On the DeLay Indictment:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
In beginning this thread of musings, it seems to your host to be a good idea to remind readers of the McElhinney Media Dictum and why it has guided my approach to the MSM for many years. However, before I can do that, I need to remind readers of both the purpose of the aforementioned dictum as well as what it is since it is one of the foundational presuppositions from which your host operates with all media subject matter and rarely is mentioned except (occasionally) by name when discussing these kinds of issues. First, we have the purpose of it as I noted on my Miscellaneous BLOG last year in these words:
This is a long-held view of mine with regards to the major media outlets[...] and it may explain to my readers why I do not jump so readily on news stories from the major press not only as fountainheads of wisdom but also as accurate dispensers of facts on issues of a complex nature. The long and short of it is that the media is the last place anyone should expect to find these kinds of issues dealt with in a manner that respects the important variables and nuances that complex subject matter usually entails. [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa August 2, 2004)]
As far as the definition of the dictum itself, I finally after many years decided to frame it as explicitly and completely as I could and settled on this formulary:
The media, particularly the major outlets of the press --their pretensions of being "more enlightened than thou" notwithstanding-- seem almost inexorably to operate on a presuppositional foundation that is equal parts irresponsible fundamentalism and an unproven (but presumed a priori) empiricist outlook. Therefore, the more complex the variables of a particular position, argument, situation, problem, etc., the less they can be trusted to be reliable reporters of said positions, situations, arguments, etc. In summary, the media's propensity for error is in direct proportion to the intricacies of the particular position, argument, situation, problem, etc. [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa August 2, 2004)]
I noted upon defining the term that it characterized a view I have had implicitly for most of my life; however only for about fifteen years has it formed a core of my outlook on divers issues. And perhaps no example of the moment illustrates the wisdom of this intuition than the DeLay indictment, the subject I intend to go over in this posting.
First of all, when I heard from media sources and also from Democratic leaders that DeLay was involved in "money laundering", I was instantly skeptical because the media so often errs in its information that one should not readily accept anything from the MSM unless that person can verify it when dealing with the MSM. (Otherwise, it should be held in a fashion that is less than definite and readily disposable if you will.)
Also, I was hesitant to even consider the matter without viewing the evidence which in this case is the paperwork setting forth the charges under which DeLay was indicted. In light of my familiarity with the biases of Travis County, Texas towards Republicans, that is another factor that had to be taken into consideration. My suspicions were fed later on by radio host Rick Roberts who subbed on the Michael Savage show and claimed to have a copy of the indictment in front of him claiming that Tom DeLay is not actually charged with anything. More ingredients factored into it upon watching Fox and CNN later that night. My purpose here is to put together the evidences using the text of the indictment itself.
The problem is, I cannot find a plaintext of the indictment so I will have to use the Adobe format via CNN. For that reason, I will only touch on things in a brief sketch here and suggest to the readers that they click HERE and open the indictment in Adobe to follow along if they like. Without further ado, here we go.
--My first impression is the volume of the paperwork involved. Considering how long Ronnie Earle has been going after DeLay, a four page indictment seems rather slim.
--The first page nothing unusual -defendents are listed with docket numbers, and the like: IOW, the standard legal stuff.
--Starting on page one and going into page two, the text says that on or around the thirteenth of September 2002 the three defendants previously noted with the intent that a felony be committed, did enter into an agreement with one or more of each other or with a general political committee known as Texans for a Republican Majority PAC that one or more of them would engage in conduct that would constitute the offense of knowingly making a political contribution in violation of, etc. From there it lists various codes which the indictment claims were violated.
--According to the text, the other two defendents and the PAC are accused of various connexions to improper deeds throughout pages two and three but Thomas Dale DeLay is not accused of any wrongdoing personally.
--All the indictment says about Thomas Dale DeLay is that he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the application of certain parts of the Texas Code of Criminal Conduct with regards to the other two defendents along with waiving some other right pertaining to indictments of the other parties listed as defendents in this indictment.
--Then the indictment points out that a grand jury indicted the other two defendents on the same charges earlier on.
In other words, Thomas Dale DeLay is supposedly indicted but is not actually charged with any violations of law himself. Nor is he charged with committing any overt acts to furtherance of the alleged "conspiracy" that he was supposedly involved in. The long and short of it is this: he is not charged with any actual wrongdoing by this indictment!!!
Now my friends, before I am accused of bias here, I implore you to read the above Adobe print and explain to me if I am missing anything here or if I am in any way misrepresenting what the paperwork of the indictment actually says. What we have here is a charge of conspiracy which is probably the weakest of all charges since it is the hardest charge to actually prove.{1} If this is the best that Ronnie Earle can do after gathering together six grand juries to try and indict Thomas Dale DeLay, I have to wonder what he is wasting the Texas taxpaper's money for.
