Thursday, May 25, 2017

Points to Ponder:

"Contributing to polarization via argumentation fallacies is no laughing matter." [Shawn McElhinney]

Labels: ,

Monday, May 22, 2017

Points to Ponder:
(From the Archives)

Politics is the art of the possible not the art of the perfect. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 16, 2009)]

Labels: ,

Thursday, May 18, 2017

My latest contribution{1} to the Jaded Politics project courtesy of the Musings From Exile weblog{2} can be read HERE.


{1} It is substantially the same as an article I posted to this humble weblog yesterday.

{2} "I link to the Musings From Exile weblog version so I do not trigger a trackback to it on the main page; thereby ensuring that I keep Rerum Novarum separate from that project." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 8, 2017)]

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

"Meanwhile In Dumbfuckistan" Dept.

A bit of backstory is needed on this one so here goes:

About a month ago, the recently elected chair of the Democratic National Committee proclaimed that pro life people were not welcome in the Democratic Party. Here were his words:

"Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health...That is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state."

Since that time, the Democrats have dumped a ton of money into one special election that they lost{1} and there are four more special elections coming up: one in May{2} and three in June.{3} Other than CA-4 in which the Democrats will hold serve, they could very well lose the other three elections which are in Republican favourable districts. Recent polling has the Republicans leading in MT-AL,{4} favoured over the Democrat in SC-5{5}, and its a dead heat in GA-6.

So, as the Democrats are literally sweating to produce a notable victory since the November election that they can hang their hats on, DNC Chairman Mao Tom Perez is now walking back his self-inflicted wound from a month ago. But what is he going to do about this? Well, funny you should ask:

Perez plans to meet with Democrats for Life of America and its executive director Kristen Day, but … the date has not yet been set. The meeting will take place at DNC headquarters in DC too, which makes this less an outreach than a grant of a schedule slot. That’s the only meeting set up for the purpose of engaging a “big tent,” which seems to indicate that Perez doesn’t plan to get out much in other areas to engage pro-life Democrats and independents. In fact, it doesn’t look like he’s getting out at all.

I do not see how this will accomplish anything in terms of placating a faction of the Democratic Party that has been marginalized in recent decades and then told to STFU and GTFO just last month by the reigning DNC Chair. Considering how vulnerable the Republicans are due to the self-inflicted wounds of President Donald Trump in recent months, this barrel-swallowing by Chairman Mao Perez makes no sense and only seems to confirm what many of us have suspected about the leaders of Dumbfuckistan the Democratic Party; namely, that they have no idea why they lost and therefore do not know what they need to do to put out a winning political coalition in the Trump era.


{1} I refer here to KA-4.

{2} I refer here to the Montana At Large seat election on May 25, 2017.

{3} I refer here to CA-4 on June 6, 2017 as well as GA-6 and SC-5 on June 20, 2017

{4} The poll here is a Democratic Super PAC's poll.

{5} The runoff election there is currently too close to call.

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, May 11, 2017

"One From The Vault" Dept.

I found this in the archives of the draft folder when doing a search for something. Apparently it was a bit being worked on for a while and finished on August 5, 2008 but for some reason, I never posted it. Since so many of these same kinds of arguments could be tweaked and directed towards Donald Trump or any Republican in the White House, I have decided for fun to lightly tweak and publish the material at the present time since the principles outlined in the text below are just as valid now as they were then even if every little detail may not be. Without further ado...
Oh brother...
Environmetally unfriendly read Kyoto,

Kyoto would cost a ton of money and do nothing whatsoever to change things.

no sane person doubts global warming. 

More like no sane person buys into this garbage and that is why Gore and his ilk are being sued by a few parties including the founder of the Weather Channel who has accused Gore of being the lying fraud that he is. The earth was warmer in the 1940's than it is now, it was warmer during the Renaissance than it is now, it was warmer in the eleventh century than it is now: with the latter that is why Greenland was named "Greenland" because it was green not the icebox it has subsequently become. However, the earth is also warmer now than it was in the 1970's when they were claiming "global cooling" and predicting a coming ice age.

These things are and always have been cyclical and the overwhelming majority of the factors involved are outside of man's control. Meanwhile, the ones that are in our control it is debatable to what extent they even matter except in the most localized of incidents.

The problem with people today is they have no sense of perspective on these matters and will believe whatever fits their inclinations. Furthermore, you have historians and scientists today who let their politics or personal views cloud their professional judgment much as you do judges and other people in positions of authority. The idol of "creativity" in jobs where "creativity" is not part of the description and only leads to confusion as a result.

Katrina totally mishandled due to cronies appointed to positions that should been held by bureaucrats. 

As if bureaucrats are to be trusted with anything...I am not defending the appointment of cronies by any stretch but the idea that somehow bureaucrats are to be trusted as competent is a comment that can only be made by someone naive as to the inefficiencies of bureaucracies. Katrina happened in large part because of weaknesses in the state system of Louisiana going back decades -decades I might add of mismanagement by democratic governors and legislators. Furthermore, it is not the role of the federal government to be handing out money for disaster relief anyway: something else that many folks apparently are unaware of.

Osama - still on the loose, fumbled at Tora Tora.

Yes, Bush was on the ground over there personally overseeing could we not know this. Phuleeze ;-)

Iraq - billions wasted, 4000 dead, no weapons of mass destruction.

The level of casualties in Iraq is ridiculously low by historical standards and still people whine. I trust most people believe the Civil War was fought for just causes and General Grant in winning that war lost on average 1700 soldiers a DAY in the final year. Both sides combined lost 625,000. There were whole battles in WWII where we lost significantly more than 4000 - Okinawa and Iwo Jima come to mind, so does the Battle of the Bulge and D-Day. Other examples could be noted but this suffices to illustrate my point.

