Wednesday, January 19, 2005
With the inauguration occurring tomorrow (and another four years of President Bush ahead) it hardly seems appropriate to Us at Rerum Novarum to opine publicly about the great unknown that the next four years would bring if not for the thought provoking and insightful pontifications of...JibJab. Yes, from the same people who brought us all It's Good to Be in DC and This Land comes JibJab with a potential overview of Bush's second term. Click HERE, push the button, and wait a bit for the movie to load.
"Tales From the Crypt Mailbag" Dept.
The material in this post pertains to the Victor Davis Hanson article on Donald Rumsfeld which was posted to Rerum Novarum back in December. Our words will be in regular font.
Leave it to Victor Davis Hanson to shed the light of history on our supposed military shortcomings viz. Iraq. We weren't "sufficiently" equipped to fight WWII until...oh...1945.
This is correct. However, let the record show that We at Rerum Novarum pointed these facts out prior to Victor Davis Hanson's article on Donald Rumsfeld.{1}
And by that time the war was almost over.
And (of course) the postwar period in Germany and Japan was hardly free from the kinds of insurrections that we are seeing now in Iraq after the end of combat operations in May of 2003...
Our Shermans (affectionately dubbed "Purple Heart Boxes" by the crews that manned them) were crap compared to the German Tigers.
Without question.
Firing a round from our tanks at a Tiger was about as effective as throwing a rubber ball at it. It just bounced off.
Indeed. And if soldiers had gone to the media on this during WWII, they would have either been court martialed or executed on the spot. Indeed if any media sources had treated our war progress with the same kind of seditious undercurrents that modern media sources have treated on the war in Iraq, they would have lost their credentials to report at a minimum.{2} The government would not have been unjustified in doing any of these things in a time of war. And the same thing goes for the current government during the current war on terror.
Speaking of being under equipped, the 101st held off a major German offensive (which happened to be able to gain momentum right under Allied noses) while freezing their asses off in the woods of Bastogne with no winter clothing, nothing in the way of hot food, and practically no ammo. According to the guys from Easy Company who were interviewed in Band of Brothers (if you haven't seen that mini series, I highly recommend it), they were down to one round a man at one time.
They are fortunate that the slihtering seditionists of the modern media were not around then. Can you see them reporting "soldiers in Bastogne are down to one round a man" and the Germans receiving a fresh inspiration to hold out a little longer??? Something like that could have been the turning point of the war in the opposite direction rather than in the direction that it actually took at that point.
By setting the correct paradigm through which we should view the progress of the War on Terror overall and Rumfeld's performance, Hanson correctly concludes that Rumsfeld is doing an amazingly good job. You had once said that Rumsfeld is "one of the jewels of the Bush cabinet."
Yes I did. And my position on Rumsfeld has not wavered.
I think he is the CROWN jewel of the Bush cabinet.
With John Ashcroft leaving, that assessment on your part is probably correct.
(As much as I admire Condoleeza Rice, I would take one Rummy over ten Condis any day of the week and twice on Sunday)
Well now, in fairness to Dr. Rice,{3} she has not served one single day in her upcoming post yet.
Apparently Bush himself thinks so, seeing as how he begged him to stay on as Defense Secretary for another term.
Whatever my criticisms have been of him (and they have not been minor ones) Dubya is nonetheless no dummy however much the pseudo-"progressivists" may wish that he was.
I think this also speaks volumes about Rumsfeld's selfless dedication to serving his country. I mean, he already had a distinguished record of public service when he was first tapped by Bush to be Defense Secretary. He is independently wealthy. Given all this and his age (72), he doesn't need the headache of the job and the crap he's had to put up with.
Good points.
The one disagreement I would have with Hanson's assessment is that I DO think Rumsfeld is media savvy. In fact I think he defines what being media savvy really is. As I said to you before, I think viewing tapes of his press conferences should be a mandatory part of the USCCB media relation training. He gets up there and tells it like it is and does not let the media manipulate him, which is why the media elites are spearheading the "get Rumsfeld" drive.