Oh and the claim that Mr. Earle is bipartisan because he has "gone after many more Democrats than Republicans" is a joke since Republicans in Texas had been in a position of little if any legislative influence since Reconstruction.{2} In other words, there were very few Republicans that Mr. Earle could go after of influence in the state of Texas until very recently. For that reason, I will wager if someone scrutinizes the Democrats he went after, they will find that in probably all cases it was conservative Democrats or what was called in the 1980's Reagan Democrats. Granted, this is a mere hunch on my part but my trackrecord for hunches panning out is quite good so I will put it on the line with this one for those who want to do the research.
Notes:
{1} Readers who wonder how hard it is to prove a charge of conspiracy need only consider the reams of conspiracy theories that permeate the blogosphere and other parts of cyberspace, etc. and how none of them are even remotely proven. Anyone can string together a bunch of heresay evidence of proposed "connections" and claim what they like but such claims do not constitute in and of themselves any kind of definite proof.
{2} If memory serves, they only started electing Republicans to the governors chair in the post-Reconstruction period in 1978.
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Miscellaneous Threads for Reviewing:
Our comments will be interspersed.
The Friends of Cindy Sheehan (John Hindraker)
The above link was sent to Us the other day after We reiterated a position held for years on marxism in general within the context of applying the term to a particular individual.
It seems appropriate to remind readers that it is not Our general modus opperandi to view people of a marxist mindset to be consciously intending to impose misery onto others. Or as We noted in responding to an emailer who wrote after We posted a "points to ponder" thread on the many masks of marxism:
I am not sure that the marxists are actually out to make people's lives miserable -except those who are perceived to be "enemies" of course. The problem is, their policies inexorably result in misery for others...they simply do not see this because they are blinded by their ideology. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 8, 2005)]
Obviously there are not a few of them who would fit the above criteria but generally speaking, it is the subcultures of society as well as in academia where these problems are most readily apparent. Or as the present writer noted to a seemingly-well-intentions (but quite confused) college student who was taken in by the atmosphere of academia to some extent:
[Y]ou would do better to select your sources with a lot more discretion. You would also be wise to let yourself get away from academia for a while before presuming to have any semblance of balance in discussing these matters. Colleges are even bigger cesspools of veiled marxism now than when I attended many moons ago and things were heinous back then. [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa July 30, 2005)]
It is odd in light of these things that someone sent Us the Sheehan link but We cannot say there is too much surprise by what it says really. Readers should not confuse Our previous kindness towards Ms. Sheehan for any kind of weakness whatsoever. For to put it bluntly: there is no shortage of incipid hatred on Our part for the marxist ideology of so many of those whom she has aligned herself with. However, as We noted in the Sheehan posting previously, grieving people often do not act rationally. That is why We are willing to cut Ms. Sheehan some slack but not those who are taking advantage of her grief for political gain: the latter (as was noted in that posting) are lower than camel dung and do not forget it.
First fight yourself, then society (Dennis Prager)
To briefly excerpt some of the above article as a bit of a tease to you readers:
Judeo-Christian values believe the road to a just society is paved by individual character development; the Left believes it is paved with action on a macro level...
That the Left is more concerned with social change than individual change and the Right is more concerned with individual than social activism can be seen in many areas...
There are, of course, religious Jews and Christians who do not lead decent lives and there are leftists who do. But leftist ideals, being overwhelmingly macro, will always be more appealing to the less decent who want to feel good about themselves. That helps explain those Hollywood celebrities who lead narcissistic, hedonistic personal lives but nevertheless feel very good about themselves by raising money for "peace" or by demonstrating against global warming...
I first became aware of this vast discrepancy between "social activism" and personal ethical behavior when I saw the personal behavior of the "pro-peace," anti-war, activists at my graduate school (Columbia University) in the early 1970s. They demonstrated for world peace but led personally narcissistic lives. Their theoretical altruism was all macro. Meanwhile, most of the religious students were preoccupied with personal character issues.
Why? Because Judeo-Christian values have always understood that the world is made better by making people better. On occasion, of course, a great moral cause must be joined. For example, it was religious Christians who led the fight to abolish slavery in Europe and America. But in general, the way to a better society is through the laborious and completely non-glamorous project of making each person more honest, more courageous, more decent, more likely to commit to another person in marriage, more likely to devote more time to raising children, and so on.
We recommend reading the above thread in full and reflecting upon what it says...oh and thanks to Greg Krehbiel for bringing Our attention to it to begin with.
Articulate Means Racist? (Captain Ed)
Before the above post title confuses you, let Us quote a bit from Captain Ed of Captain's Quarters on this subject matter.
I wasn't aware that "articulate" constituted some sort of racist smear, but apparently Oliver Willis writes his weblog to set us all straight. When I wrote that Michael Steele, Maryland's lieutenant governor, had that particular quality, it must have made Oliver rather angry. Paying a compliment to an African-American in his mind means that one assumes the rest of the population lacks the quality noted in the one.
