On Marxists and Their Methodology:
(A Visit to the Rerum Novarum Archives)
[Note: This is part of a longer posting I wrote a year ago last Thursday. In light of the kinds of drivel continuing to permeate cyberspace and the MSM on the subject of current wars, it seems appropriate to point out the underlying weltanschauung of many who try to pass themselves off as so-called "peacemakers" and the foundation of their solipsistic view of the world. -ISM]
[W]ith the marxists it is not actual results which are important but instead it is the intentions of the advocates.... I have no patience whatsoever for pseudo-"peacemakers" anymore when it comes to the subject of the current military involvement in the Middle East. These pseudo-"peacemakers" have no proactive plan behind US withdrawal from Iraq and they would not be willing to face up to what would happen in that scenario: because they would claim that their intentions were good.
Remember, there was no shortage of marxists who were masquerading under the masks of "peacemakers" and "social justice advocacy" who celebrated the US withdrawal from Vietnam. However, these very same seditionists never took responsibility for the aftermath. The very same people who (i) protested the war, (ii) tried to paint our soldiers in the worst light possible, and (iii) often were vocal about wanting to see a communist victory in SE Asia managed to get their way. They then lie and make stupid statements like "the violence ended when the US was forced out of the country" and then they wonder why no one familiar with history[...] takes them seriously for a second.
The United States scaled down military operations in 1972 shortly before the elections. After the elections, there was some continued bombing -particularly over Christmas of 1972 to bring the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table. The war ended in 1973 and the US military presence was absent the country after April of 1973. That is not to say that we were completely gone but the presence that remained there until 1975 was very minimal. It was not until 1975 that it could be said (albeit rather disingenuously) that the US was "forced out of the country" and that "force" was a result of the curtailing of funding by the congress -certainly not by the North Vietnamese themselves.
Lest there be any misunderstandings, from 1975-1978, there were more people massacred by the communist Vietnamese and Cambodian regimes than killed in any fashion during the period of US involvement from the earliest date we sent in so-called "military advisors" in 1957 to the final vestiges leaving Saigon in 1975. But the more activist of the hippie scumbags who sought to undermine our efforts in Vietnam refuse to face up to the results of what their seditious (if not downright treasonous) actions brought about. Again, results do not matter to marxists much as facts do not matter. All that matters is their intentions - a point which raises another interesting theme to consider.
The marxists --and every promoter of socialism is a defacto marxist in some form or another[...]-- have a notorious double standard from which they operate. Essentially, they judge their own policies not by the uniform and undeniable[...] failure of their policies every time they have been tried. No, with the marxists it is on the intentions behind their policies that they focus on. But they then judge their political enemies -and America is probably first on that list- by the results of their policies. And since America --despite its overall success as a bastion of freedom unlike any nation in history-- is imperfect, then there are always points that can be focused on to America's discredit. But the marxist intentions of a "paradise on earth" are far more idyllic than the even the significant results that America has achieved. For that reason, the results of marxist policies are ignored while the intentions of the marxists are their point of focus.
Now granted, the marxists fabricated a lot of stuff to make things appear even worse than they actually were but that point aside, there is enough in the historical record without fabrications to enable America to always look bad next to the ideal that marxists claim to repine for. And that is the secret essentially to why marxists can lie, cheat, steal, murder, and commit any atrocity and still be held up as icons for the marxist cause ala the near-veneration of predators like Castro, Guevera, Ortega, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Lenin, etc. by not a few who disingenuously claim the mantles of "progressivist" or "peacemakers." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 20, 2005)]
Friday, July 21, 2006
"Illustrating Absurdity By Being Absurd" Dept.
With the exception of the last line, the mentality of the following joke explains adequately what is wrong with the approach towards the war on terror which pseudo-"peacemakers"{1} advocate...
Little Melissa comes home from first grade and tells her father that they learned about the history of Valentine's Day.
"Since Valentine's Day is for a Christian saint and we're Jewish," she asks, will God get mad at me for giving someone a valentine?"
Melissa's father thinks a bit, then says "No, I don't think God would get mad. Who do you want to give a valentine to?"
"Osama Bin Laden," she says.
"Why Osama Bin Laden?" her father asks, in shock.
"Well," she says, "I thought that if a little American Jewish girl could have enough love to give Osama a valentine, he might start to think that maybe we're not all bad, and maybe start loving people a little. And if other kids saw what I did and sent valentines to Osama, he'd love everyone a lot. And then he'd start going all over the place to tell everyone how much he loved them and how he didn't hate anyone anymore."