I do not say these things to deprecate those who lost their lives in Iraq but instead to point out the ridiculous lack of historical perspective people today have as well as their overall weakness.
As far as weapons of mass destruction, it is interesting how many people think that was the only reason for the war -the belief by all the major intelligence agencies in the world that Saddam had them notwithstanding.

At any point since 1991 we could have lawfully gone back into Iraq because Hussein never abided by the terms of the ceasefire. And however this was dealt with in that interim, it was becoming evident that something was going to be done about Saddam at some point: that is why President Clinton reoriented the approach towards Iraq to be one of "regime change" in the late 1990's. And after 9/11, it was decided that certain things could not be tolerated anymore and one of them was the situation in Iraq after 1991.

But the media as is their wont never presented the full picture on this matter, focusing only on the WMD subject. As far as whether or not there ever were any -and a variety of sources (including former Iraqi generals) telling us they were moved to Syria in 2002 notwithstanding- it nonetheless was not the sole justifying reason.

I remind you also that even the UN voted on resolution 1441 15-0 but when it came time to vote for the actual use of force (rather than merely another toothless scolding from the UN) there were three nations voting against (Russia, France, and Germany) all of which were found to be receiving kickbacks from Hussein. Or have you forgotten about Oil-For -Food and that whole racket?
If determining the justness or lack thereof depended on a unanimous vote of the UN Security Council (itself a dubious proposition) and the parties voting "nay" did so because they were in Hussein's back pocket, that makes appealing to that UN vote to justify the assertion of "unjust war" a most pathetic and embarrassing stance to be taking.

Tax laws favoring the wealthy

The wealthiest 5% pay roughly 75% of all income taxes. How does this "favour" them?

while borrowing to run a war our children will pay for.

The problem with borrowing money is a problem this is true but is it a problem in principle or simply because the money is being used for something you do not approve of? If you say the latter then you are without principle, if the former than at least there is hope.

Stopping alternative sources of energy with his oil cronies,

And who is going to develop these supposed "alternative sources of energy"? It is not the role of the federal government to do this and even if it was, the federal government's history of incompetence on these kinds of matters gives us a good read of how successful they would be with this one.
The problem with economically ignorant liberals is they are all in favour of taxing the "rich" who often own the sorts of large businesses with the capital to fund research into these matters. (Not to mention business owners in general most of which are small business owners: they are often lumped in with the "rich" also.) Then they complain when alternative sources either are not available or are too expensive for average people when they are.

These things do not just grow on trees but require research, planning, and the risk of capital in speculative enterprises. But continue to whine about "the rich not paying enough" and levying more and more taxes on them so that they do not invest their capital in development in these areas. That is what happens when you have so many economically ignorant people -and a good chunk of the latter tend to vote democratic.

laws disregarded,

Yet I will wager that you have no problem with the idiotic notion of an "evolving constitution" which (if I am correct about this presumption) makes your complaint here have no merit whatsoever.

civil liberties violated.

This is a broadbrush term that you do not bother to explain further; ergo it is worthless until you do.

Firing of DA's for political reasons.

Where you this mad when Clinton fired all 93 federal attorneys upon taking office or is it just with this president firing 8 of them that makes you so mad? Or was Clinton's firing of all the attorneys altrustic and not political in nature?

My stance on what both presidents did is that as chief executives they have complete authority over that department so they can do what they want on it -and I say this despite believing that Clinton's firing of all the attorneys at once was wrong from the standpoint of having no continuity in this area where historically there always had been. But despite that, he was president and had the right to do what he did. That right did not cease when W became president.

Failed immigration policies.

I do not disagree with you on this one but the problems go back prior to this administration.

Disregard for separation of powers.

More useless talking points. Specific examples would be helpful here.

Politicizing the Supreme Court,

Are you nuts? The ones politicizing the Supreme Court are and have been the democrats. The idea that they would ask any justice how they would vote on hypothetical issues and use that as up or down criteria is abominable. But with the democrats, that is why they sandbagged Bork, sought to sandbag Thomas, and the like. Show me where the republicans did this with Clinton's nominees and his nominees are among the worst in history if you care a whit about the actual Constitution and the interpretation thereof as opposed to inventing things out of whole cloth.

alienating all our allies and many other countries in the world.

You realize I presume that a universal negative like "all" can be disproved by one contrary example. And when many of those who are "alienated" were on the take from Hussein, I frankly do not give a damn if they are "alienated" though in the case of France and Germany I am willing in light of the presidencies of Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel to consider the possibility that they have changed courses and are no longer collaborationists.

His financial policies have had a hand leading us into a recession.

What exactly are you referring to here? First of all, there is no definite proof that we are in a recession yet -even if it is looking more and more that we may be. There are certain measurements that all must align for that determination and thus far, they are mixed. Secondly, what exactly has Bush done personally that affects the economy negatively? If you want to claim that he did not wield his veto pen to discipline the Republican congresses of the first six years of his presidency, then that is a viable criticism. (Though the current congress appears to be more money-hungry and wasteful still but at least Bush found his long-lost veto pen to use on them.)

Have I left anything out.

Most of what you list is a bunch of either ignorant gibberish or terms which require further examination to see if the criticisms are even viable ones.

Bush is a disaster.

Bush has not been a great president this is true. He also has been disappointing in a number of areas. Nonetheless, your attempts to "prove" he is a "disaster" are seriously wanting.

Only blindly ignorant conservatives could rally to Dubya.

Considering the degree of ignorance of reality in your comments, I would not be so quick to call other people blindly ignorant if I were you.

