Points to Ponder:
Government is the only enterprise in the world which expands in size when its failures increase. [Janice Rogers Brown]
Saturday, January 20, 2007
On the Upcoming "Anniversary" of Roe vs. Wade and Some Upcoming Weblog Posts:
With the whole Roe vs. Wade issue coming up next week, I anticipate that a lot of pro life sorts will try and play the boogeyman approach of outlining why abortion is "harmful for the woman" which while certainly true in many ways{1} is in my mind not as effective an approach as one might think. One reason is because there is a propensity in our society to cast everything with apocalyptic overtones and after a while, it appears as saimo-saimo and people tune it out. There are other reasons too which I am not about to go into here{2} but suffice to say, this matter needs to be dealt with rationally as well as on the same turf that advocates of abortion try to use.
Among the aforementioned areas where proponents of abortion try and make their case are the following ones: (i) appeals to Supreme Court decisions which they base their premises on which are presumably "constitutional", (ii) legal precedent, (iii) procedures used to uphold said decisions, and (iv) the subject of rights and what is and is not a "right" properly conceived. In addressing these positions, care must also be taken to consider the importance of upholding all properly asserted natural rights without segregating one from the others. Your host has dealt with three of these four fronts before{3} and will reiterate those arguments again in the coming week or so in substantial form as before. However, also on tap is addressing the fourth area noted above where those who advocate abortion on demand hang their hats.
It is also possible that I may point out as I have in the past serious problems with the pro-life movement and their overall methodology but I am inclined at the moment to deal with that later in the year instead of bringing it up in the coming week. Anyway, there are several posts either already written or substantially completed that will lend themselves to those subjects and it seems appropriate to note that at the present time for those who are interested in the subject of abortion.
[Update: See this post from February 1st for a development of the themes I touch on in the present posting. -ISM]
Notes:
{1} Anyone who denies this is not being honest.
{2} Mainly that not a few "dire predictions" have been made by religious people over the centuries concerning a number of actions they viewed as morally dubious which ended up being a bunch of hooey. This is not to say that said actions are right or wrong mind you -or even that secular sorts have not made a similar batch of absurd statements of their own on various and sundry issues- only to point out what is not hard to substantiate by rational argument and needs to be squarely faced by those who would use similar tactics today on issues viewed as morally dubious by people of that outlook (such as abortion).
{3} While focusing like a laser-beam on the upholding and defending of all fundamental natural rights.
With the whole Roe vs. Wade issue coming up next week, I anticipate that a lot of pro life sorts will try and play the boogeyman approach of outlining why abortion is "harmful for the woman" which while certainly true in many ways{1} is in my mind not as effective an approach as one might think. One reason is because there is a propensity in our society to cast everything with apocalyptic overtones and after a while, it appears as saimo-saimo and people tune it out. There are other reasons too which I am not about to go into here{2} but suffice to say, this matter needs to be dealt with rationally as well as on the same turf that advocates of abortion try to use.
Among the aforementioned areas where proponents of abortion try and make their case are the following ones: (i) appeals to Supreme Court decisions which they base their premises on which are presumably "constitutional", (ii) legal precedent, (iii) procedures used to uphold said decisions, and (iv) the subject of rights and what is and is not a "right" properly conceived. In addressing these positions, care must also be taken to consider the importance of upholding all properly asserted natural rights without segregating one from the others. Your host has dealt with three of these four fronts before{3} and will reiterate those arguments again in the coming week or so in substantial form as before. However, also on tap is addressing the fourth area noted above where those who advocate abortion on demand hang their hats.
It is also possible that I may point out as I have in the past serious problems with the pro-life movement and their overall methodology but I am inclined at the moment to deal with that later in the year instead of bringing it up in the coming week. Anyway, there are several posts either already written or substantially completed that will lend themselves to those subjects and it seems appropriate to note that at the present time for those who are interested in the subject of abortion.
[Update: See this post from February 1st for a development of the themes I touch on in the present posting. -ISM]
Notes:
{1} Anyone who denies this is not being honest.
{2} Mainly that not a few "dire predictions" have been made by religious people over the centuries concerning a number of actions they viewed as morally dubious which ended up being a bunch of hooey. This is not to say that said actions are right or wrong mind you -or even that secular sorts have not made a similar batch of absurd statements of their own on various and sundry issues- only to point out what is not hard to substantiate by rational argument and needs to be squarely faced by those who would use similar tactics today on issues viewed as morally dubious by people of that outlook (such as abortion).
{3} While focusing like a laser-beam on the upholding and defending of all fundamental natural rights.
Friday, January 19, 2007
NFL Playoff Picks:
The number of teams narrow and that means the margin of error is greater too. Nonetheless, I do not anticipate anything remotely approaching last week's accuracy rating of .750 on sports stuff so I will take a stab at the two games coming up.
In the NFC there are the Bears and the Saints while in the AFC there are the Colts and the Patriots. The popular pick is Saints and Colts but I am going to go against the current and predict a rematch of Superbowl XX. The only difference is, this time the Bears do not beat the Patriots and the New England Patriots officially wrap up the "NFL team of the decade" award with two years to go.
The number of teams narrow and that means the margin of error is greater too. Nonetheless, I do not anticipate anything remotely approaching last week's accuracy rating of .750 on sports stuff so I will take a stab at the two games coming up.
In the NFC there are the Bears and the Saints while in the AFC there are the Colts and the Patriots. The popular pick is Saints and Colts but I am going to go against the current and predict a rematch of Superbowl XX. The only difference is, this time the Bears do not beat the Patriots and the New England Patriots officially wrap up the "NFL team of the decade" award with two years to go.
A Collection of Threads on Claude Frederic Bastiat's Theory of the Three Fundamental Rights of Man and the Role of Law in a Just Society:
(A Rerum Novarum Compilation Post)
Though a number of these threads are almost a year old if not older, it seems appropriate at this time to gather them together in one spot much as I did a few years ago.{1} Part of the reason is that this is a fundamental operative presupposition of your host and few subjects have been written on it more frequently by us in the past four odd years. Or to quote something written last year:
As time is short, some quick jottings on a few of the many items on the back burner to be worked on in the next blogging month...