Her father's heart swells with pride and he looks at his daughter with new found admiration. "Melissa, that's the most wonderful thing I've ever heard!"
"I know," Melissa says. "And once that gets him out in the open, the Marines could blow the shit out of him."
Note:
{1} Or as I have referred to in the past: false "peacemaking" being one of the many masks of modern marxism.
With the exception of the last line, the mentality of the following joke explains adequately what is wrong with the approach towards the war on terror which pseudo-"peacemakers"{1} advocate...
Little Melissa comes home from first grade and tells her father that they learned about the history of Valentine's Day.
"Since Valentine's Day is for a Christian saint and we're Jewish," she asks, will God get mad at me for giving someone a valentine?"
Melissa's father thinks a bit, then says "No, I don't think God would get mad. Who do you want to give a valentine to?"
"Osama Bin Laden," she says.
"Why Osama Bin Laden?" her father asks, in shock.
"Well," she says, "I thought that if a little American Jewish girl could have enough love to give Osama a valentine, he might start to think that maybe we're not all bad, and maybe start loving people a little. And if other kids saw what I did and sent valentines to Osama, he'd love everyone a lot. And then he'd start going all over the place to tell everyone how much he loved them and how he didn't hate anyone anymore."
Her father's heart swells with pride and he looks at his daughter with new found admiration. "Melissa, that's the most wonderful thing I've ever heard!"
"I know," Melissa says. "And once that gets him out in the open, the Marines could blow the shit out of him."
Note:
{1} Or as I have referred to in the past: false "peacemaking" being one of the many masks of modern marxism.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
A Minor Rerum Novarum Pre-Update Update:
It has been four months since this weblog was last updated. For that reason, it seemed appropriate to me to start the process now by pruning the side margin a bit and adding some weblogs to my webroll. Basically the blogs in the blogroll are not to my knowledge in any of the blogrolls that I have been part of since earlier this year. And to the aforementioned blogs, two which I had followed for varying degrees of time were added: Right Reason and Flit(tm). I also anticipate making some divisions in the blogrolling format when that account is updated to premium though I am not sure at the moment when I will do that. But enough on blogroll additions for now.
I have also deleted from the sidemargin (but not from the archives themselves) several posts which were once categorized there. That is hardly unusual with a weblog update but this time (unlike any update I can ever recall), I actually retitled some of the posts as they were long labeled in the side margin to account for past tense instead of the present tense which they were originally titled under. (Though the original titles used in the postings themselves remains untouched.) Here are the lions share of the posts whose titles were changed in the side margin earlier today along with the new titles they were given and the reasons for the title change:
Why I Am Becoming A Reluctant Hawk [>>>]
That posting was written in January of 2003 before I reached a definitive synthesis on my views on utilizing the military option in Iraq -though I was rapidly approaching at that time the position I would later outline in no small detail. Nonetheless, to remove confusion and to put the title in the past tense in the side margin, it was retitled to read as follows:
Why I Am Gradually Became A Reluctant Hawk [>>>]
Why Peaceful Solutions With Iraq Are Pointless [>>>]
Time has passed (almost three and a half years to be exact) but as my position as outlined in that thread has not, the title of the posting was changed to read as follows:
My Definitive Pre-War Position on the Eventual War in Iraq [>>>]
I have yet to see anyone seriously interact with what I wrote in that post and do not expect any of the irrational pundits who repeatt the same vapid catchphrases again and again to do so. I say the position taken is "definitive" because it was based on non-normative criteria and not normative criteria for the most part; ergo, the judgment was based in objectivity and not subjectivity. Furthermore, I paid no heed at the time to the whole WMD subject viewing the arguments for utilizing the military option to be sufficient without taking what was then thought about WMD's into account. That is why I was not one of those who based their position on the WMD's and then changed their view when the latter were not found shortly after the war was started. But enough on that subject for now except to note the new title of that posting in the side margin.
Why I Disagree With the Pope on the War and Remain a Faithful Catholic [>>>]
I changed present to past tense and retitled it thusly:
Why I Disagreed With the Pope on the War and Remained a Faithful Catholic [>>>]
On the War and Certain Props for the Pope [>>>]
That posting was retitled to read as follows:
On the War and Certain Props for the Late Pope John Paul II
Briefly on Colonel Muammar Khadafi's Situation [>>>]
That posting was retitled to read as follows:
Briefly on Colonel Muammar Khadafi's Situation in Late 2003
The situation has a date but the principles I outlined in that posting are still viable ones; ergo the post was left in the side margin and changed to reflect the time it was posted.