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, May 09, 2017

Briefly on the Problem With An Emeritus Pope Benedict Statement on "Torture":

[Disclaimer: This is something that was prepped in draft form back on September 9, 2009 but for reasons I cannot recall at the moment was never published. While I do not remember at the moment what the statement made was, the basic criticism made on this subject remains intact and extends to Pope Francis as well. For that reason, I am dusting off this prior blurb from the drafts folder, tweaking it slightly (including revising the title), and publishing it at this time. -SM]

This is a small bit posted in a combox thread a couple weeks some time ago. I will likely may follow it with a more detailed exposition on the problem so noted below at some point in the coming days or weeks.

We are in need of a definition here. Not a definition as in dogma but instead in the meaning of the term and how it is to be applied. I have gone over these matters before and at times at length{1} but that is the bottom line really: definitions are the tools of thought and it bothers me that this pope and his predecessor{2} on some subjects do not bother clarifying their use of words.

As far as whom I am with, I do not make the mistake of confusing the role of the church with that of the state. I am with whomever stands up for the three fundamental rights of man and one of those rights is life and thus survival. And I will not align myself with any pundit, politician, philosopher, pope, president, or anyone else whose positions by logical extension endanger my survival or that of my loved ones. And that is the bottom line really.


{1} On Torture and General Norms of Interpretation--Parts I-III (circa October 13, 2006)

{2} Who were/are not lacking in the intelligence department.

Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, May 05, 2017

Perusing archives
Past post drafts considered for
Finishing to post


My latest contribution to the Jaded Politics project courtesy of the Musings From Exile weblog{1} can be read HERE.


{1} "I link to the Musings From Exile weblog version so I do not trigger a trackback to it on the main page; thereby ensuring that I keep Rerum Novarum separate from that project." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 8, 2017)]

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, May 03, 2017

Miscellaneous Dyspeptic Mutterings on the Budget:

I have seen in more than one place some attempted apologetics by supporters of the Trump Administration for the budget deal that was passed and will be signed by the president. The rationale they use if summarized in a bullet point is as follows:

  • Give them everything so there is no shutdown 

Seriously, the excuses need to end.

The Republicans passed a reconciliation bill in 2015 that Resident Obama vetoed. If they do not serve up that same bill for President Trump to sign, then we know they were engaging in a stunt before because they knew Obama would veto what they sent to his desk. There is no excuse now to not pass the exact same bill gutting Obamacare...unless...they were not serious before. And if that is the case, then why take them seriously now?

It is inexcusable to serve up a budget that could have been proposed by a Pelosi-Schumer-Clinton government and which Trump supporters would gripe about if they had. At some point a stand needs to be taken and with Republican control of government, what's the excuse now?

If capitulating across the board is supposed to show that Republicans can govern, then why bother turning out in 2018 or 2020? Seriously.

What will the excuse be when the GOP fails again to repeal Obamacare this week?

What will be the excuse when tax reform just nibbles the edges and does nothing of substance to really reform the system?

What will the excuse be in September when there is no shutdown and the GOP funds everything once again?

Why should voters in 2018 believe these folks when they make all the same promises again next year after failing to keep 2016's promises in 2017?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

On Objective Principles and Subjective Circumstances Where Citing Sources Are Concerned...

[Prefatory Note: This was originally published to Facebook on June 12, 2012. -ISM]

This material is taken from a status posted by a friend of mine circa June 10, 2012. Here is said status for the sake of contextualizing what is said below -all names removed to eliminate the possibility of anyone taking this personally as my concern here is the principles involved, not the parties themselves. Without further ado...

‎"In some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception. For two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail." ---The U.S. Supreme Court, in "Planned Parenthood v Casey" [1992]

And here are the words of my original comment on the thread:

I am presuming that you got that quote from someone and did not get it from the case itself. Because that quote above appears nowhere in the case texts. Here are the actual quotes:

"The Roe rule's limitation on state power could not be repudiated without serious inequity to people who, for two decades of economic and social developments, have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives. The Constitution serves human values, and while the effect of reliance on Roe cannot be exactly measured, neither can the certain costs of overruling Roe for people who have ordered their thinking and living around that case be dismissed. Pp. 855-856.


It should be recognized, moreover, that in some critical respects, the abortion decision is of the same character as the decision to use contraception, to which Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird, and Carey v. Population Services International afford constitutional protection. We have no doubt as to the correctness of those decisions.

I should add here that the two parts above which were prooftexted for the manufactured quote in this status were from the members of the court that UPHELD Roe vs. Wade in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey!

The above words on my part got the following response on the thread which will be in bolded font. My response to them will be in regular font.

Shawn, the manufactured quote above takes a bit from the second paragraph you cite and the rest from the first. I don't think that is so bad.

I have a serious problem with playing fast and loose with citations.

The court did say both things.

That is an egregious butchering of what the Court said both in terms of ripping the statements from context as well as how they are presented. 

And I am quite sure XXXXXXX is aware that what he cites is from the rationale for upholding Roe v. Wade.

It is quite possible XXXXXXX got the citation from a pro-life website without checking it. I have learned over the years that pro-life websites are roughly as prone to miscite sources as anti-life sources are. That is why I said what I did where XXXXXXX is concerned: I cannot believe he would knowingly cite a quote in the manner above -it is highly unscholarly and blatantly disingenuous. XXXXXXX is from everything I know about him both scholarly as well as ethical. 

He isn't quoting it to approve of it, but rather to lay bare the way these folks think, and what they think is of more value than human life.

And how does this help matters when someone goes back to find the citation and discovers the unscholarly hack job that the above quote represents viz. what the Court actually said? This is not even a case of citing two things in sequence with an ellipse between the different parts -that would be ok. This is reformulating what was said and making it say something that the Court did not say for the sake of political agenda. 

Which is, to be explicit, the right to have sex without having to be prepared to raise children. Which they think is good and we think is bad.

By way of example, what would you say if someone did this with your last comment?:

"Which is, to be explicit, the right to have sex without having to be prepared to raise children. Which we think is good." 

