Saturday, January 29, 2005

Points to Ponder:
(On the Fallacy of Equating Intelligence With Educational Degrees)

A doctorate is not only no guarantee of genius or even well-rounded intelligence, it's no evidence of a functional human being. [Jimmy Akin (circa January 20, 2005)]


Wednesday, January 26, 2005

Political Potpourri:

As these will be coming from three different sources, there will be divisions in the text for easier sub-category differentiation -and the referenced texts will be in black font. Without further ado, let Us get to them...

"Friends of Democracy" Dept.

(Courtesy of The LittleGreenFootballs BLOG)

Here is the text from their "About" section:

Despite the challenges, we were seeing free and democratic Iraq, we were living the hard laboring moment we believe that every one of us has duty towards our beloved country

By our hands, work, thoughts, sacrifice we will build up the new Iraq.

Our home is open for every friend of democracy and they are many in Iraq.

We are the hope of the rest of peoples which longed for freedom and they are looking with the eye of hope to the Iraqi sample.

Let us show them a shining sample and let us remind them that we are the ones of the first code of laws. Let them share us to work with full efforts to push forward the democracy process in Iraq.

To read more on this, please go HERE. Moving on...

"Not Fond-a Condi" Dept.


If Condolezza Rice were a Democrat, you'd have to unplug your TV, turn off your car radio and swear off the internet to avoid seeing, hearing and reading the wall-to-wall hagiographies that the media would force down our throats. The Democrats would use her appointment to Secretary of State to, on the one hand, laud her as an example to all women and, on the other hand, to bash Republicans.

But she isn't a Democrat, so none of that is happening. Her confirmation is being delayed by a former Klansman, and she is being accused of "attacking" a senator who called her a liar. Brendan Miniter has more on what should be the Year of Condi.

The above thread was provided courtesy of The JunkYard BLOG. For the record, We concur completely with Mr. Miniter's analysis. But of course regular readers/listeners of this humble weblog already knew that so nothing more needs to be said on that matter. Moving on yet again...

"Illustrating Absurdity by Being Absurd" Dept.
(Courtesy of The Diplomad)

In light of those who have whined about the US treatment of Taliban and Al Queda detainees held in Gitmo,{1} the following "authentic letter" was provided to the contributors of The Diplomad BLOG. It is a real they say!!!

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20016

Dear Concerned Citizen:

Thank you for your recent letter roundly criticizing our treatment of the Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees currently being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Our administration takes these matters seriously, and your opinion was heard loud and clear in Washington.You'll be pleased to learn that thanks to concerned citizens like you, we are creating a new division of the Terrorist Retraining Program, to be called the "Liberals Accept Responsibility for Killers" program, or LARK for short. In accordance with the guidelines of this new program, we have decided to place one terrorist under your personal care.

Your personal detainee has been selected and scheduled for transportation under heavily armed guard to your residence next Monday. Ali Mohammed Ahmed bin Mahmud (you can just call him Ahmed) is to be cared for pursuant to the standards you personally demanded in your letter of admonishment. It will likely be necessary for you to hire some assistant caretakers. We will conduct weekly inspections to ensure that your standards of care for Ahmed are commensurate with those you so strongly recommended in your letter.

Although Ahmed is sociopathic and extremely violent, we hope that your sensitivity to what you described as his "attitudinal problem" will help him overcome these character flaws.

Perhaps you are correct in describing these problems as mere cultural differences. He will bite you, given the chance. We understand that you plan to offer counseling and home schooling. Your adopted terrorist is extremely proficient in hand-to-hand combat and can extinguish human life with such simple items as a pencil or nail clippers. We do not suggest that you ask him to demonstrate these skills at your next yoga group He is also expert at making a wide variety of explosive devices from common household products, so you may wish to keep those items locked up, unless (in your opinion) this might offend him.

Ahmed will not wish to interact with your wife or daughters (except sexually) since he views females as a subhuman form of property. This is a particularly sensitive subject for him, and he has been known to show violent tendencies around women who fail to comply with the new dress code that Ahmed will recommend as more appropriate attire. I'm sure the women in your household will come to enjoy the anonymity offered by the bhurka - over time. Just remind them that it is all part of "respecting his culture and his religious beliefs" - wasn't that how you put it?

Thanks again for your letter. We truly appreciate it when folks like you, who know so much, keep us informed of the proper way to do our job.

You take good care of Ahmed - and remember...we'll be watching. Good luck!


Your Buddy,
Don Rumsfeld

Now in all honesty, the authenticity of this letter (or its lack thereof) is really not what is important here.{2} Instead, it is the message it has to give to us that should be taken seriously. (Heck, with these kinds of illogical premises, who needs a properly functioning brain???{3}) For that reason, We at Rerum Novarum have seen fit to pass it along to any readers of this weblog who are among those who have been publicly critical of the Bush Administration in the area of prisoner treatment.


{1} This is slang for Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

{2} Hey, if it works for CBS News and Dan Rather why not Us???