Fortunately, here in the sane world, paying one person a compliment doesn't denigrate anyone else, because most of the people here understand that good qualities such as articulation don't amount to some strange zero-sum game. The rest of us recognize that when someone else gets complimented, only the small and terribly insecure believe it has anything to do with themselves and anyone else. [Captain Ed: Excerpt from Captain's Quarters (circa September 23, 2005)]
Frankly, We do not see what more could be added to the above statements except to note that this kind of projection is the stuff of rational infants.
DeLay’s Prosecutor Offered “Dollars for Dismissals (Byron York)
It is Our intention to go over the indictment subject in greater detail soon. Nonetheless, it bears noting here that the prosecutor has a shady trackrecord of "fundraising" of his own. In light of the indictment subject with Mr. DeLay (broadly speaking it pertains to accused fundraising improprieties), this trackrecord by Ronnie Earle appears speckled to say the least. Furthermore, it is not as if Mr. Earle does not have a trackrecord for going after various political persons. Nonetheless, We at Rerum Novarum will weigh the indictment on the merits of the accusations actually made and the text of the indictment itself.
McCain economy bloc (Robert Novak)
Having already explained earlier this year the historical patterns that do not favour the Republicans in 2006, there is little to say about the above article except to point out that more will be needed of fiscally trimming the budget. The one area that the Republicans have long run on is being more fiscally sound than the Democrats but those such as your host who have been paying close attention to their performance since President Bush won the 2000 election are not impressed. It is not that difficult to balance the budget -indeed in a 2.6 trillion budget, there could be located at least 1.6 trillion in unconstitutional pork spending.
For the sake of being nice, your host will propose a 1 trillion cut in the budget from all unconstitutional spending programs and a bill that would sunset every spending provision in the next five years. Obviously it would not help to sunset them all at once but it should be staggered so that every item is sunsetted within a six year election cycle. That way, even senators (who do not control the purse strings but who do play a role in the budgeting) are not exempt from being held accountable on these matters.
Women and babies at Yale (Maggie Gallagher)
Those who try to argue against nature will not like what Ms. Gallagher notes in her article above.
Hurricane evacuation lessons (Walter E. Williams)
Fellow Claude Frederic Bastiat appreciator Dr. Walter Williams explains why unsound economic approaches to the hurricane evacuation made matters much worse than they had to be.
Randon Thoughts (Thomas Sowell)
Basically Dr. Sowell's own version of the kinds of "miscellaneous musings" that We do sometimes at this very weblog. Oh and for the record, We concur with every observation he makes in that column except one...the readers can guess which one that is if they are so inclined.
Oh and as there are certain parties who show an evident inability to utilize basic reason and logic on the subject of war, it seems appropriate to Us to recommend anew an essay written on the subjects of war and reason (most notably moral reasoning) by the esteemed Dr. Philip Blosser:
War and the Eclipse of Moral Reasoning
Finally, We come to this thread courtesy of Southern Appeal:
Dear Mr. President (Steve Dillard)
To post here Our comments in the box of that posting for your viewing pleasure:
Though he did not follow the strategery I outlined for appointing justices with the selection of John Roberts, considering how much crap will be flung at the next nominee, I want to reiterate my previous suggestions{1} for tactically approaching this subject:
On the Upcoming Supreme Court Retirements/Nominations (circa July 8, 2005)
I go with Estrada first in the above thread because (i) the first person chosen will be assaulted like nothing we have ever seen...think "Clarence Thomas X3 or more" and (ii) Bush needs to frame this as a racial indictment on the Dems. However, in my Hispanic and Black nomination pattern, there is no room whatsoever for Alberto Gonzalez. As far as Roy Moore goes, the first candidate will be beaten up so badly, why not!!! Nothing against Judge Moore but he could run blocker to slip someone in behind him after most of the ammo is fired...heck, ask Bork if he wants the job of "running blocker" IMHO. Talk about sweet revenge after how he was treated back in '87 by Kennedy and Co...we all know what paybacks are like presumably.
The additional links in the footnote of that posting were these:
Miscellaneous Threads (circa July 2, 2005)
More on the Supreme Court Nominations (circa July 20, 2005)
In light of Justice Roberts being confirmed today (78 to 22) and sworn in as Chief Justice, it is now time to fill O'Conner's seat. As for the upcoming battle that will commense...in the words of those great philosophers Bachman-Turner Overdrive "you ain't seen nuthin' yet!!!"
Our comments will be interspersed.
The Friends of Cindy Sheehan (John Hindraker)
The above link was sent to Us the other day after We reiterated a position held for years on marxism in general within the context of applying the term to a particular individual.