Before you object, you did say all of that yourself in your last comment on the thread prior to mine. Heck, there is not a word in that sentence that you did not say. So by your rationale, you would have no right to take offense at someone misrepresenting your words like that. But you would take offense at it because that is not what you actually said as anyone who checks the comment you made can readily see. How is that any different than the quote above objectively speaking?

Look, I have blistered my adversaries over the years when I have caught them doing such things with sources they cite. For that reason, I cannot in the interest of both ethics and rational consistency turn a blind eye to my allies when they do the very same thing. It is a matter of objective truth insofar as such things are not right or okay when "the good guys" do it and wrong, deplorable or to be condemned when "the bad guys" do it. The subjective nobility of the cause is not the determining factor of the objective rightness or wrongness of the conduct undertaken but instead, said conduct is objectively wrong, period.

Labels: , ,

Monday, April 24, 2017

Points to Ponder:

It would seem that in the vacuum of our modern lives has morphed what we construe to be mistakes and “failures.” When we are able to live life without the atrocities and sacrifices of war, we somehow feel as though that our comfort should be juxtaposed onto war itself. Yet, Mr. Hanson paints a vivid landscape of what would be these same expectations during World War II. It is quite illuminating to see such a historian critique an era from the perspective of modern eyes and expectations foisting upon the “Greatest Generation” our ideas of mistakes and “failures.” ["Publius" (circa late May 2006)]

Labels: , ,

Friday, April 21, 2017

Chelsea Clinton: America Was ‘Too Sexist’ To Elect My Mom

In brief...

The drawer's dullest knife
Desperate for relevance
Poor homely Chelsea

Labels: , ,

Points to Ponder:

“I read to experience other places, other people. I write to describe a moment in my ordinary life. Sometimes there are scents, sometimes there are sounds. And I often wonder, is that enough? Maybe not if I wanted to make a living writing. Maybe not if I wanted to write the next great American novel, or publish a short story in the The New Yorker. But to write for my personal blog? Sometimes scent, sound, and a sense of ‘in this moment’ are enough. The poem about cooking an eggplant, that was enough for Natalie Goldberg; Williams’ poem written on a prescription pad, that is enough for me. Details are meaning enough. Being present in a moment is meaning enough. “ [Angela Badgley]


Thursday, April 20, 2017

My latest contribution to the Jaded Politics project courtesy of the Musings From Exile weblog{1} can be read HERE.


{1} "I link to the Musings From Exile weblog version so I do not trigger a trackback to it on the main page; thereby ensuring that I keep Rerum Novarum separate from that project." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 8, 2017)]

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Points to Ponder:

“A great nation is like a great man:
When he makes a mistake, he realizes it.
Having realized it, he admits it.
Having admitted it, he corrects it.
He considers those who point out his faults
as his most benevolent teachers.
He thinks of his enemy
as the shadow that he himself casts.”
[Lao Tzu]

Labels: ,

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Briefly on War Atrocities, History, Selective Outrage, Etc. 

I must admit I am rather surprised at the moralizing outrage positions taken against ISIS{1} by certain sorts who every year or so bemoan the ending of WWII in the Pacific theater while glossing over what occurred at that time and place. I want to note at the present time that this thread is not an invitation to debate the issues surrounding the end of the war in the Pacific Theater -an issue that experience in past years showed was best limited only to the time of year where those events are anniversaried if they are addressed at all.{2} 

Having clarified that, I simply want to remind folks who had forgotten or who did not know that the war crimes committed by Imperial Japan dwarfed anything we have seen so far from ISIS. I point this out not to exonerate ISIS by any stretch mind you{3}, only to point to the amazing double standard folks take when figuratively or in reality{4} it is their ox being gored versus someone else's rather than being rationally and ethically consistent on the matter. But I digress.


{1} Including the claim that they are "monsters" or some other dehumanizing tag being attached to them.

{2} For those who are interested, here is what was published on this weblog on that subject in years past:

Weblog Threads on the Atomic Bomb Subject and Various Factors Involved in Objectively Assessing the Moral and Ethical Ramifications Thereof--A Rerum Novarum Recapitulation Thread (circa August 6, 2009)

I do not plan to say anything new on those matters anytime soon.

{3} I have zero sympathy for them whatsoever to be quite frank about it.

{4} This includes those who play the sob sister card for the purported “innocents” in the days of Imperial Japan but do not do this for the folks connected with ISIS.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, April 13, 2017

My latest contribution to the Jaded Politics project courtesy of the Musings From Exile weblog{1} can be read HERE.

As there is no shortage of folks across the political spectrum who are drinking various flavours of Kool Aid where the Trump Administration is concerned, it seems appropriate to remind folks of what my standard disclaimer on that subject entails:

I am one of the very few no BS commentators on the actions of the Trump Administration; meaning: you will get no BS from me on what they do. I call fair balls and strikes. I am no administration slappie unlike a lot of folks now who unfortunately were reactionary critics of Obama for eight years. Nor am I a reactionary critic either unlike a lot of folks who are now but were Obama slappies for eight years previously. If you are looking for either (i) uncritical and mindless fanbot worship of the Trump Administration or (ii) constant unrelenting criticism of everything the Trump Administration does, this page is not for you. If however, you are looking for someone who will call a fair strike zone and give credit to President Trump and his Administration where warranted and also criticize them when warranted, then you are at the right place!{2}

This same disclaimer applies to virtually every subject out there. To frame it another way, and since this weblog only recently became active again, for those who do not know or may have forgotten: I call fair balls and strikes on all subjects I write on. I do not believe in spin nor do I believe in being a slappie for any person or cause{3} -even those causes I happen to generally agree with.

And as the weblog archives of Rerum Novarum more than adequately substantiates this claim; ergo, no more needs to be said on that at the present time.