On David Kay and His Testimony [>>>]
That posting was retitled to read as follows:
On David Kay and His Testimony in Early 2004 [>>>]
My rationale with the above change was the same as with the post preceding it. (All subsequent title changes where a date is inserted or something of a then-current nature was excised from the previous titling were modified according to this principle.)
Briefly on the Founding Fathers and Propagandistic Uses of Their Words by AntiWar Activists [>>>]
That posting was frankly too irenic in its original wording but I had not had a falling out with one of the parties in which I had in mind with that posting at the time. (The post was generally directed albeit it was taken from a specific site.) Since then though, the vitriol has been thick at times and the party in question has revealed themselves to be something I do not intend to go over at this time. Nonetheless, the post was retitled to read more appropriately as thus:
Briefly on the Founding Fathers and Propagandistic Uses of Their Words by Pseudo-"Peacemakers" [>>>]
Miscellaneous Reflections on the Most Recent Beheadings and the War on Terror --Part I (An Audio Post) [>>>]
Miscellaneous Reflections on the Most Recent Beheadings and the War on Terror --Part II (An Audio Post) [>>>]
In the above postings, the words "most recent" were excised and replaced with "Beheadings of September of 2004."
A Rerum Novarum Recapitulation of Threads on the Recent War, the Politics Involved, and War in General [>>>]
The above thread title was changed to read as follows:
A Rerum Novarum Recapitulation of Threads on the Recent War, the Politics Involved, and War in General Circa Pre-April 2005 [>>>]
On the Pope, Moral Principles, the UN, and Stephen Hand [>>>]
Though the content of the post remains unchanged, the post itself in the side margin has been retitled to read as follows:
On the Pope, Moral Principles, the UN, Etc. [>>>]
The So-called "Bush Regime" and the "Free Tibet" Hypocrisy of theBraindead Communists and Their Sympathizers Progressives [>>>]
Retitled to read as follows:
The So-Called "Bush Regime" and the "Free Tibet" Hypocrisy of theBraindead Communists and Their Sympathizers Pseudo-"Peacemakers" [>>>]
Miscellaneous Musings on the Presidential Debate, the War on Terror, "Weisbach's Theorem", Etc. --Part I (An Audio Post) [>>>]
Miscellaneous Musings on the Presidential Debate, the War on Terror, "Weisbach's Theorem", Etc. --Part II (An Audio Post) [>>>]
In the above posting, the part referring to the then-current presidential debate was excised.
Briefly on the Upcoming Conclave [>>>]
Changed to read as follows:
Preliminary Musings Prior to the 2005 Papal Conclave [>>>]
An About Face From John Allen on the New Pope [>>>]
Now titled as follows:
An About Face From John Allen on Pope Benedict XVI (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) [>>>]
The side margin will be updated subsequent to March 25, 2006 (and possibly have some current links pruned from it) as I have time to do so...though it should be completed before the end of the month all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
It has been four months since this weblog was last updated. For that reason, it seemed appropriate to me to start the process now by pruning the side margin a bit and adding some weblogs to my webroll. Basically the blogs in the blogroll are not to my knowledge in any of the blogrolls that I have been part of since earlier this year. And to the aforementioned blogs, two which I had followed for varying degrees of time were added: Right Reason and Flit(tm). I also anticipate making some divisions in the blogrolling format when that account is updated to premium though I am not sure at the moment when I will do that. But enough on blogroll additions for now.