A revisiting of the theory of the three fundamental rights of man prior to this election updated to account for current circumstances. The latter theory is one that though few discuss it nonetheless does not get enough play even on this weblog where we have written about seventy-odd threads on it in the past three plus years. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 22, 2006)]
There is also the fact that I noted if not explicitly than at least by implication in my stated resolutions for the new year that this subject will be one of renewed focus. With that in mind, here are the threads that I could find on a quick word search{1} in my archives -the ones not in the side margin are astrisked:
*On Genuine Freedom and the Use of Force --Dialogue With Nate Wildermuth (circa January 5, 2007)
On Capitalism, Economics, the Fundamental Rights of Man, Free Trade, Etc --Dialogue With Kevin Tierney (circa December 22, 2006)
On the Election, "Lost Causes", and Activism (circa December 7, 2006)
On Torture, the Limitations of Dignitatis Humanae, Logic, Etc. With Dr. Michael Liccione (circa November 14, 2006)
On Historical Revisionism Surrounding the New Deal, History Since the New Deal, the 1984 Election, Etc.--Parts I-III (circa October 28, 2006)
Miscellaneous Musings on Rights (Real or Perceived), the Problems a Lot of Non-Theistic Evolutionist Proponents Have With Logical Consistency in Claiming Certain "Rights", Briefly on Bastiat's "Three Fundamental Rights" Theory, Etc.--An Audio Post (circa September 24, 2006)
*Miscellanous Musings (circa July 10, 2006)
On Congressional Spending (circa May 8, 2006)
Miscellaneous Musings on Distributivism, Valid Theories and the Criteria Thereof, Illegal Immigration, Activism, Fundamental Rights, Etc.--A Continuous Audio Post (circa April 8, 2006)
Miscellaneous Musings on Illegal Immigration, Voting Issues, Audioblogger, Fundamental Rights, Activism, Distributivism, Valid Theories and the Criteria Thereof, Etc.--An Audio Post (circa April 8, 2006)
On the Acton Institute's Critique of Distributivism (circa March 27, 2006)
On Geopolitical Issues, the 2006 Elections, Shifting Voting Demographics, Etc.--Parts I-IV (circa March 3-4, 2006)
Briefly on Claude Frederic Bastiat, the US Constitution, and Socialism (circa December 29, 2005)
Briefly on Claude Frederic Bastiat and The Law (circa November 16, 2005)
On the Miers Nomination and Activist Conservative Agendas (circa October 10, 2005)
On Able Danger and a Potential Defense Department Coverup (circa September 21, 2005)
More on Marxists, Their Many Masks and Other Theories (circa July 8, 2005)
Points to Ponder by Claude Frederic Bastiat on the Perversion of Law Via Socialist Thievery (circa June 16, 2005)
Responding to a Blogosphere Book Meme (circa June 14, 2005)
On Terri Schiavo and the Face of Evil (circa March 22, 2005)
*On an Upcoming Weblog Series (circa March 18, 2005)
On the Terri Schiavo Situation and the Culture War in General (circa February 23, 2005)
More on Terri Schiavo, an Activist Blogosphere Effort on Her Behalf, Etc (circa February 22, 2005)
More on Terri Schiavo and the Fundamental Rights of Man (circa February 18, 2005)
For the "Anniversary" of Roe Vs. Wade (circa January 25, 2005)
Some More Notes on Dignitatis Humanae (circa December 16, 2004)
Musings on the Election and its Aftermath (circa November 24, 2004)
"Anybody But Bush" Dept. (circa October 27, 2004)
The Fundamental Rights of Man Revisited (circa September 25, 2004)
"Culture of Life and Fundamental Rights" Dept. (circa September 25, 2004)
Election Ecumenical Jihad and Voting Principles for Restoring Our Society (circa September 15, 2004)
A September 11th Confutation of Extreme Liberal Views Viz. the War on Terror (circa September 11, 2004)
On the Pro-Life Issue and the Myopic Vision of Many Pro-Life Advocates (circa September 8, 2004)
On the War, Moral and Constitutional Principles, "Supporting the Troops", Etc.--Dialogue With SecretAgentMan (circa August 20, 2004)
In Defense of Michelle Malkin's Theory (circa August 9, 2004)
On Marriage, the Supreme Court, Law in General, Etc. --Dialogue With Charles De Nunzio (circa June 2, 2004)
A Brief Digression on the "Scylla/Charybdis" Conundrum of American Political Parties, Etc. (circa May 24, 2004)
Society's Ills, the Function of Law in a Just Society, Etc.--Dialogue With Kevin Tierney (circa April 16, 2004)
On Workable Remedies For Society's Problems, Etc.--Dialogue With Kevin Tierney (circa March 31, 2004)
On the 2004 Election (circa February 27, 2004)
On the Pope, Moral Principles, the Un, and Stephen Hand --A Dialogue (circa February 5, 2004)
More on Political Theories, Etc.--Dialogue With Kevin Tierney (circa January 23, 2004)
On Church/State Conflicts of the Present in Light of the Past, Political Ideologies, Etc.--Dialogue With Kevin Tierney (circa January 22, 2004)
On the State of the Union Address (circa January 20, 2004)
*Points to Ponder on the Bill of Rights From Dr. Walter Williams (circa January 18, 2004)
*Walter Williams" Dept. (circa January 18, 2004)
Dialogue on the Death Penalty Redux With Greg Mockeridge (circa January 9, 2004)
More on the Death Penalty --Dialogue With Greg Mockeridge (circa December 16, 2003)
Commentary on the Democratic Candidates' Political Stock In Light of Hussein's Capture (circa December 14, 2003)
OnMoloch Hillary and Politics in General (circa November 30, 2003)
"Ecumenical Jihad" Dept. (circa November 20, 2003)
Developing a Consistent Line of Argumentation (circa October 30, 2003)
The above threads are presented in one spot as a way of giving the readers of this weblog who may have missed them the first time around a chance to (i) see how your host approaches a whole myriad of issues and (ii) point out why consistent principles{3} are so valuable to have -particularly ones which can be applied across a broad spectrum of subjects as Claude Frederic Bastiat's timeless theory{4} on fundamental rights can.