It seems appropriate to remind readers that it is not Our general modus opperandi to view people of a marxist mindset to be consciously intending to impose misery onto others. Or as We noted in responding to an emailer who wrote after We posted a "points to ponder" thread on the many masks of marxism:
I am not sure that the marxists are actually out to make people's lives miserable -except those who are perceived to be "enemies" of course. The problem is, their policies inexorably result in misery for others...they simply do not see this because they are blinded by their ideology. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 8, 2005)]
Obviously there are not a few of them who would fit the above criteria but generally speaking, it is the subcultures of society as well as in academia where these problems are most readily apparent. Or as the present writer noted to a seemingly-well-intentions (but quite confused) college student who was taken in by the atmosphere of academia to some extent:
[Y]ou would do better to select your sources with a lot more discretion. You would also be wise to let yourself get away from academia for a while before presuming to have any semblance of balance in discussing these matters. Colleges are even bigger cesspools of veiled marxism now than when I attended many moons ago and things were heinous back then. [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa July 30, 2005)]
It is odd in light of these things that someone sent Us the Sheehan link but We cannot say there is too much surprise by what it says really. Readers should not confuse Our previous kindness towards Ms. Sheehan for any kind of weakness whatsoever. For to put it bluntly: there is no shortage of incipid hatred on Our part for the marxist ideology of so many of those whom she has aligned herself with. However, as We noted in the Sheehan posting previously, grieving people often do not act rationally. That is why We are willing to cut Ms. Sheehan some slack but not those who are taking advantage of her grief for political gain: the latter (as was noted in that posting) are lower than camel dung and do not forget it.
First fight yourself, then society (Dennis Prager)
To briefly excerpt some of the above article as a bit of a tease to you readers:
Judeo-Christian values believe the road to a just society is paved by individual character development; the Left believes it is paved with action on a macro level...
That the Left is more concerned with social change than individual change and the Right is more concerned with individual than social activism can be seen in many areas...
There are, of course, religious Jews and Christians who do not lead decent lives and there are leftists who do. But leftist ideals, being overwhelmingly macro, will always be more appealing to the less decent who want to feel good about themselves. That helps explain those Hollywood celebrities who lead narcissistic, hedonistic personal lives but nevertheless feel very good about themselves by raising money for "peace" or by demonstrating against global warming...
I first became aware of this vast discrepancy between "social activism" and personal ethical behavior when I saw the personal behavior of the "pro-peace," anti-war, activists at my graduate school (Columbia University) in the early 1970s. They demonstrated for world peace but led personally narcissistic lives. Their theoretical altruism was all macro. Meanwhile, most of the religious students were preoccupied with personal character issues.
Why? Because Judeo-Christian values have always understood that the world is made better by making people better. On occasion, of course, a great moral cause must be joined. For example, it was religious Christians who led the fight to abolish slavery in Europe and America. But in general, the way to a better society is through the laborious and completely non-glamorous project of making each person more honest, more courageous, more decent, more likely to commit to another person in marriage, more likely to devote more time to raising children, and so on.
We recommend reading the above thread in full and reflecting upon what it says...oh and thanks to Greg Krehbiel for bringing Our attention to it to begin with.
Articulate Means Racist? (Captain Ed)
Before the above post title confuses you, let Us quote a bit from Captain Ed of Captain's Quarters on this subject matter.
I wasn't aware that "articulate" constituted some sort of racist smear, but apparently Oliver Willis writes his weblog to set us all straight. When I wrote that Michael Steele, Maryland's lieutenant governor, had that particular quality, it must have made Oliver rather angry. Paying a compliment to an African-American in his mind means that one assumes the rest of the population lacks the quality noted in the one.
Fortunately, here in the sane world, paying one person a compliment doesn't denigrate anyone else, because most of the people here understand that good qualities such as articulation don't amount to some strange zero-sum game. The rest of us recognize that when someone else gets complimented, only the small and terribly insecure believe it has anything to do with themselves and anyone else. [Captain Ed: Excerpt from Captain's Quarters (circa September 23, 2005)]
Frankly, We do not see what more could be added to the above statements except to note that this kind of projection is the stuff of rational infants.
DeLay’s Prosecutor Offered “Dollars for Dismissals (Byron York)
It is Our intention to go over the indictment subject in greater detail soon. Nonetheless, it bears noting here that the prosecutor has a shady trackrecord of "fundraising" of his own. In light of the indictment subject with Mr. DeLay (broadly speaking it pertains to accused fundraising improprieties), this trackrecord by Ronnie Earle appears speckled to say the least. Furthermore, it is not as if Mr. Earle does not have a trackrecord for going after various political persons. Nonetheless, We at Rerum Novarum will weigh the indictment on the merits of the accusations actually made and the text of the indictment itself.
McCain economy bloc (Robert Novak)
Having already explained earlier this year the historical patterns that do not favour the Republicans in 2006, there is little to say about the above article except to point out that more will be needed of fiscally trimming the budget. The one area that the Republicans have long run on is being more fiscally sound than the Democrats but those such as your host who have been paying close attention to their performance since President Bush won the 2000 election are not impressed. It is not that difficult to balance the budget -indeed in a 2.6 trillion budget, there could be located at least 1.6 trillion in unconstitutional pork spending.
For the sake of being nice, your host will propose a 1 trillion cut in the budget from all unconstitutional spending programs and a bill that would sunset every spending provision in the next five years. Obviously it would not help to sunset them all at once but it should be staggered so that every item is sunsetted within a six year election cycle. That way, even senators (who do not control the purse strings but who do play a role in the budgeting) are not exempt from being held accountable on these matters.