{3} But then again, We have noted before on a few different occasions at least, liberalism in its extreme forms is a mental disorder and not a true political/social philosophy.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, January 25, 2005

For the "Anniversary" of Roe vs. Wade
(Miscellaneous Threads For Musing)

Though the "anniversary" of this monument of judicial incompetence and legal perversion has already passed, it seems fitting at this point to discuss the matter directly since I readily admit that this is not a subject that I like to discuss very often except indirectly and as it pertains to other issues.{1} There are many reasons for this including my general disdain for the myopic approach to this issue often utilized by pro life groups{2} but on this occasion, I will temper my general annoyance at that aspect and try to provide a few threads on the subject which approach it from different ways. The first thread is from the weblog of a woman who continues to experience traumas from the abortion of her first child -here is some of what she had to say on the matter:

1997. Picture it: me sitting at my desk bleeding like a stuck pick after having my second trimester child ripped out of me in pieces. Bleeding, bleeding, bleeding... so much that I'm afraid to stand up at the chalk board. It's Friday, the 14th, and the children are covering my desk with pretty paper hearts and heart-shaped chocolate boxes. Hugs here and there. Their little arms come flying at me; they shower me with love. Little hands and faces. Little sounds coming from little mouths. Love, love and more love... because they're wired for it; it's all they know how to do. I sit there stunned and tormented by their sweetness and fragility. I sit there bleeding...

The above excerpt was taken from HERE and frankly bears noting for those who speak about the pseudo-"liberty" that abortion is supposed to provide.

Also on this subject is this thread from Feminists for Life. It seems appropriate on this occasion to note at this time that many of those whom the self-styled "feminists" refer to as icons in their movement's history were vehemently opposed to abortion and considered it murder. This can be reviewed in a summary form at the above link for those who are interested in what the early feminist leaders had to say on this matter.

And finally, this thread would not be complete if not for noting the propaganda involved in the self-styled "pro choice" movement to manipulate public opinion in various ways (some overt but many others more subtle) through the mass media. For that purpose, the following excerpt from a recent WorldNetDaily article is worth noting:

...The original abortion-rights slogans from the early '70s – they remain virtual articles of faith and rallying cries of the "pro-choice" movement to this day – were "Freedom of choice" and "Women must have control over their own bodies."

"I remember laughing when we made those slogans up," recalls Bernard Nathanson, M.D., co-founder of pro-abortion vanguard group NARAL, reminiscing about the early days of the abortion-rights movement in the late '60s and early '70s. "We were looking for some sexy, catchy slogans to capture public opinion. They were very cynical slogans then, just as all of these slogans today are very, very cynical."

Besides having served as chairman of the executive committee of NARAL – originally, the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, and later renamed the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League – as well as its medical committee, Nathanson was one of the principal architects and strategists of the abortion movement in the United States. He tells an astonishing story...

The above excerpt was taken from an aforementioned WorldNetDaily article titled How Lying Marketers Sold Roe v. Wade to America. Hopefully what is noted above will provide plenty of food for musing for those who consider themselves "enlightened" and abortion to have been a "right" long "demanded" by "most people" or other prevarications along those lines. In reality, the truth is anything but what the mainstream media likes to tell us that it was. And for that reason (among many others that could be noted) the sound of the deathrattle of the mainstream media in recent years has been music to the ears of this commentator. Unfortunately, unlike the Nazis their carnage is not more visible for people to see. If it was, then the outrage would be deafening.{3} However, it is precisely because of that reason that the promoters of abortion want to keep it from being exposed to the light of legitimate scrutiny.


{1} Particularly within the matrix of the three fundamental rights of man: a subject which has been covered in various ways on this weblog probably about fifty times.

{2} A Brief Rerum Novarum Recapitulation Thread on the Abortion Subject (circa January 25, 2005)

{3} This is why I have long believed that (as long as the law remains perverted by the facade of abortion as a "right") any woman wanting an abortion should have a one month waiting period and be required to watch some videotapes of actual abortions taking place first. But what are the odds of those involved in the abortion racket industry actually supporting such a proposal??? The answer of course (expressed in the form of a fraction) is nada over zilch.

Labels: , ,

A Brief Rerum Novarum Recapitulation Thread:
(On the Abortion Subject)

As the recent "anniversary" of Roe vs. Wade took place (a subject to which We intend to deal with shortly), it seems appropriate to recapitulate in brief some examples of this writer's criticisms of the prolife movement's approach to combatting the abortion agenda (or of abortion in general). This will be done with ten excerpts from the archives spanning not only this weblog's existence to the present day but will also include some material predating it. To assist in perusing these quotes, a general summation in purple of what each bit is intended to convey will precede the quotes themselves. Without further ado, let us get to it...