{1} "I link to the Musings From Exile weblog version so I do not trigger a trackback to it on the main page; thereby ensuring that I keep Rerum Novarum separate from that project." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 8, 2017)]

{2} Excerpt from the Musings From Exile Article Introduction and Page Disclaimer (circa April 5, 2017)

{3} Though I write from a predominantly conservative point of view politically and socially, I am a longtime Independent voter. I am therefore not wedded to conservatism and when I view it as wrong or lacking on an issue, I will where applicable say so. On moral and ethical matters, my position is within Catholic thought and this also applies to theological matters. However, with Catholic positions that fall outside the realm of doctrine, if I view a given position taken as wrong or lacking, said positions will hardly be blindly accepted by me no matter now predominant they may be.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Points to Ponder:

"A willingness to apologize is part of the willingness to shoulder responsibility, which is an important part of growing up. A mature person is supposed to feel regret when he or she has offended or upset some other person...Someone who rarely apologizes will seem unsympathetic and uninterested in coming to terms with others. He or she will seem overly proud. It may seem to a more dispassionate observer that that person is more insecure than arrogant, and unwilling to admit to a mistake for that reason." [Fredric Neuman M.D.]

Labels: ,

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

My latest contribution to the Jaded Politics project courtesy of the Musings From Exile weblog{1} can be read HERE.

It was actually was originally handled in a much shorter blurb to this humble weblog yesterday. After the project editor in a conference asked if anyone wanted this story for Jaded Politics, I figured since I already had a blurb done on it here at Rerum Novarum that I would take it and rework it a bit for that endeavour. The above link encapsulates the essence of yesterday's blurb but goes into greater detail on the subject with pictures and video.


{1} "I link to the Musings From Exile weblog version so I do not trigger a trackback to it on the main page; thereby ensuring that I keep Rerum Novarum separate from that project." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 8, 2017)]

Labels: , ,

Monday, April 10, 2017

Woman Banned From Uber for Life After Threatening to Falsely Accuse Driver of Rape

This sort of story is a good reason to assert the following: any woman who falsely accuses a man of rape and has him charged should be imprisoned for the equivalent amount of time he would serve if convicted of such a charge.

By the way, the same principle goes for false claims in any other area as well (i.e. domestic violence). No one who engages in false accusations should be allowed to walk away unscathed from their lies. And this same principle should apply to cops who lie, prosecutors who during a trial who withhold evidence, etc. Furthermore, any and all false accusations should be treated as a felony.

Maybe if this kind of hard approach was taken, there would be a deterrent from such stuff.

Labels: , ,

More on the Controversial Dubia Subject:

I finished this material some time ago and have been debating with myself as to the best time to post it. I suppose there is no better time than the start of Holy Week, so I have decided to post it today. For those who have not seen the previous note on this subject, I recommend they read it first as it provides both some context as well as material for what is to follow.

To start with, I want to make it clear for any who object to the stance taken in the previous note that its not a requirement of the pope to respond to the four cardinals on their terms and whose “Dubia” is arguably worded in a somewhat disingenuous fashion. The reason I say this is simple: the answers are more complex than simple black and white yes and no answers. To illustrate that point in greater detail, I will touch on each question after posting them in their entirety first. Without further ado, let us get to it!

1. It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?

My response to Question #1:

Question #1 as phrased above involves certain presuppositions and drastically over-simplifies the situations of the divorced and remarried.{1} It cannot for those reasons be answered in a one word yes or no format; therefore, to ask for an answer in that form as the four cardinals do comes off to these eyes as rather questionable viz their motives for reasons I specified in the previous note{2}.

2. After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia (304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 79, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?

My response to Question #2: 

Question #2 suffers from the same kind of presuppositional flaws as Question #1 does above. The Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (AL) acknowledges that objective mortal sin is not always in individual circumstances actual mortal sin. How is that a denial of Veritatis Splendor's teaching on the existence of intrinsically grave sins? Simple, its not. But again, that cannot be explained with a simple yes or no answer and the cardinals who issued this “Dubia” should know this as its a pretty fundamental Catholic moral theology issue.

3. After Amoris Laetitia (301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (Matthew 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, “Declaration,” June 24, 2000)?

My response to Question #3: 

Question #3 is asking if the prohibition against adultery is still in force. Obviously it is. The assumption behind the question from all appearances is that any “objective situation of grave habitual sin” (“Dubia”) must ipso facto involve actual mortal sin. I touched on this in my prior note{3} but again, the attempt with the question to try and force a one word answer is at the very least suspicious.{4}

4. After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 81, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?

My response to Question #4: 

Question #4 proposes a false dichotomy in the form of an argument which strives to make "circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility” incompatible with a condemnation of acts which are objectively intrinsically evil. This is a false dichotomy disingenuously masquerading as a question. Furthermore, it cannot be answered accurately with a single word yes or no so again, the cardinals who pushed this publicly contrary to the manner in which the Magisterium has said such issues should be handled{5} are for that reason at least deserving of a rebuke. I for one consider Pope Francis’ refusal to even acknowledge them on this to be an adequate rebuke but that is neither here nor there. Onto the final question.

5. After Amoris Laetitia (303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 56, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?

My response to Question #5: 

Question #5 is essentially a form of Neo-Feeneyism as it by logical extension treats every objectively grave act as automatically an actual mortal sin. In that sense, it is more or less a rehashing of Question #4. Like its predecessor question, this question involves presuppositions that fly in the face of Magisterial teaching (pre-Francis), the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC){6}, and Doctors of the Church such as St Alphonsis Ligouri and St Thomas Aquinas. And like the prior questions, it cannot be accurately responded to in a one word answer which again, the drafters of the “Dubia” have to have known. We are not talking about ordinary Catholics in the pew here as for them this might not be so evident. No, these are Cardinals of the Roman Church so what is their excuse for either not knowing this or (if they did) disingenuously pretending they did not in issuing this purported “Dubia” to Pope Francis?