Notes:
{1} This thread is a continuation of sorts to the following thread from October 30, 2003:
Threads on Rights, Free Speech, and Development of a Consistent Line of Argumentation for Making Progress in the Culture Wars (A Rerum Novarum Recapitulation Thread (circa October 30, 2003)
Considering how often I have written on this subject, occasionally gathering all the threads pertaining to fundamental rights that I can recall offhand into one post for easy perusal is a good idea to do. (Similar compilations have been done on various subjects from time to time by us as well.)
{2} If I stumble across any others between October 30, 2003 and January 5, 2007, I will update the above thread with them.
{3} If you learn to think in principles you learn to think logically. Principles make thinking a lot easier and one of the goals of your host is to focus as much on principles themselves as in how those principles are to be fruitfully applied. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 30, 2006)]
{4} [H]ere are several examples which pertain to the subject of social commentary as dealt with at Rerum Novarum --all of which are to some degree original (either in and of themselves) or in my development/refining of the underlying concepts involved.[...]
To start with, there is the renewal, further development (in some parameters), and careful application of the classical legal and economic theories of Claude Frederic Bastiat to the problems that beset society today -thereby providing a logical coherence to the authentic conservative position on these matters. The latter is a project that is an ongoing one at this weblog and...is an ambitious undertaking that has no small amount of work involved in it. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 7, 2005)]
(A Rerum Novarum Compilation Post)
Though a number of these threads are almost a year old if not older, it seems appropriate at this time to gather them together in one spot much as I did a few years ago.{1} Part of the reason is that this is a fundamental operative presupposition of your host and few subjects have been written on it more frequently by us in the past four odd years. Or to quote something written last year:
As time is short, some quick jottings on a few of the many items on the back burner to be worked on in the next blogging month...
A revisiting of the theory of the three fundamental rights of man prior to this election updated to account for current circumstances. The latter theory is one that though few discuss it nonetheless does not get enough play even on this weblog where we have written about seventy-odd threads on it in the past three plus years. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 22, 2006)]
There is also the fact that I noted if not explicitly than at least by implication in my stated resolutions for the new year that this subject will be one of renewed focus. With that in mind, here are the threads that I could find on a quick word search{1} in my archives -the ones not in the side margin are astrisked:
*On Genuine Freedom and the Use of Force --Dialogue With Nate Wildermuth (circa January 5, 2007)
On Capitalism, Economics, the Fundamental Rights of Man, Free Trade, Etc --Dialogue With Kevin Tierney (circa December 22, 2006)
On the Election, "Lost Causes", and Activism (circa December 7, 2006)
On Torture, the Limitations of Dignitatis Humanae, Logic, Etc. With Dr. Michael Liccione (circa November 14, 2006)
On Historical Revisionism Surrounding the New Deal, History Since the New Deal, the 1984 Election, Etc.--Parts I-III (circa October 28, 2006)
Miscellaneous Musings on Rights (Real or Perceived), the Problems a Lot of Non-Theistic Evolutionist Proponents Have With Logical Consistency in Claiming Certain "Rights", Briefly on Bastiat's "Three Fundamental Rights" Theory, Etc.--An Audio Post (circa September 24, 2006)
*Miscellanous Musings (circa July 10, 2006)
On Congressional Spending (circa May 8, 2006)
Miscellaneous Musings on Distributivism, Valid Theories and the Criteria Thereof, Illegal Immigration, Activism, Fundamental Rights, Etc.--A Continuous Audio Post (circa April 8, 2006)
Miscellaneous Musings on Illegal Immigration, Voting Issues, Audioblogger, Fundamental Rights, Activism, Distributivism, Valid Theories and the Criteria Thereof, Etc.--An Audio Post (circa April 8, 2006)
On the Acton Institute's Critique of Distributivism (circa March 27, 2006)
On Geopolitical Issues, the 2006 Elections, Shifting Voting Demographics, Etc.--Parts I-IV (circa March 3-4, 2006)
Briefly on Claude Frederic Bastiat, the US Constitution, and Socialism (circa December 29, 2005)
Briefly on Claude Frederic Bastiat and The Law (circa November 16, 2005)
On the Miers Nomination and Activist Conservative Agendas (circa October 10, 2005)
On Able Danger and a Potential Defense Department Coverup (circa September 21, 2005)
More on Marxists, Their Many Masks and Other Theories (circa July 8, 2005)
Points to Ponder by Claude Frederic Bastiat on the Perversion of Law Via Socialist Thievery (circa June 16, 2005)
Responding to a Blogosphere Book Meme (circa June 14, 2005)
On Terri Schiavo and the Face of Evil (circa March 22, 2005)
*On an Upcoming Weblog Series (circa March 18, 2005)
On the Terri Schiavo Situation and the Culture War in General (circa February 23, 2005)
More on Terri Schiavo, an Activist Blogosphere Effort on Her Behalf, Etc (circa February 22, 2005)
More on Terri Schiavo and the Fundamental Rights of Man (circa February 18, 2005)
For the "Anniversary" of Roe Vs. Wade (circa January 25, 2005)
Some More Notes on Dignitatis Humanae (circa December 16, 2004)
Musings on the Election and its Aftermath (circa November 24, 2004)
"Anybody But Bush" Dept. (circa October 27, 2004)
The Fundamental Rights of Man Revisited (circa September 25, 2004)
"Culture of Life and Fundamental Rights" Dept. (circa September 25, 2004)
Election Ecumenical Jihad and Voting Principles for Restoring Our Society (circa September 15, 2004)
A September 11th Confutation of Extreme Liberal Views Viz. the War on Terror (circa September 11, 2004)
On the Pro-Life Issue and the Myopic Vision of Many Pro-Life Advocates (circa September 8, 2004)
