Points to Ponder:
Patience, persistence and perspiration make an unbeatable combination for success. [Napolean Hill]
Saturday, March 24, 2007
More on the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Invalid Appeals Thereof:
(Dialogue With Jonathan Prejean)
The following is a response written a couple of weeks ago to an email sent by Jonathan Prejean in response to the following posting to this weblog from earlier this month:
On the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Fallacious Appeals Thereof
In this posting, Jonathan's words will be in an appropriately crimson coloured font. Without further ado...
Shawn:
Hi Jonathan: When did you start blogging again??? I just realized when looking for your old blog that you started again and did not tell me. Did I miss anything or were you absent in 2006??? When did you return and why did you not send an email encyclical on the matter??? Anytime someone with a lucid mind returns to blogging I want to know about it even if they do not necessarily agree with me. (I will similarly complain if Ian Mclean starts up again (and I know he will) and I do not know about it from the get-go.)
I really appreciate someone taking the time to lay this material out. It gets forgotten all too often.
Well, that is one reason I am trying to set it out in writing. You have been absent the blogosphere for a while and may not be aware that I have been focusing the past couple of years on the building blocks of rational thought to a greater and greater extent -a fair amount of which was directed by circumstances I was either privy to or just reaching critical mass on some matters after not seeing anyone else say or do anything about them. I noted in a thread on 2007 resolutions (among other things) an intention to continue at times along these lines as I have time to do so.
It is unfortunate and I dislike having to say it but I have found myself more and more jaded over the years at the lack of will for actually utilizing reason and logic by people in general. Of a particularly troubling nature is the fideism that infects Catholic apologists (albeit they are hardly the only ones where this is a problem) and this has been happening for a long time. What really rankles me is how the the apologist oligarchs and their clueless sycophants do not want to do a damn thing about it except circle the wagons. (I have never viewed you in this light so you need not wonder by the way.) But I will step off my soap box on that issue for now lest things get offtrack here.
The overall picture is entirely correct, and I would recommend filling in only a couple of more details:
1. In discussing the valid use of authorities, you note that authorities can be used "as supporting documentation for an opinion sustained by logic and reasoned argumentation." Although I think I understand what I have in mind, I'd be concerned about this being exploited as yet another loophole for the fallacious use of an appeal to authority.
My point essentially is that you can construct an argument and then point to a presumed "authority" who agrees with your conclusion. However, that approach while valid is only as strong as the arguments you present -unless you can present the arguments of the "authority" on which you concur. (Though the latter is quite rare.) But even then, the argument is still only as strong as the arguments used by the presumed "authority."
What many people would claim is that the fact that someone else holds the same conclusion has any probative weight for their argument, and that is equally fallacious (the most popular version I've seen is the "If Cardinal Dulles believes it, it must be permissible for Catholics to hold it").
Oh without question. My point is in outlining when an appeal to authority is correct and when it is not. I have been accused by some including not only geopolitical apologists for various pseudo-"progressivist" outlooks but also certain Catholic apologists I shall not name of denying that it is possible to appeal to an authority in any instance. This is something that is so obviously false and absurd that it is hard to take such people seriously. Nonetheless, it is appropriate I believe to point out that there are valid and invalid ways of doing it and that is the purpose of this posting.
The only valid sense in which this can be applied (which is redundant in terms of argumentative force but not clarity) is if one is citing a source that makes the same ARGUMENT.
Which only happens if the person is using the argument of the authority as their own. I would argue in that case that it is if not invalid than at the very least intellectually lazy and (in such a case) the position requires for its sustaining the arguments being borrowed to be sound ones.
I note that this is how you cite Cardinal Dulles, but almost no one else does it correctly.
I appreciate you noticing that actually. It just so happens that on a lot of issues, I realize that Cardinal Dulles agrees with me after the fact meaning after I have pondered an issue and taken a position on it. Almost never has Dulles directly influenced my view on anything with the exception of the subject of church models where he was admittedly the primary influence.
I think that error on this point is a disturbingly common problem, so I would like to see an explicit distinction between the use of authorities as holding a conclusion (fallacious) and the use of authorities for the argument they make (valid).
Do you mean appealing to an authority for opinions or conclusions??? I have dealt with that before in past blog postings -see the links to that posting from August 27, 2004 (quoted at the beginning of the thread and linked later on in the thread) and also one from May of 2005 where I revisited those points in a briefer form. (When referring to two threads superimposed over the capitalized phrasing "HERE and HERE", those are the threads so linked.)
2. Along those lines, regarding the appropriation of arguments from other sources (your Mr. X example), you should distinguish between "shot to pieces" from the standpoint of validity and soundness. If an argument is invalid, then it is invalid no matter who makes it, which is why the appeal to authority is inherently fallacious.