Women and babies at Yale (Maggie Gallagher)
Those who try to argue against nature will not like what Ms. Gallagher notes in her article above.
Hurricane evacuation lessons (Walter E. Williams)
Fellow Claude Frederic Bastiat appreciator Dr. Walter Williams explains why unsound economic approaches to the hurricane evacuation made matters much worse than they had to be.
Randon Thoughts (Thomas Sowell)
Basically Dr. Sowell's own version of the kinds of "miscellaneous musings" that We do sometimes at this very weblog. Oh and for the record, We concur with every observation he makes in that column except one...the readers can guess which one that is if they are so inclined.
Oh and as there are certain parties who show an evident inability to utilize basic reason and logic on the subject of war, it seems appropriate to Us to recommend anew an essay written on the subjects of war and reason (most notably moral reasoning) by the esteemed Dr. Philip Blosser:
War and the Eclipse of Moral Reasoning
Finally, We come to this thread courtesy of Southern Appeal:
Dear Mr. President (Steve Dillard)
To post here Our comments in the box of that posting for your viewing pleasure:
Though he did not follow the strategery I outlined for appointing justices with the selection of John Roberts, considering how much crap will be flung at the next nominee, I want to reiterate my previous suggestions{1} for tactically approaching this subject:
On the Upcoming Supreme Court Retirements/Nominations (circa July 8, 2005)
I go with Estrada first in the above thread because (i) the first person chosen will be assaulted like nothing we have ever seen...think "Clarence Thomas X3 or more" and (ii) Bush needs to frame this as a racial indictment on the Dems. However, in my Hispanic and Black nomination pattern, there is no room whatsoever for Alberto Gonzalez. As far as Roy Moore goes, the first candidate will be beaten up so badly, why not!!! Nothing against Judge Moore but he could run blocker to slip someone in behind him after most of the ammo is fired...heck, ask Bork if he wants the job of "running blocker" IMHO. Talk about sweet revenge after how he was treated back in '87 by Kennedy and Co...we all know what paybacks are like presumably.
The additional links in the footnote of that posting were these:
Miscellaneous Threads (circa July 2, 2005)
More on the Supreme Court Nominations (circa July 20, 2005)
In light of Justice Roberts being confirmed today (78 to 22) and sworn in as Chief Justice, it is now time to fill O'Conner's seat. As for the upcoming battle that will commense...in the words of those great philosophers Bachman-Turner Overdrive "you ain't seen nuthin' yet!!!"
Points to Ponder:
(On Openness)
Openness used to be the virtue that permitted us to seek the good by using reason. It now means accepting everything and denying reason’s power. The unrestrained and thoughtless pursuit of openness, without recognizing the inherent political, social, or cultural problem of openness as the goal of nature, has rendered openness meaningless. Cultural relativism destroys both one’s own and the good. What is most characteristic of the West is science, particularly understood as the quest to know nature and the consequent denigration of convention—i.e., culture or the West understood as culture—in favor of what is accessible to all men as men thorough their common and distinctive faculty, reason. Science’s latest attempts to grasp the human situation—cultural relativism, historicism, the fact-value distinction—are the suicide of science. Culture, hence closedness, reigns supreme. Openness to closedness is what we teach. [Allan Bloom: From The Closing of the American Mind pgs. 38-39 (c. 1987)]
(On Openness)
Openness used to be the virtue that permitted us to seek the good by using reason. It now means accepting everything and denying reason’s power. The unrestrained and thoughtless pursuit of openness, without recognizing the inherent political, social, or cultural problem of openness as the goal of nature, has rendered openness meaningless. Cultural relativism destroys both one’s own and the good. What is most characteristic of the West is science, particularly understood as the quest to know nature and the consequent denigration of convention—i.e., culture or the West understood as culture—in favor of what is accessible to all men as men thorough their common and distinctive faculty, reason. Science’s latest attempts to grasp the human situation—cultural relativism, historicism, the fact-value distinction—are the suicide of science. Culture, hence closedness, reigns supreme. Openness to closedness is what we teach. [Allan Bloom: From The Closing of the American Mind pgs. 38-39 (c. 1987)]
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Sometimes it is a waste of time to try and dialogue with certain kinds of people. In light of that, it seems appropriate to denote one such example from many which I could mention to serve as a posterchild (emphasis on child) for these kinds of people: one Steve Hays.
Readers of this weblog are aware that back in June, I stumbled upon something that Mr. Hays had written in attempting to respond to an essay I had written back in late 2001 on extra ecclesia nulla salus. (Lat. "Outside the Church, No Salvation.") His response was pretty predictable really but since his tonality was not bad and he actually quoted my work (when he quoted it) accurately, I decided to at some point write a response to his critique. Eventually, I did this and it was posted to this weblog last July at the following link:
"Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus" Dept. (circa July 25, 2005)
Since Mr. Hays had never bothered to tell me about his critique, I saw no reason to tell him about my response. (Not that he had to tell me of course: he can do with his weblog what he likes much as I do.) Nonetheless, in early September, I received an email from Jonathan Prejean of The Crimson Catholic with the following subject title:
I wouldn't bother with Steve Hays anymore
Here is most of the text of the email he sent to me.