Well stated.
The fact that certain "Republicans" have been willing to aid the process should be no surprise, particularly when you consider their track records.
In the words of that great western philosopher James Hetfield, "sad but true."
Sen. Trent Lott's self-immolation over his comment at Strom Thurmond's birthday party indicates that he is willing to sacrifice his own to get back in the good graces of the media.
You are referring to Trent "Word to Your Mother" Lott presumably...
Bill Kristol, for reasons I am not sure of, is similarly weak-kneed in the face of media pressure.
Probably the same reasons that Tucker Carlson is.
Frankly, I have always thought that his Weekly Standard colleague Fred Barnes is a more reliable pundit.
Fred Barnes has long been viewed by Us as one of the more reliable beltway commentators.
John McCain, needless to say, is as shameless a political prostitute as they come who would do anything for media face time.
Agreed.
And particularly when you consider the grudge he still holds against Bush {2}, joining the anti-Rumsfeld media chorus is by no means a stretch.
Agreed.
As for Hagel, he's a liberal Republican who is taking a few pages from the McCain playbook in scoring free media time.
McCain is a hero of Vietnam but has not been a hero in the Senate over his career.
Both Senators are eyeing the '08 GOP presidential nod, which neither one stands a snow ball's chance in getting, but I digress.
And hopefully the drive to allow foreign born people like Ahnuld to run dies on the vine also.
Notes:
{1} Though it would be folly for Us to claim to have originated this insight: indeed any decent student of history knows these things.
{2} Not to mention the odds being pretty good that they would have been tried in court for either sedition or treason and promptly convicted. (And a point, they would either have served jail time or have been executed.)
{3} The views of your humble servant on the media's shameless treatment of Dr. Rice's nomination can be heard in this thread:
Miscellaneous Notes on the Upcoming Rerum Novarum Post-Election Commentary and on the Secretary of State for the Second Bush Term (circa November 16, 2004)
The material in this post pertains to the Victor Davis Hanson article on Donald Rumsfeld which was posted to Rerum Novarum back in December. Our words will be in regular font.
Leave it to Victor Davis Hanson to shed the light of history on our supposed military shortcomings viz. Iraq. We weren't "sufficiently" equipped to fight WWII until...oh...1945.
This is correct. However, let the record show that We at Rerum Novarum pointed these facts out prior to Victor Davis Hanson's article on Donald Rumsfeld.{1}
And by that time the war was almost over.
And (of course) the postwar period in Germany and Japan was hardly free from the kinds of insurrections that we are seeing now in Iraq after the end of combat operations in May of 2003...
Our Shermans (affectionately dubbed "Purple Heart Boxes" by the crews that manned them) were crap compared to the German Tigers.
Without question.
Firing a round from our tanks at a Tiger was about as effective as throwing a rubber ball at it. It just bounced off.
Indeed. And if soldiers had gone to the media on this during WWII, they would have either been court martialed or executed on the spot. Indeed if any media sources had treated our war progress with the same kind of seditious undercurrents that modern media sources have treated on the war in Iraq, they would have lost their credentials to report at a minimum.{2} The government would not have been unjustified in doing any of these things in a time of war. And the same thing goes for the current government during the current war on terror.
Speaking of being under equipped, the 101st held off a major German offensive (which happened to be able to gain momentum right under Allied noses) while freezing their asses off in the woods of Bastogne with no winter clothing, nothing in the way of hot food, and practically no ammo. According to the guys from Easy Company who were interviewed in Band of Brothers (if you haven't seen that mini series, I highly recommend it), they were down to one round a man at one time.
They are fortunate that the slihtering seditionists of the modern media were not around then. Can you see them reporting "soldiers in Bastogne are down to one round a man" and the Germans receiving a fresh inspiration to hold out a little longer??? Something like that could have been the turning point of the war in the opposite direction rather than in the direction that it actually took at that point.