I understand the distinction you are making and it is a valid one. However, here is the context of the problem I was outlining. The example I used was in reference to a real life example a couple of years ago where I shot the argument to pieces and the person arguing with me cited an "authority" making the exact same argument. When I emphasized that I had already destroyed the argument this "authority" made, the response was a dissertation on the authority's presumed "credentials" and a request for my own as if that ploy could somehow objectively rehabilitate the moronic argument made by said "authority." Ergo, the the reason I approached that part of the text as I did.
On the other hand, if the argumentis that Mr. X, based on experience and knowledge of the discipline, has drawn a proper inductive conclusion through a reasonable methodology in anarea that is susceptible to some degree of uncertainty (due to the limitedstate of knowledge, for example), then this sort of opinion could legitimately affect the certainty of some particular conclusion, making it have some evidientiary value as grounded in a reliable inductive method.
Without question but that situation is rare as you know when people cite certain authorities -even if they correctly cite ones whose areas of expertise happen to cohere well with the subject of dispute.
Of course, one must still examine Mr. X's argument to determine whether he is making a legitimate judgment within the scope of a discipline, offering a deductive argument, or simply stating his own opinion of the matter in frank admission that he is bringing to bear considerations that are personal rather than normative.
When you say "normative" am I correct in presuming that you do not mean by the word what I do??? I make the distinction between non-normative and normative argumentation as the difference between objectively verifiable and subjectively opinionated. Of the two, only the former can be rationally argued with because the latter is a matter of opinion which does not admit of an empirical frame of reference oftentimes.
It is, of course, the burden of the one bringing forth any source to make explicit how he is using the source in question. No one should be obliged to guess as to whether the proponent agrees with the source's argument, whether he agrees with the methodology, and whether and why he disagrees with the source's conclusions in some respects and not others (for example, he considers one statement as a proper conclusions of a reliable inductive methodology, while the other is the source's mere opinion).
Precisely!!! That has been my point all along but for some reason, particular controversialists are either unable or unwilling to see it. I did not think what I have written over the years in this respect was any kind of rubix cube.
My intention was to point out how a fallacy is properly identified and what is intrinsic to its nature. Hence the manner in which I stated the thesis of the posting:
--A fallacy of argument is by definition erroneous in the areas of usage and application of logic and reason thereof and nothing else.
I realize that someone can come to correct conclusions with invalid or faulty arguments but outside of the supernatural sciences and certain mechanisms that are contained therein for providing solid points of reference, such situations are more conducive to dumb luck or simply betting on the come viz. picking a particular authority with which to accept the conclusion of. In everyday discussions though, the natural lights of reason and logic are ample when they are properly understood and inculcated. As far as the distinction between inductive and deductive, you are right but the tenor of my posting implies deductive reasoning.
Strictly speaking, deductive reasoning is the only reasoning which can be said to be reliable to a substantial degree when properly utilized as it is not as prone to the degree of open or nebulous constructs which inductive reasoning has. Furthermore, I do not see how inductive reasoning can ever be said to actually bind anyone rationally. Its value is in my view very circumscribed and anyone who would use it against an argument based on deduction would find themselves on the losing side far more frequently than not -all things presumed equal of course.
But at the same time, if one is committed to achieving true and correct beliefs by reasoning, as opposed to mere emotion or opinion, then one's arguments must be logically valid.
Without question.
Likewise, even on purely inductive matters, it might be permissible to appeal to authority in a way that is not proper for deductive arguments, but then only insofar as the authority in question is following a method of inquiry deemed reliable for establishing the sorts of conclusions being asserted (and the proponent should be plain if he is relying on someone else's expertise in this way, so that one can challenge the source's qualifications or methodology for the benefit of those who might rely on him).
Precisely. And as this is so rarely done, one can take it as a general norm that any appeal to authority will fail in this area unless demonstrated to the contrary. (Putting the burden of proof on the one so appealing where it belongs and not conversely.)
4. The last recommendation is simply my own personal preference, and I don't intend it to be an assertion of any cognitive duty so much as an option for your consideration.
Ok.
I personally prefer to bypass entirely the question as to whether what someone's words objectively manifest matches upwith their subjective intent. Frankly, if someone is willing to say "I meant X when I said Y," then I thenceforth act as if they said X even ifthere is no possible way that Y could objectively be interpreted to mean X. This is because, quite frankly, people sometimes just make mistakes (e.g.,typing the wrong thing, picking a statement without sufficient consideration), but no one ever wants to admit having made a mistake.
Well, pointing it out can give people reason to pause -particularly if they continue to claim they did not say something and accuse of "lying" various persons who see the same objective manifestation in their writings.