In summary, while I have my own issues with some of what Pope Francis has said and done -and even in some minor ways with this Apostolic Exhortation{7}; nonetheless, the Pope’s choosing to leave these four Cardinals hanging by not responding to their "Dubia" is hardly one of them.


{1} In essence, the divorced and remarried can go to Confession and then receive Communion if they are striving to live chastely but nonetheless fall into sin of a grave nature. And as often as they continue to strive to live chastely and yet fail, as long as their repentance is sincere, God will forgive them in Confession and they can receive Communion. This is why discretion and the aid of a Confessor on these matters is of no small importance and is emphasized a number of times in AL.

{2} "[I]t is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth" (CDF: Instruction Donum Veritatis). By any objective observation, these Cardinals ran afoul of this Joseph Ratzinger penned and John Paul II approved Instruction by taking their issue public as they did.” [Excerpt from the Facebook Note Very Briefly On the Dubia (circa March 13, 2017) as posted to Rerum Novarum (circa April 9, 2017)]

{3} “The bottom line is this: the principle that every objectively grave act or situation is not automatically mortally sinful is not new.”  [Excerpt from the Facebook Note Very Briefly On the Dubia (circa March 13, 2017) as posted to Rerum Novarum (circa April 9, 2017)]

{4} See footnote two.

{5} "[I]t is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth" (CDF: Instruction Donum Veritatis as cited in the Facebook Note Very Briefly On the Dubia as posted to Rerum Novarum (circa April 9, 2017)]

{6} “The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.” [Excerpt from the Catechism of the Catholic Church Part III, Section I, Chapter I, Article IV The Morality of Human Acts Section 1754 (circa October 11, 1992)]

{7} Sticking only to ecclesial matters here, I do believe that a greater emphasis on repentance and the Sacrament of Reconciliation as well as the importance of regularly receiving it for those who intend to receive Communion at mass would have been a worthwhile inclusion in AL. Also worth including could have been a recommended timeline of reception for folks who intend to continue receiving Communion on at least a weekly basis. (Say once every 3 months at least!) But that’s a subject for another time perhaps.

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, April 09, 2017

Very Briefly on the Dubia Subject...

As it is Lent and I am frankly beyond sick and tired of seeing the issue in question here be flogged in the feeds like a proverbial dead horse by the usual suspects, I am posting at this time with a few minor tweaks a note I wrote back in January which has been in draft form until now.{1} My words will be in regular font.

He should as the Roman Pontiff, answer [the] dubia

Why? To start with, the CDF has made it eminently clear in past instructions that "it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth" (CDF: Instruction Donum Veritatis). By any objective observation, these Cardinals ran afoul of this Joseph Ratzinger penned and John Paul II approved Instruction by taking their issue public as they did.

Also, the deliberate obtuseness involved here frankly does not do those prelates any credit. This is not that hard to figure out really and here is a hint: it involves the ethical methodology of casuistry or case based reasoning seeking to resolve moral problems by applying abstract rules to concrete or particular instances. Here is an article on the subject for your consideration:


The bottom line is this: the principle that every objectively grave act or situation is not automatically mortally sinful is not new. St. Alphonsus Ligouri wrote on this in the seventeenth century, heck St. Thomas Aquinas wrote on it in the thirteenth century. Heck, St. John Paul II noted in 1984 that "[c]learly there can occur situations which are very complex and obscure from a psychological viewpoint and which have an influence on the sinner's subjective culpability" (Ap. Ex Reconciliato et Paenitentia). All Pope Francis has done is take that principle and apply it to the subject of divorce and remarriage. The argument is not that the latter is not wrong or seriously sinful of course but instead that "[i]t can no longer simply be said that all those living in any ‘irregular situation’ are living in a state of mortal sin" (Ap. Ex. Amoris Laetitia). Discernment of individual cases is needed and that is for penitents and their confessors to do, not those outside the specific situation, be they folks on Facebook, folks who write for periodicals, or even Cardinals of the Church. This is really not all that difficult for those who are not determined to be obtuse about it.

Oh and before anyone gets mad at me, hey I am just "speaking hard truths in love" here folks. Most notably the hard truths that individual situations are not as black and white as many may wish. I realize this frustrates the desire of many folks to play the roles of James and John and ask Jesus if they can call down fire from heaven on all the sinners and heathens but I digress.


{1} I have a sequel to this note that addresses various objections that were posted when this material was originally posted in comment form a while back. It will be published to this weblog and elsewhere soon.

Labels: , ,

Saturday, April 08, 2017

As its been a long while since I have blogged, it seems appropriate to revisit briefly the subject of comments boxes. I have from day one not been a fan of them, have used them only sparingly in any publishing medium since that time, and have never used them here at Rerum Novarum. Rather than revisit that subject here at any detail, I will simply refer the reader to the last substantial treatment written on this weblog about them. After all, for the most part everything I would say now on the subject was already said back then so why invent the wheel anew? Without further ado...

On Reiterating Anew Our Comments Box Policy (circa December 1, 2008)


My second contribution to the Jaded Politics project courtesy of the Musings From Exile weblog{1} can be read HERE.


{1} I link to the Musings From Exile weblog version so I do not trigger a trackback to it on the main page. (To ensure that I keep Rerum Novarum separate from that project.)

Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, April 07, 2017

My third posting to Musings From Exile can be read HERE. In essence it is an old draft of expository musings from Rerum Novarum which was brought up from mothballs, revised slightly, and posted today to that weblog. The subject is sports related and as the Masters tournament has concluded, it is on the issue of what is required of someone to be considered "Golf's Greatest."