By setting the correct paradigm through which we should view the progress of the War on Terror overall and Rumfeld's performance, Hanson correctly concludes that Rumsfeld is doing an amazingly good job. You had once said that Rumsfeld is "one of the jewels of the Bush cabinet."
Yes I did. And my position on Rumsfeld has not wavered.
I think he is the CROWN jewel of the Bush cabinet.
With John Ashcroft leaving, that assessment on your part is probably correct.
(As much as I admire Condoleeza Rice, I would take one Rummy over ten Condis any day of the week and twice on Sunday)
Well now, in fairness to Dr. Rice,{3} she has not served one single day in her upcoming post yet.
Apparently Bush himself thinks so, seeing as how he begged him to stay on as Defense Secretary for another term.
Whatever my criticisms have been of him (and they have not been minor ones) Dubya is nonetheless no dummy however much the pseudo-"progressivists" may wish that he was.
I think this also speaks volumes about Rumsfeld's selfless dedication to serving his country. I mean, he already had a distinguished record of public service when he was first tapped by Bush to be Defense Secretary. He is independently wealthy. Given all this and his age (72), he doesn't need the headache of the job and the crap he's had to put up with.
Good points.
The one disagreement I would have with Hanson's assessment is that I DO think Rumsfeld is media savvy. In fact I think he defines what being media savvy really is. As I said to you before, I think viewing tapes of his press conferences should be a mandatory part of the USCCB media relation training. He gets up there and tells it like it is and does not let the media manipulate him, which is why the media elites are spearheading the "get Rumsfeld" drive.
Well stated.
The fact that certain "Republicans" have been willing to aid the process should be no surprise, particularly when you consider their track records.
In the words of that great western philosopher James Hetfield, "sad but true."
Sen. Trent Lott's self-immolation over his comment at Strom Thurmond's birthday party indicates that he is willing to sacrifice his own to get back in the good graces of the media.
You are referring to Trent "Word to Your Mother" Lott presumably...
Bill Kristol, for reasons I am not sure of, is similarly weak-kneed in the face of media pressure.
Probably the same reasons that Tucker Carlson is.
Frankly, I have always thought that his Weekly Standard colleague Fred Barnes is a more reliable pundit.
Fred Barnes has long been viewed by Us as one of the more reliable beltway commentators.
John McCain, needless to say, is as shameless a political prostitute as they come who would do anything for media face time.
Agreed.
And particularly when you consider the grudge he still holds against Bush {2}, joining the anti-Rumsfeld media chorus is by no means a stretch.
Agreed.
As for Hagel, he's a liberal Republican who is taking a few pages from the McCain playbook in scoring free media time.
McCain is a hero of Vietnam but has not been a hero in the Senate over his career.
Both Senators are eyeing the '08 GOP presidential nod, which neither one stands a snow ball's chance in getting, but I digress.
And hopefully the drive to allow foreign born people like Ahnuld to run dies on the vine also.
Notes:
{1} Though it would be folly for Us to claim to have originated this insight: indeed any decent student of history knows these things.
{2} Not to mention the odds being pretty good that they would have been tried in court for either sedition or treason and promptly convicted. (And a point, they would either have served jail time or have been executed.)
{3} The views of your humble servant on the media's shameless treatment of Dr. Rice's nomination can be heard in this thread:
Miscellaneous Notes on the Upcoming Rerum Novarum Post-Election Commentary and on the Secretary of State for the Second Bush Term (circa November 16, 2004)
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Points to Ponder:
(On the War on Terror and Santayana's Dictum{1} Revisited)
Reading the pages of foreign-policy journals, between the long tracts on Bush's "failures" and neoconservative "arrogance," one encounters mostly predictions of defeat and calls for phased withdrawal — always with resounding criticism of the American "botched" occupation.