On the War, Moral and Constitutional Principles, "Supporting the Troops", Etc.--Dialogue With SecretAgentMan (circa August 20, 2004)
In Defense of Michelle Malkin's Theory (circa August 9, 2004)
On Marriage, the Supreme Court, Law in General, Etc. --Dialogue With Charles De Nunzio (circa June 2, 2004)
A Brief Digression on the "Scylla/Charybdis" Conundrum of American Political Parties, Etc. (circa May 24, 2004)
Society's Ills, the Function of Law in a Just Society, Etc.--Dialogue With Kevin Tierney (circa April 16, 2004)
On Workable Remedies For Society's Problems, Etc.--Dialogue With Kevin Tierney (circa March 31, 2004)
On the 2004 Election (circa February 27, 2004)
On the Pope, Moral Principles, the Un, and Stephen Hand --A Dialogue (circa February 5, 2004)
More on Political Theories, Etc.--Dialogue With Kevin Tierney (circa January 23, 2004)
On Church/State Conflicts of the Present in Light of the Past, Political Ideologies, Etc.--Dialogue With Kevin Tierney (circa January 22, 2004)
On the State of the Union Address (circa January 20, 2004)
*Points to Ponder on the Bill of Rights From Dr. Walter Williams (circa January 18, 2004)
*Walter Williams" Dept. (circa January 18, 2004)
Dialogue on the Death Penalty Redux With Greg Mockeridge (circa January 9, 2004)
More on the Death Penalty --Dialogue With Greg Mockeridge (circa December 16, 2003)
Commentary on the Democratic Candidates' Political Stock In Light of Hussein's Capture (circa December 14, 2003)
On
"Ecumenical Jihad" Dept. (circa November 20, 2003)
Developing a Consistent Line of Argumentation (circa October 30, 2003)
The above threads are presented in one spot as a way of giving the readers of this weblog who may have missed them the first time around a chance to (i) see how your host approaches a whole myriad of issues and (ii) point out why consistent principles{3} are so valuable to have -particularly ones which can be applied across a broad spectrum of subjects as Claude Frederic Bastiat's timeless theory{4} on fundamental rights can.
Notes:
{1} This thread is a continuation of sorts to the following thread from October 30, 2003:
Threads on Rights, Free Speech, and Development of a Consistent Line of Argumentation for Making Progress in the Culture Wars (A Rerum Novarum Recapitulation Thread (circa October 30, 2003)
Considering how often I have written on this subject, occasionally gathering all the threads pertaining to fundamental rights that I can recall offhand into one post for easy perusal is a good idea to do. (Similar compilations have been done on various subjects from time to time by us as well.)
{2} If I stumble across any others between October 30, 2003 and January 5, 2007, I will update the above thread with them.
{3} If you learn to think in principles you learn to think logically. Principles make thinking a lot easier and one of the goals of your host is to focus as much on principles themselves as in how those principles are to be fruitfully applied. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 30, 2006)]
{4} [H]ere are several examples which pertain to the subject of social commentary as dealt with at Rerum Novarum --all of which are to some degree original (either in and of themselves) or in my development/refining of the underlying concepts involved.[...]
To start with, there is the renewal, further development (in some parameters), and careful application of the classical legal and economic theories of Claude Frederic Bastiat to the problems that beset society today -thereby providing a logical coherence to the authentic conservative position on these matters. The latter is a project that is an ongoing one at this weblog and...is an ambitious undertaking that has no small amount of work involved in it. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 7, 2005)]
It might seem like a minor matter but for the first time in over two years, a quote has been added to the side margin of this humble weblog. Joining quotes added in 2002, 2003, and 2004 respectively{1} is a recent "points to ponder" excerpt from Alexander Bickel on what should be taken into account when publishing any writing whatsoever. (I added it yesterday.)
Though I do not always agree with what is quoted in the "points to ponder" segments of this weblog, readers can be assured that if it is quoted in the side margin, then it concurs with my viewpoint 100% and in light of the problems with not only MSM misrepresentations but also some parties in the blogosphere and other alternative mediums, it is important to recall the importance of accuracy of what is written about, if publishing said writings will endanger the lives of others, for basic decencies, and also if publishing said writings would in any way contribute to the undermining of the common good of society and its just public order. These are all factors that your host takes into account at all times though obviously one of the above critiera{2} is more of a normative or subjective factor than a non-normative or objective one.
Notes:
{1} The first addition in this update that is worth noting is the new quote in the side margin. Joining the quote attributed to GK Chesterton (added August 30, 2002) and the one from Arthur Jones (added September 8, 2003) is one from Mike Mentzer. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 31, 2004)]
{2} I refer here to the "basic decencies" part of the quote.
Though I do not always agree with what is quoted in the "points to ponder" segments of this weblog, readers can be assured that if it is quoted in the side margin, then it concurs with my viewpoint 100% and in light of the problems with not only MSM misrepresentations but also some parties in the blogosphere and other alternative mediums, it is important to recall the importance of accuracy of what is written about, if publishing said writings will endanger the lives of others, for basic decencies, and also if publishing said writings would in any way contribute to the undermining of the common good of society and its just public order. These are all factors that your host takes into account at all times though obviously one of the above critiera{2} is more of a normative or subjective factor than a non-normative or objective one.