Labels: ,

Thursday, April 06, 2017

My debut column as posted to Jaded Politics can be read HERE. I link to the Musings From Exile weblog version so I do not trigger a trackback to it on the main page. (To ensure that I keep Rerum Novarum separate from the other project I am contributing to.) {1}

It may seem odd to try and keep that traffic from this weblog but when you work on a group project -be it in writing or other endeavours, you need to recognize the rules inherent in the respective projects involved. For that reason, to avoid any possibility of transgressing the latter, all material from Jaded Politics threads will be posted to the Musings From Exile weblog and shared to Rerum Novarum via the latter, all things to the contrary notwithstanding.


{1} I am simply going to note this point in a single footnote to all applicable threads for a while.


Musings From Exile: Introduction and Page Disclaimer

This is the inaugural posting from the Musings From Exile weblog outlining a little about the project I mentioned earlier that I would be involved with. For those who have questions as to how I view things in the interval since this weblog was suspended and now, I touch on it briefly there. In short, not much has changed in how I approach issues from my first involvements in online writing to the present but I digress.


Points to Ponder:

For everything there is a season,
And a time for every matter under heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die;
A time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal;
A time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh;
A time to mourn, and a time to dance;
A time to throw away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
A time to embrace, And a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to seek, and a time to lose;
A time to keep, and a time to throw away;
A time to tear, and a time to sew;
A time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate,
A time for war, and a time for peace.
[Ecclesiastes iii,1-8]

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, April 04, 2017

Notification of An Intended Return to Blogging:

Though it has been pondered a bit in sundry times and in divers occasions to return to blogging, I could not find the motivation to do so apart from one specific circumstance a few years ago.{1} However, the motivation previously lacking has been found now with my planned involvement in an extensive writing project that I may touch on a bit here and there if I feel so inclined to.

While I will mainly be blogging on a new weblog that I have set up for that purpose{2}, it is also likely that I will resume blogging here as well on subjects that will not be germane to the subjects to be written on there. However, upon resuming blogging at this humble weblog, I will not have any set schedule for it as I did in years past where I sought to blog on this humble weblog at certain self-prescribed intervals of output.

Anyway, that is all for now until further notice.


{1} I did subsequent to December of 2009 post revisions to some postings from 2006 which I had a few people tell me were far too polemical in tone and which had needlessly prolonged or otherwise exasperated an old feud. In the interest of seeking to heal wounds, I undertook a rather ambitious project reworking in more amiable tonality four posts which were particularly polemical in tonality and intent. But that is a subject for another time perhaps if ever I decide to revisit it which (quite frankly) is highly doubtful at this point.

{2} As for whether or not I will cross post links or material from that weblog here or not, I see no reason not to post material from there to this weblog as well. I have however decided that material composed for this weblog which are not germane to the specific project guidelines for the new weblog will not be posted there.


Saturday, December 19, 2009

Notification of Suspension:

Unfortunately, Rerum Novarum has been a struggle to maintain with any degree of regularity in recent months.{1} It is now at a point of critical mass on many fronts and there is simply too much more stuff that will be focused on in the coming year. In applying anew and with greater determination on my part the theory of economics of Vilfredo Pareto on which I have written before to the principle of time-management, I am required at this time to suspend the current operative protocols of this humble weblog{2} indefinitely.

What is in the archives will remain there and posts which were planned for the coming months which are in unfinished draft status{3} will remain in the form they are currently in until I am both able as well as willing to get to them again. But as of the present posting, Rerum Novarum is hereby declared to be indefinitely suspended.

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.


{1} Actually, it has been this way for a good part of the past year essentially.

{2} The most recent operative protocols of Rerum Novarum were set forth in the following expository musing some time ago:

Reviewing Past Site Intentions, Some Current Tidbits, and Weblogging Policy For the Indefinite Future (circa January 11, 2008)

The aforementioned template will take effect once again should this suspension be lifted in the future and I start blogging again but as it sits now, they are to be considered superseded by what is outlined in this posting until further notice.

{3} Or even posts which are finished awaiting an opportune time or circumstance to occasion their posting.

Labels: ,

Thursday, December 10, 2009

It's Time to Explode the Myths About the New Deal

History repeats itself today because Dumbocrats do not learn from it. The New Deal prolonged and deepened a recession into a depression that was worse eight years into it than it was when it started and many of FDR's follies are being duplicated by the present administration. I have gone into this before in detail so rather than reinvent the wheel, I will simply put in a footnote the three part series where I did this in late 2006 responding to a rather misinformed individual{1} whose views on this are sadly not uncommon. Such lacunas in knowledge in my mind really make a good argument for home schooling in the more formative years in the absence of either solid charter schools or private education but that is a subject for another time perhaps.


{1} For a three part exposition on some of the myths of the New Deal that I wrote a few years ago on this humble weblog, see this thread for details:

On Historical Revisionism Surrounding the New Deal -Parts I-III (circa October 28, 2006)

Labels: , , , ,

The Tip of the Climategate Iceberg (Wall Street Journal)

Those who wonder why I have over the years to an increasing degree written on the subjects of argumentation fallacies, how to reason and apply logic, how to dialogue, and all that as well as emphasized the principle that logic and reason does not depend on ones academic degrees when disputing with people of various and sundry outlooks, I cannot think of a better illustration of why than the scandal of Climategate. It encapsulates in the magnitude and depth of its corruption by so-called "experts" precisely why I have always and will always take the approach towards issues and pronouncements on matters by so-called "experts" the way I do. And that is the bottom line really.

Labels: , , , , ,

Obama Asked About Legalized Prostitution to Stimulate the Economy

We already have legalized prostitution in this country President Obama, look at what you and the Democrats are doing to try and get government run healthcare implemented for one such example. Oh and btw, you do not look good in black fishnets Mr. President!!!

Labels: , , , ,

Who Wants This Health Care "Reform"?