Rather than putting someone on the defensive about a mistake, which drags down the quality of the discussion, I would generally let the correction pass, because then at least what is being discussed is what ought to be discussed.
Generally this is true. But I know people who mess up in this area not infrequently and yet are not called out on it.
I freely confess that my bias in this regard is also motivated by the fact that some of the most disreptuable debaters on the Internet (e.g., Svendsen, Engwer, White) absolutely love the rhetorical tactic of accusing the opponent of mistake, using it even when the mistake is irrelevant and sometimes deliberately misrepresenting an opponent to createa mistake where none has been made.
Well, I do of course always presume good-will in all parties involved a priori even if this is not always explicitly apparent.{1} We both know that White and Svendsen do not do that nor does Engwer. I allow them to demonstrate that they are not acting in good will or at least provide me with sufficient enough motives of credibility to make an objective assessment on the matter. While not always an accurate read, my trackrecord in this area over the years is significantly more correct than incorrect.
Respectfully submitted, Jonathan Prejean
Thank you for your intelligent, thought-provoking input Jonathan. Let me know what you think of the reasons I noted above -my focus is essentially universal and particular on this posting as is often the case.
Note:
{1} A couple significant examples come to mind where this principle has been explicitly or implicitly noted over the years -including this one which was blogged very recently:
[S]ometimes a person can unknowingly convey a sense or impression towards others that they do not intend to convey. Certainly as a rule one must presume continuity in these areas. Nonetheless, at the same time, there are exceptions whereby the actions and statements of a person do not necessarily correctly reveal their inner intentions. And while one should strive at all times to verify things by objective criteria; at the same time, the evidence does not always point to the reality of something as it subsists in the mind of the other party involved in a dispute. With that in mind, and however it may appear to contradict objective manifestations, greater care at times needs to be given to what someone says they intend however appearances to the contrary may fail to countenance it. In other words: faith is required to some extent that an individual's assessment of their intentions is correct because by non-normative criteria it cannot be ascertained. This is not always easy to do mind you when there is a history of bad blood between persons. However, whenever an opportunity to put things right presents itself that manifests the possibility of success (however remote), I have always viewed it as something to be seized upon because one never knows when such opportunities may present themselves again if ever. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 5, 2007)]
The principle animating the above observations was encapsulated in a weblog post thread on charity from about three years ago in the following words which were written almost two hundred years before your weblog host was even born:
Always be ready and willing to excuse the faults of your neighbour, and never put an unfavourable interpretation upon his actions. The same action, says St. Francis de Sales, may be looked upon under many different aspects: a charitable person will ever suppose the best, an uncharitable person will just as certainly choose the worst. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 24, 2004)]
The above principle either explicitly or implicitly was referenced in a number of postings to this weblog prior to that time (the earliest being August 23, 2002) and quoted or linked to numerous posts subsequent to that time including the following ones found on a very brief (five minute) archival search of a few of the several possible search terms:
August 26, 2004, August 27, 2004, December 30, 2004, May 14, 2005, December 13, 2005, December 14, 2005, January 23, 2006, February 9, 2006, February 12, 2006, March 6, 2006, August 5, 2006, August 14, 2006, September 21, 2006, November 14, 2006.
If more time was taken and additional search terms were used, many others would be found both in the period prior to January 24, 2004 and particularly after it but the above ones will have to do at the present time.
(Dialogue With Jonathan Prejean)
The following is a response written a couple of weeks ago to an email sent by Jonathan Prejean in response to the following posting to this weblog from earlier this month:
On the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Fallacious Appeals Thereof
In this posting, Jonathan's words will be in an appropriately crimson coloured font. Without further ado...
Shawn:
Hi Jonathan: When did you start blogging again??? I just realized when looking for your old blog that you started again and did not tell me. Did I miss anything or were you absent in 2006??? When did you return and why did you not send an email encyclical on the matter??? Anytime someone with a lucid mind returns to blogging I want to know about it even if they do not necessarily agree with me. (I will similarly complain if Ian Mclean starts up again (and I know he will) and I do not know about it from the get-go.)
I really appreciate someone taking the time to lay this material out. It gets forgotten all too often.
Well, that is one reason I am trying to set it out in writing. You have been absent the blogosphere for a while and may not be aware that I have been focusing the past couple of years on the building blocks of rational thought to a greater and greater extent -a fair amount of which was directed by circumstances I was either privy to or just reaching critical mass on some matters after not seeing anyone else say or do anything about them. I noted in a thread on 2007 resolutions (among other things) an intention to continue at times along these lines as I have time to do so.