On the pro-life movement's general incompetency:

[M]y view of the pro-life movement as a whole was jaded because of their political stupidity manifested over the years. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa October 28, 2002]

More on the pro-life movement's general incompetency:

Remember though, pro lifers have a history politically of shooting their movement in the head. And sometimes you have to take part of a loaf and do this a few times before you can get the entire loaf. Forgetting this principle has resulted in the pro lifers politically shooting themselves in the head in the past. (In brief, that is how they lost the Republican controlled Senate to Democrats in 1986 which meant losing control of the Judiciary which meant defeat for Bork in 1987. And as 1990 proved, Bork's replacement was the swing vote that retained Roe v. Wade.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa November 5, 2002]

Another very brief reiteration of the pro-life movement's general incompetency:

Post-[Reagan] history tells us that Roe v. Wade would have been overturned in 1990 by a 5-4 vote if Bork had been on that court. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa January 12, 2003]

On the subject of abortion in general as a "constitutional right":

Admittedly, I am no Constitutional scholar. However, I do have a reasonable amount of horse sense. And I cannot see how the Constitution can grant a "right" that it never mentions or infers. But of course somehow "right to privacy" entails a "right" to murder children an abortion. As I noted earlier, there are three justices seeking to preserve the Constitution. Alongside them there are three who are seeking to undermine it from within: these are the "court termites." And between this chasm are three whose vote depends on whose favour they are trying to curry: these are the "court whores." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa June 27, 2003]

On the subject of "improper compromise" - a weblog excerpt from an essay written on stem cell research back in August of 2001:

The trap of improper compromise differs from proper compromise, which is an approach taken to get half a loaf rather then none at all. The latter is used by those who are not in power or who do not have the power to get all of what they are seeking at the present time. (An example would be voting for a bill that restricted abortions — evil is thereby reduced — versus the purist who would vote against anything that is less than their ultimate agenda.) Unacceptable is the policy that insists on all or nothing when it comes to limiting evil. Politicians who are capable of realistically achieving their entire agenda improperly use this policy of half a loaf. When applied to areas that are either evil in and of themselves or which are conducive to opening or expanding a realm of greater evil, they move into the forefront of the improper compromise. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa November 20, 2003]

On the "pro life or bust" approach to the 2004 election as espoused by not a few well-meaning people:

Those who feel as if abortion is the only issue need to get with reality. It is *one* issue and a key one certainly. But if you fall into that trap of thinking pro life is the only issue on the table -particularly if you vote for those candidates who approve of abortion "in cases of rape and incest, etc." in true political poltroon fashion- then go ahead and hide in your charade of "pro lifeness" because is is a facade. [Excerpt from Envoy Encore as linked to Rerum Novarum circa January 27, 2004]

Another thread on (among other things) the subject of abortion as a "constitutional right" and the right to life as one of the three fundamental rights of man which precede all manmade legislation:

Pointing out something that is not constitutional with concern for proper context (including the views of those who wrote the Constitution -none of whom can be shown to have supported abortion) is not an insignificant detail by any means. Indeed failing to do this is to overlook the sitz im leben of the Constitution itself...

The US Constitution presupposes the Declaration of Independence and the right to life is the first right enunciated in that text by which all men are equal under God. Furthermore, not a single one of the Framers to my knowledge saw abortion as anything less than murder; ergo the idea that the enshrined this as a "right" in the Constitution is among the most heinous of prevarications. Indeed, so grotesque of an example of calling evil "good" are the so-called "pro choice" people that there will be a place in hell reserved for them if they do not repent of this before they die...

[T]here would be greater damage to the public order of society if abortionists were treated as the murderers that they are. What is needed is a definition of the three fundamental rights of man one of which is life and when it begins. Those are definitions that need to be embodied into the legal code of the United States. Once that were to take place, the strictest measures against abortionists could be undertaken without concern for damage to public order.

It is pathetic that we have fallen to the degree to where such a definition is needed but my emphasis on -and inculcation of- these principles on occasion at this weblog where it seems warranted to do is in part to help set down a foundation to eventually see that take place. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum circa August 20, 2004]

From a thread reiterating some of Our previous statements about "the myopic vision of many pro-life advocates":

With that note, this Rerum Novarum recapitulation thread on the subject of pro-life political incompetence is concluded. However, We should note also that this is not intended to bash the pro-lifers. Instead, it is to note areas where in their zeal to defend life they have undermined their future success in this endeavour for far too long. Essentially this is a "learn from the mistakes of the past so that you do not repeat them in the future" plea so kindly do not read anything into it except for that. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa September 8, 2004]

From probably the thirtieth odd thread at Rerum Novarum tying the right to life into the matrix of the three fundamental rights of man:

I have noted on not a few occasions (most recently HERE) that the myopic nature of most pro-lifers is counterproductive. You cannot stand up for life and then allow for faculties and production (each of which are extensions of life) to be compromised. Our faculties are an extension of our life and they must be safeguarded if life is not to be undermined. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa September 25, 2004]

And from a recent weblog entry on the ethical principle of "double effect":

While inducing an abortion is a violation of the fundamental right of life, at the same time, if the abortion is induced as a result of surgery to remove cancer from the pregnant woman and not positively willed, then the act itself (preservation of the woman's life) is morally good despite having an accompanying bad effect (the death of the fetus). [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa December 30, 2004]

While many more examples could be noted, this suffices to (i) substantiate the position of this humble weblog on the subject of abortion and (ii) provide a companion thread of sorts for the material that will follow it in sequence.

Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, January 23, 2005

Musings on the Passing of Johnny Carson

this is an audio post - click to play

Labels: ,