Someone should remind senators and representatives from Tennessee, Massachussets, Maine (earth to Snowe!!!), and Hawaii (not mentioned in the article but they had one that also went tits up) about the failures of such universal programs in their own states and ask them if they really want that nationally.

Labels: , , , ,

Alexander Hamilton, Economic Prophet

I cannot recommend Ron Chernow's book (of which the above article heavily excerpts) more highly for the detail and scope of what it undertakes to cover on one of the "forgotten Founding Fathers."

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, December 06, 2009

Points to Ponder:

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.

Let’s take a look at social security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of savings that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end, social security was adopted, but it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries.

Now in our country under our free enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.

But let’s also look from the other side, at the freedom the doctor loses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms; it’s like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren’t equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him you can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.

This is a freedom that I wonder whether any of us have the right to take from any human being. All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it is a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your children won’t decide when they’re in school where they will go or what they will do for a living. They will wait for the government to tell them where they will go to work and what they will do.

What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine.

Former Representative Halleck of Indiana has said, “When the American people want something from Congress, regardless of its political complexion, if they make their wants known, Congress does what the people want.”

So write, and if your representative writes back to you and tells you that he or she too is for free enterprise, that we have these great services and so forth, that must be performed by government, don’t let them get away with it. Show that you have not been convinced. Write a letter right back and tell them that you believe in government economy and fiscal responsibility; that you know governments don’t tax to get the money the need; governments will always find a need for the money they get and that you demand the continuation of our free enterprise system. You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we believe that he is on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say “I have heard from my constituents and this is what they want.”

Write those letters now; call your friends and them to write them. If you don’t, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow, and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country. [Ronald Reagan (circa 1961)]

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, December 01, 2009

Miscellaneous Musings on "ObamaCare":

This was originally written as a footnote for a posting in another publishing medium. Without further ado...

[I]f this health care crap goes through, I will be considered a criminal. Because I am not going to buy health insurance PERIOD unless it is a purely catastrophic-only policy. I do not want health insurance, I do not need it, I take reasonably good care of myself and am improving in this area with each passing year (hence I look younger now than I did ten years ago), I never go to the emergency room for anything, I pay cash every time I go to the doctor, and I do not want to subsidize those who are irresponsible with their own health choices. So if this crap is passed, I will be fined and will not pay that fine which means I will have a misdemeanor on my otherwise spotless record and probably spend time in jail on this. Those who wonder why I rarely comment on this list and am slacking on my blogging in recent months, the reason is I am working through various channels to build coalitions politically to fight this garbage.

And though I have said it for months in other mediums, I have predicted a 40 seat GOP pickup in the House next year (and 6 in the Senate) of which I note here for the record. Unlike a lot of commentators or apologists, if I am wrong on something I will admit to it later to the same extent in which the original comment was made. (In this case, a post-post script of a list posting.)

In the aftermath of the last election, I revised my prediction to be a 41 seat GOP pickup in the House because Owens will not win re-election.

Labels: , , , ,

One problem with knowing history when most people do not is you can see when it is repeating itself and many people do not listen. VDH goes over recent and more ancient history and points to parallels that more people should be aware of. And of course his indictment of Obama's governing is one I would love to see an O-bot respond to but I am not holding my breath!!!

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, November 21, 2009

2010 Could Easily Be Disastrous For Democrats

This was originally supposed to be posted in early October but I was unable to finish it until now. Nonetheless, Sean Trende has a good article here on the Kilgore election prediction absurdities. I did not have a chance to write an analysis on Kilgore's article but Trende now makes any effort on my part in that area superfluous. I will accompany this with my own reasons for espousing this for what is going on{1} but here it is in a nutshell: I have been saying since June in various and sundry places{2} that I was predicting a 40/6 seat pickup for the Republicans in 2010.

My 40 seat prediction{3} is a number incidentally that Michael Barone has since come around to viewing as "dark horse possibility" as of late compared to "not a snowballs chance" which was his view only six weeks earlier. Charlie Cook is now saying the odds of 40 in the House picked up is in the "33-50% range" compared to earlier when he was not so bold.{4} Here were my thoughts on this matter as of five weeks ago as expressed elsewhere:

[T]he entire House is up for re-election and there are about 50 seats in districts that went for McCain that are Democratic. Add to that the fact that there are Democratic incumbents in weak districts who have voted for crap and tax and also for this health care boondoggle and also that more seniors vote in off-elections than any other constituency and the seniors are PISSED at Obama and the Dems. The Senate for the demographic alignment issues cannot be taken in this cycle (though 6 seats as I said would be a nice dent into their advantage and solidify a filibuster: out of 34 odd seats up in this cycle that is about as good as it could get) and Obama is not up for re-election for three years at that point. So the anger at these arrogant Democratic majorities running roughshod over the public will have to come out somewhere and my guess is the body of congress where everyone is up for re-election and which is chaired by the highly unpopular Nancy Pelosi (who herself will win with about 73% of the vote in her district and therefore does not have the same fear as many of her colleagues will). I remind you in 1994 there was a 54 seat pickup and the environment now is a lot worse than it was then because the bills people were pissed about back then (assault weapons ban and Clinton's 1993 budget raising taxes) are nothing compared to the ones now (crap and tax passing the House with all but 8 votes from Democrats, the government run- health care that the public does not want and which they have been trying to ram through without anyone being able to read). Despite it all, a 40 seat gain would not match the 54 seat gain from 1994 but it would be enough for them to lose the House. And it may even be worse than that.

People like Kilgore can keep telling themselves it will be nothing because the guys in Jaws did not need a bigger boat either!!!


{1} I am not sure if I covered any of this on the weblog offhand and do not have time to look for it if I did.

{2} As far as this weblog goes, see footnote one.

{3} Which since Owens won in NY 23 I have subsequently revised to a 41/6 prediction.

{4} Instead, saying the odds were "less than 25%".

Labels: , , , , ,