for for your intended audience.  The most obvious example of that is the difference between writing for small children and writing for adults.  Beyond that are the nuances of education level, genre, scope and message. 

Since this little dead end off the information superhighway is geared more toward people who more or less share my worldview, the language is slanted toward that group of people.  Along comes Scott whose views are not exactly quantified by the usual pigeon hole we stuff people in it and it becomes a bit more difficult to paint with the broad brush.

When I use the word liberal, I don't mean it in the Jeffersonian model.  I mean it in the Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama, Nacy Pelosi, Harry Reid model.  In other words, it generally means those who favor a larger centralized roll and involvement of the federal government in most aspects of our lives.  It includes those whose worldview says that government is fairer and that society takes precedence over the individual's desires.

Conservatism (in my definition) takes on a different view in that we see government as our servant, not our master.  We think individuals in general are far better off on their own and will achieve more and produce more if left alone. Government has it's roll and we need a certain amount to maintain civilized society, but by and large, people should be allowed to determine their own destiny.

I admit, they are somewhat vague. It seems almost an impossible task to pin them down to an exact definition that everyone will agree with.  That said, when I speak of liberals, that is mostly the idea I have in mind.  I don't think all liberals are bad, nor do I think all conservatives are good.  I do believe that most entrenched politicians in either party are generally not a good thing for either side.

I hope it "kinda sorta" makes some sense.  If not, then ask specific questions.  Otherwise, I might resort to another 700 plus word essay to try and explain a simple label.

VW

Pure and simple, Nidal Hasan is a terrorist.  At what point he decided to become one is secondary, but it's time to call it what it is and get on with ensuring we don't have a repeat performance if there are others out there with similar tendencies.  Instead, we seem to be poking our collective heads into the sand hoping to find some reason he would commit such a heinous act rather than address the idea that it is a free-lance terrorist hit.

Liberalism has caused us to become too civilized.  Instead of acknowledging that there is evil in this world, we are forced to look for other causes to justify the evil that men (and women) do as if there was some underlying mental illness. 

Obviously, I'm not a trained psychologist or a psychiatrist.  That said, I do understand that there is mental illness and it sometimes does cause people to do bad things - even kill people.  Those people are the ones who truly don't understand the magnitude of their crime.  We also have a tendency to think that everyone values human life like we do.  Like it or not, our cultual understanding of the sanctity of life comes from our Judeo-Christian history and culture.  Life is holy and precious to us. Not everyone in the world sees it that same way.  As Hasan put it:

"We love death more then [sic] you love life!"

To us, that is crazy.  To the Islamist, it makes sense.  This life is nothing and if you can advance your god's reach by killing yourself while killing others, your reward will be that much greater. 

Radical Islam is not about peaceful coexistence.  It is not about allowing you to believe differently.  Some morons (and that is what they are) try to equate conservative Christianity with the likes of the Taliban or other Islamic Radicals in order to somehow put all believers into the same jar.  They point to the odd violent nutbot who kills an abortion provider and try to make Christians out to be some sort of western jihadist.  It's doesn't work and almost the whole of Christianity condemns such actions unlike the whole of Islam.  There are some who denounce the actions of the Jihadists, but most sit in in silence.

Hasan did not act out of some vicarious PTSD.  To say  that is an insult to those good soldiers that actually suffer from PTSD.  Hasan acted with all due malice and forethought.  I suspect that he expected to die in the process, but fortunately, that did not happen.  It just came across the wire that he will face 13 counts of premeditated murder. 

I'd like to see him charged with domestic terrorism as well.  Certainly, if he is convicted on the 13 counts of murder, he will most likely receive the death penalty and the terrorism charge won't add to that.  What it will do is officially label him as a terrorist.  If nothing else, that will negate the PTSD crap.

VW