Platitudes follow: "We can't just leave now," followed by no real advice on how a fascist society can be jumpstarted into a modern liberal republic. After all, there is no government handbook entitled, "Operation 1A: How to remove a Middle East fascist regime in three weeks, reconstruct the countryside, and hold the first elections in the nation's history — all within two years." Almost all who supported the war now are bailing on the pretext that their version of the reconstruction was not followed: While a three-week war was their idea, a 20-month messy reconstruction was surely someone else's. Yesterday genius is today's fool — and who knows next month if the elections work? Witness Afghanistan where all those who recently said the victory was "lost" to warlords are now suddenly quiet...
The litany from the mercurial Beltway always goes on: There were enough troops to take out Saddam in three weeks, but not enough to restore order to the countryside — but still too many that resulted in too high an American profile on the streets of Baghdad. The transformations of Donald Rumsfeld (this week's genius, last week's fool) have left us stripped down and bereft of the muscle needed. Yet new, more mobile brigades in strikers and special forces with laptops are preferable to old armored divisions on the streets of Iraq.
We cannot flee, but must not stay. Iraqis publicly say we should leave, but privately beg us to remain. We were after cheap oil, but gas prices somehow climbed almost immediately after we went in. Democracy won't work with these people, but somehow we are seeing three elections in the wake of the Taliban, Arafat, and Saddam. There are many constants in all this pessimistic confusion — beside the fact that we are becoming a near hysterical society. First, our miraculous efforts in toppling the Taliban and Saddam have apparently made us forget war is always a litany of mistakes. No conflict is conducted according to either antebellum planning or can proceed with the benefit of hindsight. Iraq was not Yemen or Qatar, but rather the most wicked regime in the world, in the heart of the Arab world, full of oil, terrorists, and mass graves. There were no helpful neighbors to keep a lid on their own infiltrating jihadists. Instead we had to go into the heart of the caliphate, take out a mass murderer, restore civil society after 30 years of brutality, and ward off Sunni and Baathist fomenters in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria — all the while keeping out Iranian-Shiite agents bent on stopping democracy. The wonder is not that there is violence and gloom in Iraq, but that less than two years after Saddam was removed, elections are still on track.
Second, our very success creates ever increasing expectations of perfection for a postmodern America used to instant gratification. We now look back in awe at World War II, the model of military success, in which within four years an unprepared United States won two global wars, at sea, on the ground, and in the air, in three continents against Japan, Italy, and Germany, and supplied both England and the Soviet Union. But our forefathers experienced disaster after disaster in a tale of heartbreak, almost as inglorious as the Korean mess or Vietnam tragedy. And they did things to win we perhaps claim we would now not: Shoot German prisoners in the Bulge, firebomb Axis cities, drop the bomb — almost anything to stop fascists from slaughtering even more millions of innocents.
Our armored vehicles were deathtraps and only improved days before the surrender. American torpedoes were often duds. Unescorted daylight bombing proved a disaster, but continued. Amphibious assaults like Anzio and Tarawa were bloodbaths and emblematic of terrible planning and command. The recapture of Manila was clumsy and far too costly. Okinawa was the worst of all operations, and yet was begun just over fourth months before the surrender — without any planning for Kamikazes who were shortly to kill 5,000 American sailors. Patton, the one general that could have ended the western war in 1944, was relieved and then subordinated to an auxiliary position with near fatal results for the drive from Normandy; mediocrities like Mark Clark flourished and were promoted. Admiral King resisted the life-saving convoy system and unnecessarily sacrificed merchant ships; while Bull Halsey almost lost his unprepared fleet to a storm.