Notes:
{1} The first addition in this update that is worth noting is the new quote in the side margin. Joining the quote attributed to GK Chesterton (added August 30, 2002) and the one from Arthur Jones (added September 8, 2003) is one from Mike Mentzer. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 31, 2004)]
{2} I refer here to the "basic decencies" part of the quote.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Points to Ponder:
(On Banking and Investments)
Does not the social function of the bank consist in making it possible for the individual to render his money fruitful, even if only in small degree, instead of dissipating it, or leaving it sleep without any profit, either to himself or to others? That is why the services that a bank can render are so numerous: to facilitate and encourage savings; to preserve savings for the future, at the same time rendering them productive in the present; to enable savings to share in useful enterprises that could not be launched without them; to make as simple and easy as possible the regulation of accounts, exchanges, commerce between the State and private organisms and, in a word, the entire economic life of the people. [Pope Pius XII: Address to Italian Bankers (circa April 25, 1950)]
(On Banking and Investments)
Does not the social function of the bank consist in making it possible for the individual to render his money fruitful, even if only in small degree, instead of dissipating it, or leaving it sleep without any profit, either to himself or to others? That is why the services that a bank can render are so numerous: to facilitate and encourage savings; to preserve savings for the future, at the same time rendering them productive in the present; to enable savings to share in useful enterprises that could not be launched without them; to make as simple and easy as possible the regulation of accounts, exchanges, commerce between the State and private organisms and, in a word, the entire economic life of the people. [Pope Pius XII: Address to Italian Bankers (circa April 25, 1950)]
On Peace, the Role of Force, and Gaudium et Spes §80 Revisited, Plus a Bit More on Rerum Novarum Guest Editorial Policy:
(With Nate Wildermuth)
Nate's words will be in shale coloured font and any sources he cites in extra italics. For the sake of reader-convenience, I have inserted into the first paragraph of his words at different points the threads he mentions. Without further ado...
Hi Shawn,
Greetings Nate.
I responded to your thoughtful reply to my post about the soldier's prayer. I hope you have a chance to go over it.
I will give it a look over as time allows for it. Right now it looks most probable that it will be in the next blogging cycle which starts in eight days.{1}
Also, on your most recent editorial, the author said:
That is actually a guest editorial Nate. I did not write it but instead it was sent in by a reader. The criteria (to the extent there is any) for a guest editorial is viewable in a footnote I appended to the end of that editorial which was excerpted from a September 2002 post to this weblog.
If I have expanded on the original criteria at all, it would mainly be that the subject has to be one of potential general interest to the readers of the weblog but that has been implied all along in what I said previously. It also does not hurt if the subject is interesting to me too but strictly speaking it does not have to be.{2} As long as it is one of potential general interest and as long as there is evidence of (i) the writer's interest in the subject they are covering and (ii) good-faith attempts to handle it in a scholarly and ethical fashion with reasonable restraint of invective{3}, that is fine by me.
Let us stipulate that Joseph's comments about nuking Mecca et al are something less than orthodox (they are not insane or Satanic, because, as I once repeatedly and without answer pointed out to Mr. Shea, the Church does not condemn any possession of nuclear weapons as a sin, which means SOME uses of them have to be moral despite the unquestionable fact they kill civilians en masse).
Those were Victor Morton's words as quoted in the guest editorial.
This is wrong.
No it is not.
Nuclear weapons have been approved for possession in the strict context of Mutually Assured Destruction. They are never approved for use. This was a sort of practical judgment made which basically says, "Nukes are always wrong to use, but we'll hold on to them so that we don't give the Soviets a temptation to nuke us. We must work towards banning nukes."
Nate, that presumption has no shortage of rational problems to it. For one thing, it presumes that something can be okay to possess but never to use. By the very fact that it is allowed to be possessed means that (in some circumstances) it is allowed to be used. Otherwise, it could not be approved to possess at all.
And for the record, if the United States had not moved from the Mutually Assured Destruction paradigm to one where they sought to aggressively bankrupt the Soviet Union through an arms race they could not win (thus forcing them to the negotiating table), we would still have them to contend with today. In that approach, President Reagan did in reality what the two plus decades of detente coupled with hippie peacenik, antiwar marching, activist sit-ins, and nuclear freeze schtick combined could not and never could do. (Read: achieve actual and verifiable cuts in the supply of nuclear arms particularly on the Soviet side of the equation.) That is the difference between mouthing nice utopian statements and taking realistic action to actually get things done: one has a decent chance of working if the approach is reasonably firm and (in certain areas) unyielding and one never works in reality however nice it sounds in the abstract.
For the ones who endorse the approach which never works in reality have a notorious double standard generally speaking in how they approach these matters. That is not to say that one who actively seeks to encourage and promote peaceful means of resolution must necessarily{4} be duplicitous. But in my experience, that is the case a lot more often than not as a rule (unfortunately).
Nuking Mecca would be objectively evil.
No it would not. That is not to say that it would be the right thing to do of course (I am not in favour of it for various reasons) but you need to be very careful in your choice of words. Someone must not rashly characterize something in that fashion however they may personally abhor the idea. But with a lot of people that is what they do whether they realize it or not.
"Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities or extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivical and unhesitating condemnation." - Second Vatican Council
I have dealt in detail with the text you note above on previous occasions. There is a lot more to theological interpretation than merely quoting a passage as you have -particularly when the passage involves certain statements which are presumed apriori by the quoter of the text. The problem is that words of condemnation are to be interpreted narrowly and in the sense intended by the text which can require some effort to discern at times as such is not necessarily the same context that a person reading the words may attach to them.{5} I would recommending reviewing the arguments I set forth in this post from February of 2006 and paying close attention to this prefatory footnote from Gaudium et Spes -all emphasis is mine:
The Pastoral Constitution "De Ecclesia in Mundo Huius Temporis" is made up of two parts; yet it constitutes an organic unity. By way of explanation: the constitution is called "pastoral" because, while resting on doctrinal principles, it seeks to express the relation of the Church to the world and modern mankind. The result is that, on the one hand, a pastoral slant is present in the first part, and, on the other hand, a doctrinal slant is present in the second part. In the first part, the Church develops her teaching on man, on the world which is the enveloping context of man's existence, and on man's relations to his fellow men. In part two, the Church gives closer consideration to various aspects of modern life and human society; special consideration is given to those questions and problems which, in this general area, seem to have a greater urgency in our day. As a result in part two the subject matter which is viewed in the light of doctrinal principles is made up of diverse elements. Some elements have a permanent value; others, only a transitory one. Consequently, the constitution must be interpreted according to the general norms of theological interpretation. Interpreters must bear in mind-especially in part two-the changeable circumstances which the subject matter , by its very nature, involves. [Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes Preface Footnote (circa December 7, 1965) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum post (circa February 4, 2006)]
As I noted in the aforementioned posting, of the stuff in the second part of the text, one could probably go as high as the 72nd section and quote it with reasonable assurance for the reasons noted but even then one should do so with due care. From the 73rd section on, things are much more tenative just by the nature of the subjects covered and the contingent elements they contain which cannot be boiled down to absolutes viz. their application.