From: Jonathan Prejean
To: I. Shawn McElhinney
Date: Sep 5, 2005 9:26 AM
Subject: I wouldn't bother with Steve Hays anymore
He's not going to give Catholicism or development of doctrine a remotely charitable read, and that's pretty much essential for reasonable dialogue.I plan on going after his hermeneutical system in depth (although not wasting any further time interacting with him), but Hays himself can't get outside of the grammatico-histoircal as the only hermeneutical method for interpreting anything, and anybody who agrees with that is probably a Protestant already. No point in spinning your wheels against anti-Catholics who aren't going to be taken seriously anyway.
Obviously, it's your call in the end, but based on the observations I've made and the abortive interactions I've had with him, I don't consider Hays worth the time. As in the case of [XXXXXXX], treating Hays as if he is a reasonable person simply increases the (mistaken) impression that he is a competent "authority" on Catholicism. I see no reason for intelligent people to lend their credibility to these hacks.
As Jonathan asked me to clarify something he said in the above note, I will do so in a footnote with his own words at the end of this post.{1} In all honesty, it was not until I read the above email that I could place the name Steve Hays. Jonathan's note mentioned development of doctrine and my most recent response to a non-Catholic on that subject was the aforementioned posting from July 25th. By logical extension that had to be the post he was referring to so I dashed off the following quick note to Jonathan on the matter later that evening.
From: I. Shawn McElhinney
To: Jonathan Prejean
Date: Sep 5, 2005 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: I wouldn't bother with Steve Hays anymore
I only responded to him because he sought to interact with something I wrote that is all. Trust me, I do not see him making any semblence of a reasonable response to what I wrote...
At this point, I did not know that Mr. Hays had actually posted a "response" to what was posted in late July. Jonathan's next note clarified the matter for me...some editing to remove other comments is necessary but here is the essence of it:
From: Jonathan Prejean
To: I. Shawn McElhinney
Date: Sep 6, 2005 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: I wouldn't bother with Steve Hays anymore
Oh, I brought Hays up because of his most recent foray against you...I don't think Hays said anything new. As in the case of Svendsen, they simply raise the same points that were answered previously... I don't generally hold people accountable for "failure to dialogue" unless they are triumphalistic about it. :-)
As I was swamped with work at the time of that posting -plus I needed to put finishing touches on two postings I planned to add later that day- I dashed off a quick note to Jonathan to get his assessment of the response and if it was worth responding to at all.
From: I. Shawn McElhinney
To: Jonathan Prejean
Date: Sep 6, 2005 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: I wouldn't bother with Steve Hays anymore
Oh, I did not see that...does he actually make arguments or is it a snide rant instead (I am too busy to read it right now).
I would (of course) consider responding to it if he made actual arguments; however Jonathan's next note indicated that I was giving far too much credit to Mr. Hays and assuming that he was worthy of the time to dialogue with. Here is the last note in the sequence.
From: Jonathan Prejean
To: I. Shawn McElhinney
Date: Sep 6, 2005 3:41 PM
Subject: Re: I wouldn't bother with Steve Hays anymore
Just a snide rant as far as I am concerned. Apparently, the notion that one might take into account sitz em leben without that historical context absolutely defining the dogmatic principle is foreign to Mr. Hays. I suppose that according to the Protestant grammatico-historical method, the idea that not all documents can be interpreted as letters between two people is inconceivable.
I did look at the first bits of his "response" and frankly, Jonathan was being quite generous in his assessment.{2} Nonetheless, the purpose of this posting is to point out something that we who enjoy the dialogual exchange often do not mention: there are some people whom it is a waste of time to dialogue with. I noted in the posting of July 25, 2005 that I would remain open to allowing Mr. Hays to clarify further my initial presumed sincerity on his part for a serious discussion of issues with these words (among others):
I would not presume a priori that the person I am responding to here has the same motivations as the aforementioned person -of whom I base my judgment of on both personal interactions as well as manifested habitual tendencies established by past hermeneutical patterns in their approach to Catholic issues. Instead, I will allow any future statements on the content of this response from the person being responded to to begin establishing the pattern whereby I will view their sincerity (or lack of it) in seeking to understand these issues as Catholics understand them. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 25, 2005)]
Well, in light of his subsequent posting,{3} I cannot view Steve Hays as a sincere individual worthy of any of my valuable (and limited) time to interact with for many reasons.{4} However, one of the primary ones is that that to broadcast such infantile idiocies here would be to imply that such is par for the course amongst my Reformed brethren and I have no desire whatsoever to do that since that would be as egregious a misrepresentation as presenting Steve Hays (after his latest drivel) as someone actually worthy of the dialogue.