The war's aftermath seemed worse, to be overseen by an untried president who was considered an abject lightweight. Not-so-quite collateral damage had ruined entire cities. Europe nearly starved in winter 1945-6. Millions were on the road in mass exoduses. After spending billions to destroy Nazi Germany we had to spend billions more to rebuild it — and repair the devastation it had wrought on its neighbors. Our so-called partisan friends in Yugoslavia and Greece turned out to be hard-core Communist killers. Soon enough we learned that the guerrillas in the mountains of Europe whom we had idolized, in fact, fought as much for Communism as against fascism — but never for democracy.
But at least there was clear-cut strategic success? Oh? The war started to keep Eastern Europe free of Nazis and ended up ensuring that it was enslaved by Stalinists. Poland was neither free in 1940 nor in 1946. By early 1946 we were already considering putting former Luftwaffe pilots in American jets — improved with ample borrowing from Nazi technology — to protect Europe from the Red Army carried westward on GM trucks. We put Nazis on trials for war crimes even as we invited their scientists to our shores to match their counterparts in the Soviet Union who were building even more lethal weapons to destroy us. Our utopian idea of a global U.N. immediately deteriorated into a mess — decades of vetoes in the Security Council by Stalinists and Maoists, even as former colonial states turned thugocracies in the General Assembly ganged up on Israel and the survivors of the Holocaust.
After Americans had liberated France and restored his country, General de Gaulle created the myth of the French resistance and immediately triangulated with our enemies to reforge some pathetic sort of French grandeur. An exhausted England turned over to us a collapsing empire, with the warning that it might all turn Communist. Tired of the war and postbellum costs, Americans suddenly were asked to wage a new Cold War to keep a shrinking West and its allies free. The Department of War turned into the Department of Defense, along with weird new things like the U.S. Air Force, Strategic Air Command, Food for Peace, Alliance for Progress, Voice of America, and thousands of other costly entities never dreamed of just a few years earlier.
And yet our greatest generation thought by and large they had done pretty well. We in contrast would have given up in despair in 1942, New York Times columnists and NPR pundits pontificating "I told you so" as if we were better off sitting out the war all along.[Victor Davis Hanson (circa January 14, 2005)]
Note:
{1} Santayana's dictum essentially reads as follows: He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it.
(On the War on Terror and Santayana's Dictum{1} Revisited)
Reading the pages of foreign-policy journals, between the long tracts on Bush's "failures" and neoconservative "arrogance," one encounters mostly predictions of defeat and calls for phased withdrawal — always with resounding criticism of the American "botched" occupation.
Platitudes follow: "We can't just leave now," followed by no real advice on how a fascist society can be jumpstarted into a modern liberal republic. After all, there is no government handbook entitled, "Operation 1A: How to remove a Middle East fascist regime in three weeks, reconstruct the countryside, and hold the first elections in the nation's history — all within two years." Almost all who supported the war now are bailing on the pretext that their version of the reconstruction was not followed: While a three-week war was their idea, a 20-month messy reconstruction was surely someone else's. Yesterday genius is today's fool — and who knows next month if the elections work? Witness Afghanistan where all those who recently said the victory was "lost" to warlords are now suddenly quiet...
The litany from the mercurial Beltway always goes on: There were enough troops to take out Saddam in three weeks, but not enough to restore order to the countryside — but still too many that resulted in too high an American profile on the streets of Baghdad. The transformations of Donald Rumsfeld (this week's genius, last week's fool) have left us stripped down and bereft of the muscle needed. Yet new, more mobile brigades in strikers and special forces with laptops are preferable to old armored divisions on the streets of Iraq.