I would be more than happy to discuss the subject of atomic bombings at another time -say contemporary to the next anniversary which will be in August of this year. The reason for that is that I have already written a fair amount on this subject already and it has a way of getting under people's skin in a way few other subjects can. For that reason -and because I am tired of discussing the subject{6}- I would ask that if you want to talk about it with me to let me know around August or so when the subject of the anniversaries of those events come around again and the circumstances would be more appropriate. In the meantime, there are numerous other subjects which fall under the umbrella of war and peace which I do not mind discussing from time to time.{7} But like everything else it depends to some extent on my moods for discussing certain subjects which can differ for various and sundry reasons{8} too numerous to go over in a brief posting such as this one.
Notes:
{1} I am not sure this has ever been mentioned before but the blogging monthly cycle at Rerum Novarum runs from the 22nd of one month until the 21st of the following month. (For reasons which have nothing whatosever to do with astrology lest anybody wonder.)
{2} The guest editorial format is the one feature on this weblog where the contributor can actually post a subject matter I do not want to talk about either at all or at the particular time in which it is posted. (This has not happened yet but could conceivably; ergo I mention it here.)
{3} I say "reasonable restraint of invective" because as long as the person makes actual arguments for their position, I will give leeway in the areas of rhetorical flourish and/or what could be constituted as ad hominem. However, the latter must be of the valid sort and not the invalid sort -the difference being that valid uses of the ad hominem are utilized in addition to rational arguments used to support one position or oppose another one. (If it is used at all.) The invalid use of ad hominem is one where the latter is utilized without interacting in a rational manner in the arguments of a person or particular viewpoint. (This is why those who have accused me in the past of "mastering the ad hominem fallacy" prove that they do not know what they are talking about but I digress.)
{4} For example, I have seen nothing thus far that would lead me to conclude that you are -something I note here lest some readers presume otherwise.
{5} This is a common problem with those who without warrant interject their presuppositions into a text and thus misinterpret the intention of the text thereof.
{6} Plus, it will give me enough distance from the subjects where they can be somewhat fresh again. I went over this subject in many of its facets at seven different times since August of 2005 --three periods of two to three weeks or longer and four of a couple of days or so the last of which was in November of 2006 between the 25th and 28th of the month-- and that does not count several other private threads where it resurfaced at the initiative of other people. In short, I am burned out on it and want some time to elapse before I discuss it again apart from referring people to stuff I have already written on the matter of course.
{7} With an upcoming adjustment in Administration policy in Iraq, that makes how we are doing over there a live topic again and thus more likely to have my interest discussion-wise than stuff that has no practical bearing{6} on what the situation is now and what to do about it.
{8} On Blogging in General, What is Blogged on Subject-Wise, My Moods, Etc. (circa September 22, 2006)
(With Nate Wildermuth)
Nate's words will be in shale coloured font and any sources he cites in extra italics. For the sake of reader-convenience, I have inserted into the first paragraph of his words at different points the threads he mentions. Without further ado...
Hi Shawn,
Greetings Nate.
I responded to your thoughtful reply to my post about the soldier's prayer. I hope you have a chance to go over it.
I will give it a look over as time allows for it. Right now it looks most probable that it will be in the next blogging cycle which starts in eight days.{1}
Also, on your most recent editorial, the author said:
That is actually a guest editorial Nate. I did not write it but instead it was sent in by a reader. The criteria (to the extent there is any) for a guest editorial is viewable in a footnote I appended to the end of that editorial which was excerpted from a September 2002 post to this weblog.
If I have expanded on the original criteria at all, it would mainly be that the subject has to be one of potential general interest to the readers of the weblog but that has been implied all along in what I said previously. It also does not hurt if the subject is interesting to me too but strictly speaking it does not have to be.{2} As long as it is one of potential general interest and as long as there is evidence of (i) the writer's interest in the subject they are covering and (ii) good-faith attempts to handle it in a scholarly and ethical fashion with reasonable restraint of invective{3}, that is fine by me.
Let us stipulate that Joseph's comments about nuking Mecca et al are something less than orthodox (they are not insane or Satanic, because, as I once repeatedly and without answer pointed out to Mr. Shea, the Church does not condemn any possession of nuclear weapons as a sin, which means SOME uses of them have to be moral despite the unquestionable fact they kill civilians en masse).
Those were Victor Morton's words as quoted in the guest editorial.
This is wrong.
No it is not.
Nuclear weapons have been approved for possession in the strict context of Mutually Assured Destruction. They are never approved for use. This was a sort of practical judgment made which basically says, "Nukes are always wrong to use, but we'll hold on to them so that we don't give the Soviets a temptation to nuke us. We must work towards banning nukes."
Nate, that presumption has no shortage of rational problems to it. For one thing, it presumes that something can be okay to possess but never to use. By the very fact that it is allowed to be possessed means that (in some circumstances) it is allowed to be used. Otherwise, it could not be approved to possess at all.
And for the record, if the United States had not moved from the Mutually Assured Destruction paradigm to one where they sought to aggressively bankrupt the Soviet Union through an arms race they could not win (thus forcing them to the negotiating table), we would still have them to contend with today. In that approach, President Reagan did in reality what the two plus decades of detente coupled with hippie peacenik, antiwar marching, activist sit-ins, and nuclear freeze schtick combined could not and never could do. (Read: achieve actual and verifiable cuts in the supply of nuclear arms particularly on the Soviet side of the equation.) That is the difference between mouthing nice utopian statements and taking realistic action to actually get things done: one has a decent chance of working if the approach is reasonably firm and (in certain areas) unyielding and one never works in reality however nice it sounds in the abstract.
For the ones who endorse the approach which never works in reality have a notorious double standard generally speaking in how they approach these matters. That is not to say that one who actively seeks to encourage and promote peaceful means of resolution must necessarily{4} be duplicitous. But in my experience, that is the case a lot more often than not as a rule (unfortunately).