Notes:
{1} The following is the clarification that Jonathan asked me to include with this posting:
[P]lease drop in a note that in lieu of refuting Hays's hermeneutical method in detail, I simply chose to provide some general objections to several sources that purportedly justify such a hermeneutical method and to leave the detailed refutation as an exercise for the reader. [Jonathan Prejean: Excerpt from an Email Correspondence With I. Shawn McElhinney (circa September 27, 2005)]
The links that Jonathan included with the above text were these:
Zoobie Review: Divine Discourse by Nicholas Wolterstorff
OK, Who Am I Kidding?
And to further clarify for the readers, Jonathan posted the first of the two links above when he and and I were corresponding between 9/05-9/06. The second one of the two was posted to his site yesterday.
{2} For those who wonder about my going beyond posting of email correspondence in this circumstance, I remind them of the site protocol that for three years plus has governed the nandling of correspondence with your humble servant:
Any correspondence will be presumed eligible for blogging unless the sender otherwise specifies. This is referred to as the Welborn Protocol and is a policy that will be followed at Rerum Novarum. (Though name and email information will as a rule not be posted without explicit request to do so by the sender.)
In light of what is noted above, the readers can surely put two and two together so that is all I will say on the matter at this time.
{3} To summarize what I read in one line, it was akin to Leslie Neilson's character in Police Squad saying to an an adversary Surely we can handle this as the adults we are, right Mr. Poopy Pants??? or something along those lines. Whatever you think of that kind of approach to comedy, it does not benefit the discipline of the dialogue one iota; ergo I will not entertain it here.
{4} Another reason is that it would be akin to discussing calculus with someone who does not know basic math and I have no interest in timewasters -paticularly those whose ignorance is only surpassed by their snide attempts at a "response" by reiterating points dispatched with by me previously. True dialogue must involve the manifested intention of progress -including coming to a greater understanding of divergent views from one's own- and peddling in place by the other party and hurling snarky quips rather than engaging the arguments of the other is not progress. It is instead the stuff of junior high and high school punks and I got over that stuff decades ago. Apparently the same is not the case for Mr. Hays.
Readers of this weblog are aware that back in June, I stumbled upon something that Mr. Hays had written in attempting to respond to an essay I had written back in late 2001 on extra ecclesia nulla salus. (Lat. "Outside the Church, No Salvation.") His response was pretty predictable really but since his tonality was not bad and he actually quoted my work (when he quoted it) accurately, I decided to at some point write a response to his critique. Eventually, I did this and it was posted to this weblog last July at the following link:
"Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus" Dept. (circa July 25, 2005)
Since Mr. Hays had never bothered to tell me about his critique, I saw no reason to tell him about my response. (Not that he had to tell me of course: he can do with his weblog what he likes much as I do.) Nonetheless, in early September, I received an email from Jonathan Prejean of The Crimson Catholic with the following subject title:
I wouldn't bother with Steve Hays anymore
Here is most of the text of the email he sent to me.
From: Jonathan Prejean
To: I. Shawn McElhinney
Date: Sep 5, 2005 9:26 AM
Subject: I wouldn't bother with Steve Hays anymore
He's not going to give Catholicism or development of doctrine a remotely charitable read, and that's pretty much essential for reasonable dialogue.I plan on going after his hermeneutical system in depth (although not wasting any further time interacting with him), but Hays himself can't get outside of the grammatico-histoircal as the only hermeneutical method for interpreting anything, and anybody who agrees with that is probably a Protestant already. No point in spinning your wheels against anti-Catholics who aren't going to be taken seriously anyway.
Obviously, it's your call in the end, but based on the observations I've made and the abortive interactions I've had with him, I don't consider Hays worth the time. As in the case of [XXXXXXX], treating Hays as if he is a reasonable person simply increases the (mistaken) impression that he is a competent "authority" on Catholicism. I see no reason for intelligent people to lend their credibility to these hacks.
As Jonathan asked me to clarify something he said in the above note, I will do so in a footnote with his own words at the end of this post.{1} In all honesty, it was not until I read the above email that I could place the name Steve Hays. Jonathan's note mentioned development of doctrine and my most recent response to a non-Catholic on that subject was the aforementioned posting from July 25th. By logical extension that had to be the post he was referring to so I dashed off the following quick note to Jonathan on the matter later that evening.
From: I. Shawn McElhinney
To: Jonathan Prejean
Date: Sep 5, 2005 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: I wouldn't bother with Steve Hays anymore
I only responded to him because he sought to interact with something I wrote that is all. Trust me, I do not see him making any semblence of a reasonable response to what I wrote...
At this point, I did not know that Mr. Hays had actually posted a "response" to what was posted in late July. Jonathan's next note clarified the matter for me...some editing to remove other comments is necessary but here is the essence of it:
From: Jonathan Prejean
To: I. Shawn McElhinney
Date: Sep 6, 2005 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: I wouldn't bother with Steve Hays anymore
Oh, I brought Hays up because of his most recent foray against you...I don't think Hays said anything new. As in the case of Svendsen, they simply raise the same points that were answered previously... I don't generally hold people accountable for "failure to dialogue" unless they are triumphalistic about it. :-)
As I was swamped with work at the time of that posting -plus I needed to put finishing touches on two postings I planned to add later that day- I dashed off a quick note to Jonathan to get his assessment of the response and if it was worth responding to at all.