We cannot flee, but must not stay. Iraqis publicly say we should leave, but privately beg us to remain. We were after cheap oil, but gas prices somehow climbed almost immediately after we went in. Democracy won't work with these people, but somehow we are seeing three elections in the wake of the Taliban, Arafat, and Saddam. There are many constants in all this pessimistic confusion — beside the fact that we are becoming a near hysterical society. First, our miraculous efforts in toppling the Taliban and Saddam have apparently made us forget war is always a litany of mistakes. No conflict is conducted according to either antebellum planning or can proceed with the benefit of hindsight. Iraq was not Yemen or Qatar, but rather the most wicked regime in the world, in the heart of the Arab world, full of oil, terrorists, and mass graves. There were no helpful neighbors to keep a lid on their own infiltrating jihadists. Instead we had to go into the heart of the caliphate, take out a mass murderer, restore civil society after 30 years of brutality, and ward off Sunni and Baathist fomenters in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria — all the while keeping out Iranian-Shiite agents bent on stopping democracy. The wonder is not that there is violence and gloom in Iraq, but that less than two years after Saddam was removed, elections are still on track.
Second, our very success creates ever increasing expectations of perfection for a postmodern America used to instant gratification. We now look back in awe at World War II, the model of military success, in which within four years an unprepared United States won two global wars, at sea, on the ground, and in the air, in three continents against Japan, Italy, and Germany, and supplied both England and the Soviet Union. But our forefathers experienced disaster after disaster in a tale of heartbreak, almost as inglorious as the Korean mess or Vietnam tragedy. And they did things to win we perhaps claim we would now not: Shoot German prisoners in the Bulge, firebomb Axis cities, drop the bomb — almost anything to stop fascists from slaughtering even more millions of innocents.
Our armored vehicles were deathtraps and only improved days before the surrender. American torpedoes were often duds. Unescorted daylight bombing proved a disaster, but continued. Amphibious assaults like Anzio and Tarawa were bloodbaths and emblematic of terrible planning and command. The recapture of Manila was clumsy and far too costly. Okinawa was the worst of all operations, and yet was begun just over fourth months before the surrender — without any planning for Kamikazes who were shortly to kill 5,000 American sailors. Patton, the one general that could have ended the western war in 1944, was relieved and then subordinated to an auxiliary position with near fatal results for the drive from Normandy; mediocrities like Mark Clark flourished and were promoted. Admiral King resisted the life-saving convoy system and unnecessarily sacrificed merchant ships; while Bull Halsey almost lost his unprepared fleet to a storm.
The war's aftermath seemed worse, to be overseen by an untried president who was considered an abject lightweight. Not-so-quite collateral damage had ruined entire cities. Europe nearly starved in winter 1945-6. Millions were on the road in mass exoduses. After spending billions to destroy Nazi Germany we had to spend billions more to rebuild it — and repair the devastation it had wrought on its neighbors. Our so-called partisan friends in Yugoslavia and Greece turned out to be hard-core Communist killers. Soon enough we learned that the guerrillas in the mountains of Europe whom we had idolized, in fact, fought as much for Communism as against fascism — but never for democracy.
But at least there was clear-cut strategic success? Oh? The war started to keep Eastern Europe free of Nazis and ended up ensuring that it was enslaved by Stalinists. Poland was neither free in 1940 nor in 1946. By early 1946 we were already considering putting former Luftwaffe pilots in American jets — improved with ample borrowing from Nazi technology — to protect Europe from the Red Army carried westward on GM trucks. We put Nazis on trials for war crimes even as we invited their scientists to our shores to match their counterparts in the Soviet Union who were building even more lethal weapons to destroy us. Our utopian idea of a global U.N. immediately deteriorated into a mess — decades of vetoes in the Security Council by Stalinists and Maoists, even as former colonial states turned thugocracies in the General Assembly ganged up on Israel and the survivors of the Holocaust.
After Americans had liberated France and restored his country, General de Gaulle created the myth of the French resistance and immediately triangulated with our enemies to reforge some pathetic sort of French grandeur. An exhausted England turned over to us a collapsing empire, with the warning that it might all turn Communist. Tired of the war and postbellum costs, Americans suddenly were asked to wage a new Cold War to keep a shrinking West and its allies free. The Department of War turned into the Department of Defense, along with weird new things like the U.S. Air Force, Strategic Air Command, Food for Peace, Alliance for Progress, Voice of America, and thousands of other costly entities never dreamed of just a few years earlier.