I have also deleted from the sidemargin (but not from the archives themselves) several posts which were once categorized there. That is hardly unusual with a weblog update but this time (unlike any update I can ever recall), I actually retitled some of the posts as they were long labeled in the side margin to account for past tense instead of the present tense which they were originally titled under. (Though the original titles used in the postings themselves remains untouched.) Here are the lions share of the posts whose titles were changed in the side margin earlier today along with the new titles they were given and the reasons for the title change:
Why I Am Becoming A Reluctant Hawk [>>>]
That posting was written in January of 2003 before I reached a definitive synthesis on my views on utilizing the military option in Iraq -though I was rapidly approaching at that time the position I would later outline in no small detail. Nonetheless, to remove confusion and to put the title in the past tense in the side margin, it was retitled to read as follows:
Why I Am Gradually Became A Reluctant Hawk [>>>]
Why Peaceful Solutions With Iraq Are Pointless [>>>]
Time has passed (almost three and a half years to be exact) but as my position as outlined in that thread has not, the title of the posting was changed to read as follows:
My Definitive Pre-War Position on the Eventual War in Iraq [>>>]
I have yet to see anyone seriously interact with what I wrote in that post and do not expect any of the irrational pundits who repeatt the same vapid catchphrases again and again to do so. I say the position taken is "definitive" because it was based on non-normative criteria and not normative criteria for the most part; ergo, the judgment was based in objectivity and not subjectivity. Furthermore, I paid no heed at the time to the whole WMD subject viewing the arguments for utilizing the military option to be sufficient without taking what was then thought about WMD's into account. That is why I was not one of those who based their position on the WMD's and then changed their view when the latter were not found shortly after the war was started. But enough on that subject for now except to note the new title of that posting in the side margin.
Why I Disagree With the Pope on the War and Remain a Faithful Catholic [>>>]
I changed present to past tense and retitled it thusly:
Why I Disagreed With the Pope on the War and Remained a Faithful Catholic [>>>]
On the War and Certain Props for the Pope [>>>]
That posting was retitled to read as follows:
On the War and Certain Props for the Late Pope John Paul II
Briefly on Colonel Muammar Khadafi's Situation [>>>]
That posting was retitled to read as follows:
Briefly on Colonel Muammar Khadafi's Situation in Late 2003
The situation has a date but the principles I outlined in that posting are still viable ones; ergo the post was left in the side margin and changed to reflect the time it was posted.
On David Kay and His Testimony [>>>]
That posting was retitled to read as follows:
On David Kay and His Testimony in Early 2004 [>>>]
My rationale with the above change was the same as with the post preceding it. (All subsequent title changes where a date is inserted or something of a then-current nature was excised from the previous titling were modified according to this principle.)
Briefly on the Founding Fathers and Propagandistic Uses of Their Words by AntiWar Activists [>>>]
That posting was frankly too irenic in its original wording but I had not had a falling out with one of the parties in which I had in mind with that posting at the time. (The post was generally directed albeit it was taken from a specific site.) Since then though, the vitriol has been thick at times and the party in question has revealed themselves to be something I do not intend to go over at this time. Nonetheless, the post was retitled to read more appropriately as thus:
Briefly on the Founding Fathers and Propagandistic Uses of Their Words by Pseudo-"Peacemakers" [>>>]
Miscellaneous Reflections on the Most Recent Beheadings and the War on Terror --Part I (An Audio Post) [>>>]
Miscellaneous Reflections on the Most Recent Beheadings and the War on Terror --Part II (An Audio Post) [>>>]
In the above postings, the words "most recent" were excised and replaced with "Beheadings of September of 2004."
A Rerum Novarum Recapitulation of Threads on the Recent War, the Politics Involved, and War in General [>>>]
The above thread title was changed to read as follows:
A Rerum Novarum Recapitulation of Threads on the Recent War, the Politics Involved, and War in General Circa Pre-April 2005 [>>>]
On the Pope, Moral Principles, the UN, and Stephen Hand [>>>]
Though the content of the post remains unchanged, the post itself in the side margin has been retitled to read as follows:
On the Pope, Moral Principles, the UN, Etc. [>>>]
The So-called "Bush Regime" and the "Free Tibet" Hypocrisy of the
Retitled to read as follows:
The So-Called "Bush Regime" and the "Free Tibet" Hypocrisy of the
Miscellaneous Musings on the Presidential Debate, the War on Terror, "Weisbach's Theorem", Etc. --Part I (An Audio Post) [>>>]
Miscellaneous Musings on the Presidential Debate, the War on Terror, "Weisbach's Theorem", Etc. --Part II (An Audio Post) [>>>]
In the above posting, the part referring to the then-current presidential debate was excised.
Briefly on the Upcoming Conclave [>>>]
Changed to read as follows:
Preliminary Musings Prior to the 2005 Papal Conclave [>>>]
An About Face From John Allen on the New Pope [>>>]
Now titled as follows:
An About Face From John Allen on Pope Benedict XVI (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) [>>>]
The side margin will be updated subsequent to March 25, 2006 (and possibly have some current links pruned from it) as I have time to do so...though it should be completed before the end of the month all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Monday, July 17, 2006
"Texas Death Match" Dept.