From: I. Shawn McElhinney
To: Jonathan Prejean
Date: Sep 6, 2005 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: I wouldn't bother with Steve Hays anymore
Oh, I did not see that...does he actually make arguments or is it a snide rant instead (I am too busy to read it right now).
I would (of course) consider responding to it if he made actual arguments; however Jonathan's next note indicated that I was giving far too much credit to Mr. Hays and assuming that he was worthy of the time to dialogue with. Here is the last note in the sequence.
From: Jonathan Prejean
To: I. Shawn McElhinney
Date: Sep 6, 2005 3:41 PM
Subject: Re: I wouldn't bother with Steve Hays anymore
Just a snide rant as far as I am concerned. Apparently, the notion that one might take into account sitz em leben without that historical context absolutely defining the dogmatic principle is foreign to Mr. Hays. I suppose that according to the Protestant grammatico-historical method, the idea that not all documents can be interpreted as letters between two people is inconceivable.
I did look at the first bits of his "response" and frankly, Jonathan was being quite generous in his assessment.{2} Nonetheless, the purpose of this posting is to point out something that we who enjoy the dialogual exchange often do not mention: there are some people whom it is a waste of time to dialogue with. I noted in the posting of July 25, 2005 that I would remain open to allowing Mr. Hays to clarify further my initial presumed sincerity on his part for a serious discussion of issues with these words (among others):
I would not presume a priori that the person I am responding to here has the same motivations as the aforementioned person -of whom I base my judgment of on both personal interactions as well as manifested habitual tendencies established by past hermeneutical patterns in their approach to Catholic issues. Instead, I will allow any future statements on the content of this response from the person being responded to to begin establishing the pattern whereby I will view their sincerity (or lack of it) in seeking to understand these issues as Catholics understand them. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 25, 2005)]
Well, in light of his subsequent posting,{3} I cannot view Steve Hays as a sincere individual worthy of any of my valuable (and limited) time to interact with for many reasons.{4} However, one of the primary ones is that that to broadcast such infantile idiocies here would be to imply that such is par for the course amongst my Reformed brethren and I have no desire whatsoever to do that since that would be as egregious a misrepresentation as presenting Steve Hays (after his latest drivel) as someone actually worthy of the dialogue.
Notes:
{1} The following is the clarification that Jonathan asked me to include with this posting:
[P]lease drop in a note that in lieu of refuting Hays's hermeneutical method in detail, I simply chose to provide some general objections to several sources that purportedly justify such a hermeneutical method and to leave the detailed refutation as an exercise for the reader. [Jonathan Prejean: Excerpt from an Email Correspondence With I. Shawn McElhinney (circa September 27, 2005)]
The links that Jonathan included with the above text were these:
Zoobie Review: Divine Discourse by Nicholas Wolterstorff
OK, Who Am I Kidding?
And to further clarify for the readers, Jonathan posted the first of the two links above when he and and I were corresponding between 9/05-9/06. The second one of the two was posted to his site yesterday.
{2} For those who wonder about my going beyond posting of email correspondence in this circumstance, I remind them of the site protocol that for three years plus has governed the nandling of correspondence with your humble servant:
Any correspondence will be presumed eligible for blogging unless the sender otherwise specifies. This is referred to as the Welborn Protocol and is a policy that will be followed at Rerum Novarum. (Though name and email information will as a rule not be posted without explicit request to do so by the sender.)
In light of what is noted above, the readers can surely put two and two together so that is all I will say on the matter at this time.
{3} To summarize what I read in one line, it was akin to Leslie Neilson's character in Police Squad saying to an an adversary Surely we can handle this as the adults we are, right Mr. Poopy Pants??? or something along those lines. Whatever you think of that kind of approach to comedy, it does not benefit the discipline of the dialogue one iota; ergo I will not entertain it here.
{4} Another reason is that it would be akin to discussing calculus with someone who does not know basic math and I have no interest in timewasters -paticularly those whose ignorance is only surpassed by their snide attempts at a "response" by reiterating points dispatched with by me previously. True dialogue must involve the manifested intention of progress -including coming to a greater understanding of divergent views from one's own- and peddling in place by the other party and hurling snarky quips rather than engaging the arguments of the other is not progress. It is instead the stuff of junior high and high school punks and I got over that stuff decades ago. Apparently the same is not the case for Mr. Hays.
Monday, September 26, 2005
Points to Ponder:
(On the "Conversion or Death" Terms of Islamofascist Terrorists)
"If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable; and let it come! I repeat, Sir, let it come!" [Patrick Henry]
(On the "Conversion or Death" Terms of Islamofascist Terrorists)
"If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable; and let it come! I repeat, Sir, let it come!" [Patrick Henry]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)