And yet our greatest generation thought by and large they had done pretty well. We in contrast would have given up in despair in 1942, New York Times columnists and NPR pundits pontificating "I told you so" as if we were better off sitting out the war all along.[Victor Davis Hanson (circa January 14, 2005)]
Note:
{1} Santayana's dictum essentially reads as follows: He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it.
Monday, January 17, 2005
It is good to see Michelle Malkin continuing her focus on the issue of America's poorly protected borders.
Sunday, January 16, 2005
"Back in Black" Dept.
In light of the upcoming charade of aBonnie Parker Christine Gregoire administration in Washington State, it seems appropriate to your humble servant to change the border colours of this weblog to black. There are plenty of participants in the blogosphere who will stay on this issue such as Sound Politics but for Our part, We at Rerum Novarum will only deal with this issue intermittently{1} to avoid the trap of becoming defacto pundits for particular issues.
Having noted these things, there is a number of items in the drafts folder to be posted in the coming weeks - some of which are a month old or older.{2} The subjects to be covered will be all over the place but they will all be of some interest to those who are interested in ideas and the formulation of principles for enunciating them rather than the common facile contributions that so often pass for "intellectual discussion" today.
As one of the more acute intellectuals who served as a mentor of sorts to Us{3} so often noted about the culture of today, it is not one that tends towards cultivation of rational thought{4} -its pretentions towards "enlightenment" to the contrary. For if We have done nothing else at this weblog over the years, it is to run directly contrary to the prevailing "culture" in this crucial area. And that pattern is hardly going to be changing in the slightest in 2005.
Notes:
{1} Among the more recent intermittent threads We have posted are a series of "points to ponder" threads starting HERE.
{2} We are also considering setting aside some time in the next couple of months to complete a subject thread that We intended to post over two years ago. (Indeed the first two parts of the thread were written in early October of 2002.) However, for a variety of reasons it has not been posted for public viewing yet -though We have noted or alluded to it on several occasions in the past.
{3} Not in the cultivation of Our more mature intellectual development as much as a refining of Our weltanschauung in a few key areas. This is a debt that We have seldom explicitly acknowledged by Our own admission. (Though We have occasionally made inferences or otherwise implied it in various ways.)
{4} We live in a militantly antirational culture where people are actively discouraged from thinking. [Michael J. Mentzer (circa. 1993)]
In light of the upcoming charade of a
Having noted these things, there is a number of items in the drafts folder to be posted in the coming weeks - some of which are a month old or older.{2} The subjects to be covered will be all over the place but they will all be of some interest to those who are interested in ideas and the formulation of principles for enunciating them rather than the common facile contributions that so often pass for "intellectual discussion" today.
As one of the more acute intellectuals who served as a mentor of sorts to Us{3} so often noted about the culture of today, it is not one that tends towards cultivation of rational thought{4} -its pretentions towards "enlightenment" to the contrary. For if We have done nothing else at this weblog over the years, it is to run directly contrary to the prevailing "culture" in this crucial area. And that pattern is hardly going to be changing in the slightest in 2005.
Notes:
{1} Among the more recent intermittent threads We have posted are a series of "points to ponder" threads starting HERE.
{2} We are also considering setting aside some time in the next couple of months to complete a subject thread that We intended to post over two years ago. (Indeed the first two parts of the thread were written in early October of 2002.) However, for a variety of reasons it has not been posted for public viewing yet -though We have noted or alluded to it on several occasions in the past.
{3} Not in the cultivation of Our more mature intellectual development as much as a refining of Our weltanschauung in a few key areas. This is a debt that We have seldom explicitly acknowledged by Our own admission. (Though We have occasionally made inferences or otherwise implied it in various ways.)
{4} We live in a militantly antirational culture where people are actively discouraged from thinking. [Michael J. Mentzer (circa. 1993)]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)