(Eric Johnson vs. Mark Shea)
It seems that Mark Shea{1} has once again provided a solid piece of evidence to substantiate your host's decision to avoid making even a tacit connection with certain sorts of people.{2} I was content to allude to a problem I have seen for some time with one of St. Blog's bigger kahunas in a miscellaneous threads posting from last month and using a specific example.{3} However, the latest one seems to be worth more than a mere aside comment.
Fortunately, it often happens that when I am too swamped to write on an issue I feel needs to be addressed, Providence{4} provides someone who covers the issue adequately enough for me to give at least a macro concurrence with what they have to say. In this case, the batter who stepped up to the plate and went yard was Eric Johnson of Catholic Light. It would seem in light of the title that Eric has given his posting{5} that there may be some animosity between him and Mark Shea. My interest is not in focusing on that possibility but instead on what Eric had to say in response on this particular issue. For that reason, I recommend that readers give Eric's posting a read through first before I continue. Here it is:
From the Bulging "Mark Shea Outbursts" File (Eric Johnson)
Normally, something like this would be relegated to a miscellaneous threads roundup but there are significant factors in the equation here which I have alluded to before{6} and very recently noted in an explicit example blogged to this very weblog.{7} It bothers me to have to note these things publicly because of the perception that some would get in me doing this. It is particularly problematical when you like the person you are addressing in this fashion and I like Mark a lot. However, this is a pattern that has been increasingly evident over the past year or so whenever he delves into geopolitical issues.
Lest there be any confusion on the matter (i) I like Mark a lot{8} and (ii) Mark is usually a very good apologist.{9} Nonetheless, as often happens with those gifted in apologetics, there is a problem that crops up which at some point will need to be addressed either at this humble weblog or elsewhere.{10} To summarize it in a nutshell, they often come over time to overestimate the degree of their general competence. Once this happens, they inexorably end up writing with as much of a presumed "certainty" on issues where their grasp of the issues involved is obviously razor thin as they do on issues where they have good knowledge and can legitimately discourse with.
For the sake of Mark's overall reputation as a good apologist, writer, and communicator, I hope he recognizes this problem and takes a proactive approach in rectifying it. There is nothing wrong with recognizing that one may have certain lacunas in their overall knowledge of an issue to comment on it. Or (at the very least) approach those matters with greater hesitation than they would if they were writing on something they are well versed on. But enough on this matter for now.
Notes:
{1} And while not belavouring the point, it nonetheless should be noted that if this is a typical example of St. Blog's "best social commentary" for 2005 than the award is about as valuable as confederate currency was in 1867. (Why on earth Southern Appeal lost out in this category among those who were nominated is a mystery to me but I digress.)
{2} In a nutshell, those who out of habit or other reasons resort either in general or on certain issues to utilizing various fallacious forms of argumentation. See this thread for more details:
Some Recent and Future Weblog Additions, A Reappraisal of Site Principles, Reapplying Said Principles, and Other Applicable Tidbits (circa June 23, 2006)
{3} Mark Shea's "Torture Poll"
This whole scenario is reminding us of something spoken of last year pertaining to those who use terms they do not bother to define or who otherwise shirk from doing so when challenged to do so.[...] But enough on that matter for now...
[...] [W]atch those who are incapable of giving a reasonable working definition of "rights" to claim that there is one. Definitions are the tools of thought and frankly, those who are not willing to define their terms do not deserve to be taken seriously...whether they are misappropriating the term "rights", "neo cons", or whatever.[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 26, 2005) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum post (circa July 3, 2006)]
{4} If I may call it that (and it is my weblog so I will).
{5} I say this based on the title he gives the blog post which reads From the Bulging "Mark Shea Outbursts" File. With a title like that, it seems probable that Eric has been following Mark's blog postings for some time and noticing a pattern of sorts.
{6} See footnote three and the quote from December of 2005. (One of the parties I had in mind when originally writing that passage was Mark Shea and the subject involved was the one I referred to back on July 3rd of this year.)
{7} Miscellanous Musings (circa July 10, 2006)
{8} We have met in person several times as we attend the same parish.
{9} On some subjects there is arguably no one in the blogosphere who is better.
{10} Or to quote something I noted the other day in a thread footnote:
This is a subject well worth writing on at some point IMHO -not specifically aimed at Mark but to the problem as it exists in general. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 10, 2006)]
Unfortunately, time is not on my side at the present time to do the subject the justice it will require.