Nuking Mecca would be objectively evil.
No it would not. That is not to say that it would be the right thing to do of course (I am not in favour of it for various reasons) but you need to be very careful in your choice of words. Someone must not rashly characterize something in that fashion however they may personally abhor the idea. But with a lot of people that is what they do whether they realize it or not.
"Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities or extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivical and unhesitating condemnation." - Second Vatican Council
I have dealt in detail with the text you note above on previous occasions. There is a lot more to theological interpretation than merely quoting a passage as you have -particularly when the passage involves certain statements which are presumed apriori by the quoter of the text. The problem is that words of condemnation are to be interpreted narrowly and in the sense intended by the text which can require some effort to discern at times as such is not necessarily the same context that a person reading the words may attach to them.{5} I would recommending reviewing the arguments I set forth in this post from February of 2006 and paying close attention to this prefatory footnote from Gaudium et Spes -all emphasis is mine:
The Pastoral Constitution "De Ecclesia in Mundo Huius Temporis" is made up of two parts; yet it constitutes an organic unity. By way of explanation: the constitution is called "pastoral" because, while resting on doctrinal principles, it seeks to express the relation of the Church to the world and modern mankind. The result is that, on the one hand, a pastoral slant is present in the first part, and, on the other hand, a doctrinal slant is present in the second part. In the first part, the Church develops her teaching on man, on the world which is the enveloping context of man's existence, and on man's relations to his fellow men. In part two, the Church gives closer consideration to various aspects of modern life and human society; special consideration is given to those questions and problems which, in this general area, seem to have a greater urgency in our day. As a result in part two the subject matter which is viewed in the light of doctrinal principles is made up of diverse elements. Some elements have a permanent value; others, only a transitory one. Consequently, the constitution must be interpreted according to the general norms of theological interpretation. Interpreters must bear in mind-especially in part two-the changeable circumstances which the subject matter , by its very nature, involves. [Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes Preface Footnote (circa December 7, 1965) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum post (circa February 4, 2006)]
As I noted in the aforementioned posting, of the stuff in the second part of the text, one could probably go as high as the 72nd section and quote it with reasonable assurance for the reasons noted but even then one should do so with due care. From the 73rd section on, things are much more tenative just by the nature of the subjects covered and the contingent elements they contain which cannot be boiled down to absolutes viz. their application.
I would be more than happy to discuss the subject of atomic bombings at another time -say contemporary to the next anniversary which will be in August of this year. The reason for that is that I have already written a fair amount on this subject already and it has a way of getting under people's skin in a way few other subjects can. For that reason -and because I am tired of discussing the subject{6}- I would ask that if you want to talk about it with me to let me know around August or so when the subject of the anniversaries of those events come around again and the circumstances would be more appropriate. In the meantime, there are numerous other subjects which fall under the umbrella of war and peace which I do not mind discussing from time to time.{7} But like everything else it depends to some extent on my moods for discussing certain subjects which can differ for various and sundry reasons{8} too numerous to go over in a brief posting such as this one.
Notes:
{1} I am not sure this has ever been mentioned before but the blogging monthly cycle at Rerum Novarum runs from the 22nd of one month until the 21st of the following month. (For reasons which have nothing whatosever to do with astrology lest anybody wonder.)
{2} The guest editorial format is the one feature on this weblog where the contributor can actually post a subject matter I do not want to talk about either at all or at the particular time in which it is posted. (This has not happened yet but could conceivably; ergo I mention it here.)
{3} I say "reasonable restraint of invective" because as long as the person makes actual arguments for their position, I will give leeway in the areas of rhetorical flourish and/or what could be constituted as ad hominem. However, the latter must be of the valid sort and not the invalid sort -the difference being that valid uses of the ad hominem are utilized in addition to rational arguments used to support one position or oppose another one. (If it is used at all.) The invalid use of ad hominem is one where the latter is utilized without interacting in a rational manner in the arguments of a person or particular viewpoint. (This is why those who have accused me in the past of "mastering the ad hominem fallacy" prove that they do not know what they are talking about but I digress.)
{4} For example, I have seen nothing thus far that would lead me to conclude that you are -something I note here lest some readers presume otherwise.
{5} This is a common problem with those who without warrant interject their presuppositions into a text and thus misinterpret the intention of the text thereof.
{6} Plus, it will give me enough distance from the subjects where they can be somewhat fresh again. I went over this subject in many of its facets at seven different times since August of 2005 --three periods of two to three weeks or longer and four of a couple of days or so the last of which was in November of 2006 between the 25th and 28th of the month-- and that does not count several other private threads where it resurfaced at the initiative of other people. In short, I am burned out on it and want some time to elapse before I discuss it again apart from referring people to stuff I have already written on the matter of course.
{7} With an upcoming adjustment in Administration policy in Iraq, that makes how we are doing over there a live topic again and thus more likely to have my interest discussion-wise than stuff that has no practical bearing{6} on what the situation is now and what to do about it.
{8} On Blogging in General, What is Blogged on Subject-Wise, My Moods, Etc. (circa September 22, 2006)
Sunday, January 14, 2007
"Signs of the Apocalypse" Dept.
Readers of this humble weblog are aware that your host has been historically accurate in his prediction patterns in non-sports matters but with sports it is inversely so. Indeed, we have even claimed over the years that those who want to make big $$$ in sports betting only need to ask us for our predictions and by going the opposite direction will win about four times out of five. We even noted it recently on this weblog which is noted at this time to deal with an anomoly that has happened this NFL offseason.
In a January 12, 2007 lunchtime chat with Kevin Tierney, he asked me to lay out my picks for the playoffs -knowing how bad my sports picking trackrecord is.{1} Here is the text from that chat -I know Kevin will not mind me noting it at this time:
Kevin: so do you turn on your team this weekend? lol
12:37 PM me: yes
they are going down
big time
:)
12:39 PM Kevin: your predictions this weekend
12:41 PM me: give me the teams and I will give you the betting patterns to reverse for big $$$
Kevin: Saints vs Eagles
Bears vs Hawks
Patriots vs Charger
Colts v Ravens
12:42 PM me: (I watched "two for the money" last night so I have sports oddsmakers on the brain)
Saints over Eagles
Bears over Hawks
Patriots over Chargers
Ravens over Colts
one of those four will be correct [Excerpt from a Chat (circa January 12, 2007)]
So far, I am 2-1 which is significantly above my average in the past twelve odd years when my sports-picking started going awry.{2} If the Pats win too, that will be a 3-1 margin which I never have anymore in sports. Be assured folks, if that happens, my next round of picks is a virtual lock to be stinkers so bet opposite them and you should win handily.
[Update: Make that 3-1 as the Patriots won after this above text was posted. -ISM 1/15/07 11:58am]
Notes:
{1} To note some recent picks, I predicted the Hawks would beat San Francisco at home after they lost to them on the road (they did not), they would come from behind to beat the Arizona Cardinals in their last division game (they did not) and that they would lose to Tampa Bay in their last game (which they won). In 2006, I predicted the Hawks would win the Superbowl (they did not), predicted in preseason that the Hawks would go 12-4 and win the Superbowl which we know will not happen now and they went 9-7 regular season. Earlier in the season, I predicted a Hawks loss to the Bears (which happened), a win over the Chiefs (which did not happen), picked the Tigers to win the World Series in 6 games (they lost to the Cardinals), a Michigan win over Ohio State (which did not happen), a USC win over Michigan in the Rose Bowl (which happened), an Ohio State win over Florida (which did not), and a Hawks loss to Dallas after I reversed my Superbowl prediction (we know the Hawks beat Dallas last week).
Those are just some of the examples I can think of offhand but the 3-10 trackrecord noted above is actually better than what my average the past ten years has been. I simply cannot recall offhand other picks but if the archives of this weblog are perused, I have no doubt I will be at about the Mendoza line or the converse of what I do with other prognosticating. (Heck, I even picked the right cardinal to be pope before the conclave which no one else did.)
{2} I used to be decent in this area -heck I picked Miami over the Bears in the regular season in 1985 which some thought was an odd pick considering how awesome the Bears were that year. I remember a game in 1989 where it was Rams vs. 49ers where my buddy Tim and I were watching and I predicted three blocked kicks in the game which Tim told me never happened (in that game it did). I also predicted the Mariners would come from behind and beat the Yankees in the 1995 playoff first round and that happened. However, earlier that year, when my pick of the Steelers to beat Dallas did not pan, that was where I think in retrospect my sports-picking fortunes started to shift.
Readers of this humble weblog are aware that your host has been historically accurate in his prediction patterns in non-sports matters but with sports it is inversely so. Indeed, we have even claimed over the years that those who want to make big $$$ in sports betting only need to ask us for our predictions and by going the opposite direction will win about four times out of five. We even noted it recently on this weblog which is noted at this time to deal with an anomoly that has happened this NFL offseason.
In a January 12, 2007 lunchtime chat with Kevin Tierney, he asked me to lay out my picks for the playoffs -knowing how bad my sports picking trackrecord is.{1} Here is the text from that chat -I know Kevin will not mind me noting it at this time:
Kevin: so do you turn on your team this weekend? lol
12:37 PM me: yes
they are going down
big time
:)
12:39 PM Kevin: your predictions this weekend
12:41 PM me: give me the teams and I will give you the betting patterns to reverse for big $$$
Kevin: Saints vs Eagles
Bears vs Hawks
Patriots vs Charger
Colts v Ravens
12:42 PM me: (I watched "two for the money" last night so I have sports oddsmakers on the brain)
Saints over Eagles
Bears over Hawks
Patriots over Chargers
Ravens over Colts
one of those four will be correct [Excerpt from a Chat (circa January 12, 2007)]
So far, I am 2-1 which is significantly above my average in the past twelve odd years when my sports-picking started going awry.{2} If the Pats win too, that will be a 3-1 margin which I never have anymore in sports. Be assured folks, if that happens, my next round of picks is a virtual lock to be stinkers so bet opposite them and you should win handily.
[Update: Make that 3-1 as the Patriots won after this above text was posted. -ISM 1/15/07 11:58am]
Notes:
{1} To note some recent picks, I predicted the Hawks would beat San Francisco at home after they lost to them on the road (they did not), they would come from behind to beat the Arizona Cardinals in their last division game (they did not) and that they would lose to Tampa Bay in their last game (which they won). In 2006, I predicted the Hawks would win the Superbowl (they did not), predicted in preseason that the Hawks would go 12-4 and win the Superbowl which we know will not happen now and they went 9-7 regular season. Earlier in the season, I predicted a Hawks loss to the Bears (which happened), a win over the Chiefs (which did not happen), picked the Tigers to win the World Series in 6 games (they lost to the Cardinals), a Michigan win over Ohio State (which did not happen), a USC win over Michigan in the Rose Bowl (which happened), an Ohio State win over Florida (which did not), and a Hawks loss to Dallas after I reversed my Superbowl prediction (we know the Hawks beat Dallas last week).
Those are just some of the examples I can think of offhand but the 3-10 trackrecord noted above is actually better than what my average the past ten years has been. I simply cannot recall offhand other picks but if the archives of this weblog are perused, I have no doubt I will be at about the Mendoza line or the converse of what I do with other prognosticating. (Heck, I even picked the right cardinal to be pope before the conclave which no one else did.)
{2} I used to be decent in this area -heck I picked Miami over the Bears in the regular season in 1985 which some thought was an odd pick considering how awesome the Bears were that year. I remember a game in 1989 where it was Rams vs. 49ers where my buddy Tim and I were watching and I predicted three blocked kicks in the game which Tim told me never happened (in that game it did). I also predicted the Mariners would come from behind and beat the Yankees in the 1995 playoff first round and that happened. However, earlier that year, when my pick of the Steelers to beat Dallas did not pan, that was where I think in retrospect my sports-picking fortunes started to shift.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)