(Eric Johnson vs. Mark Shea)
It seems that Mark Shea{1} has once again provided a solid piece of evidence to substantiate your host's decision to avoid making even a tacit connection with certain sorts of people.{2} I was content to allude to a problem I have seen for some time with one of St. Blog's bigger kahunas in a miscellaneous threads posting from last month and using a specific example.{3} However, the latest one seems to be worth more than a mere aside comment.
Fortunately, it often happens that when I am too swamped to write on an issue I feel needs to be addressed, Providence{4} provides someone who covers the issue adequately enough for me to give at least a macro concurrence with what they have to say. In this case, the batter who stepped up to the plate and went yard was Eric Johnson of Catholic Light. It would seem in light of the title that Eric has given his posting{5} that there may be some animosity between him and Mark Shea. My interest is not in focusing on that possibility but instead on what Eric had to say in response on this particular issue. For that reason, I recommend that readers give Eric's posting a read through first before I continue. Here it is:
From the Bulging "Mark Shea Outbursts" File (Eric Johnson)
Normally, something like this would be relegated to a miscellaneous threads roundup but there are significant factors in the equation here which I have alluded to before{6} and very recently noted in an explicit example blogged to this very weblog.{7} It bothers me to have to note these things publicly because of the perception that some would get in me doing this. It is particularly problematical when you like the person you are addressing in this fashion and I like Mark a lot. However, this is a pattern that has been increasingly evident over the past year or so whenever he delves into geopolitical issues.
Lest there be any confusion on the matter (i) I like Mark a lot{8} and (ii) Mark is usually a very good apologist.{9} Nonetheless, as often happens with those gifted in apologetics, there is a problem that crops up which at some point will need to be addressed either at this humble weblog or elsewhere.{10} To summarize it in a nutshell, they often come over time to overestimate the degree of their general competence. Once this happens, they inexorably end up writing with as much of a presumed "certainty" on issues where their grasp of the issues involved is obviously razor thin as they do on issues where they have good knowledge and can legitimately discourse with.
For the sake of Mark's overall reputation as a good apologist, writer, and communicator, I hope he recognizes this problem and takes a proactive approach in rectifying it. There is nothing wrong with recognizing that one may have certain lacunas in their overall knowledge of an issue to comment on it. Or (at the very least) approach those matters with greater hesitation than they would if they were writing on something they are well versed on. But enough on this matter for now.
Notes:
{1} And while not belavouring the point, it nonetheless should be noted that if this is a typical example of St. Blog's "best social commentary" for 2005 than the award is about as valuable as confederate currency was in 1867. (Why on earth Southern Appeal lost out in this category among those who were nominated is a mystery to me but I digress.)
{2} In a nutshell, those who out of habit or other reasons resort either in general or on certain issues to utilizing various fallacious forms of argumentation. See this thread for more details:
Some Recent and Future Weblog Additions, A Reappraisal of Site Principles, Reapplying Said Principles, and Other Applicable Tidbits (circa June 23, 2006)
{3} Mark Shea's "Torture Poll"
This whole scenario is reminding us of something spoken of last year pertaining to those who use terms they do not bother to define or who otherwise shirk from doing so when challenged to do so.[...] But enough on that matter for now...
[...] [W]atch those who are incapable of giving a reasonable working definition of "rights" to claim that there is one. Definitions are the tools of thought and frankly, those who are not willing to define their terms do not deserve to be taken seriously...whether they are misappropriating the term "rights", "neo cons", or whatever.[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 26, 2005) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum post (circa July 3, 2006)]
{4} If I may call it that (and it is my weblog so I will).
{5} I say this based on the title he gives the blog post which reads From the Bulging "Mark Shea Outbursts" File. With a title like that, it seems probable that Eric has been following Mark's blog postings for some time and noticing a pattern of sorts.
{6} See footnote three and the quote from December of 2005. (One of the parties I had in mind when originally writing that passage was Mark Shea and the subject involved was the one I referred to back on July 3rd of this year.)
{7} Miscellanous Musings (circa July 10, 2006)
{8} We have met in person several times as we attend the same parish.
{9} On some subjects there is arguably no one in the blogosphere who is better.
{10} Or to quote something I noted the other day in a thread footnote:
This is a subject well worth writing on at some point IMHO -not specifically aimed at Mark but to the problem as it exists in general. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 10, 2006)]
Unfortunately, time is not on my side at the present time to do the subject the justice it will require.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)