It is unfortunate and I dislike having to say it but I have found myself more and more jaded over the years at the lack of will for actually utilizing reason and logic by people in general. Of a particularly troubling nature is the fideism that infects Catholic apologists (albeit they are hardly the only ones where this is a problem) and this has been happening for a long time. What really rankles me is how the the apologist oligarchs and their clueless sycophants do not want to do a damn thing about it except circle the wagons. (I have never viewed you in this light so you need not wonder by the way.) But I will step off my soap box on that issue for now lest things get offtrack here.
The overall picture is entirely correct, and I would recommend filling in only a couple of more details:
1. In discussing the valid use of authorities, you note that authorities can be used "as supporting documentation for an opinion sustained by logic and reasoned argumentation." Although I think I understand what I have in mind, I'd be concerned about this being exploited as yet another loophole for the fallacious use of an appeal to authority.
My point essentially is that you can construct an argument and then point to a presumed "authority" who agrees with your conclusion. However, that approach while valid is only as strong as the arguments you present -unless you can present the arguments of the "authority" on which you concur. (Though the latter is quite rare.) But even then, the argument is still only as strong as the arguments used by the presumed "authority."
What many people would claim is that the fact that someone else holds the same conclusion has any probative weight for their argument, and that is equally fallacious (the most popular version I've seen is the "If Cardinal Dulles believes it, it must be permissible for Catholics to hold it").
Oh without question. My point is in outlining when an appeal to authority is correct and when it is not. I have been accused by some including not only geopolitical apologists for various pseudo-"progressivist" outlooks but also certain Catholic apologists I shall not name of denying that it is possible to appeal to an authority in any instance. This is something that is so obviously false and absurd that it is hard to take such people seriously. Nonetheless, it is appropriate I believe to point out that there are valid and invalid ways of doing it and that is the purpose of this posting.
The only valid sense in which this can be applied (which is redundant in terms of argumentative force but not clarity) is if one is citing a source that makes the same ARGUMENT.
Which only happens if the person is using the argument of the authority as their own. I would argue in that case that it is if not invalid than at the very least intellectually lazy and (in such a case) the position requires for its sustaining the arguments being borrowed to be sound ones.
I note that this is how you cite Cardinal Dulles, but almost no one else does it correctly.
I appreciate you noticing that actually. It just so happens that on a lot of issues, I realize that Cardinal Dulles agrees with me after the fact meaning after I have pondered an issue and taken a position on it. Almost never has Dulles directly influenced my view on anything with the exception of the subject of church models where he was admittedly the primary influence.
I think that error on this point is a disturbingly common problem, so I would like to see an explicit distinction between the use of authorities as holding a conclusion (fallacious) and the use of authorities for the argument they make (valid).
Do you mean appealing to an authority for opinions or conclusions??? I have dealt with that before in past blog postings -see the links to that posting from August 27, 2004 (quoted at the beginning of the thread and linked later on in the thread) and also one from May of 2005 where I revisited those points in a briefer form. (When referring to two threads superimposed over the capitalized phrasing "HERE and HERE", those are the threads so linked.)
2. Along those lines, regarding the appropriation of arguments from other sources (your Mr. X example), you should distinguish between "shot to pieces" from the standpoint of validity and soundness. If an argument is invalid, then it is invalid no matter who makes it, which is why the appeal to authority is inherently fallacious.
I understand the distinction you are making and it is a valid one. However, here is the context of the problem I was outlining. The example I used was in reference to a real life example a couple of years ago where I shot the argument to pieces and the person arguing with me cited an "authority" making the exact same argument. When I emphasized that I had already destroyed the argument this "authority" made, the response was a dissertation on the authority's presumed "credentials" and a request for my own as if that ploy could somehow objectively rehabilitate the moronic argument made by said "authority." Ergo, the the reason I approached that part of the text as I did.
On the other hand, if the argumentis that Mr. X, based on experience and knowledge of the discipline, has drawn a proper inductive conclusion through a reasonable methodology in anarea that is susceptible to some degree of uncertainty (due to the limitedstate of knowledge, for example), then this sort of opinion could legitimately affect the certainty of some particular conclusion, making it have some evidientiary value as grounded in a reliable inductive method.
Without question but that situation is rare as you know when people cite certain authorities -even if they correctly cite ones whose areas of expertise happen to cohere well with the subject of dispute.
Of course, one must still examine Mr. X's argument to determine whether he is making a legitimate judgment within the scope of a discipline, offering a deductive argument, or simply stating his own opinion of the matter in frank admission that he is bringing to bear considerations that are personal rather than normative.
When you say "normative" am I correct in presuming that you do not mean by the word what I do??? I make the distinction between non-normative and normative argumentation as the difference between objectively verifiable and subjectively opinionated. Of the two, only the former can be rationally argued with because the latter is a matter of opinion which does not admit of an empirical frame of reference oftentimes.
It is, of course, the burden of the one bringing forth any source to make explicit how he is using the source in question. No one should be obliged to guess as to whether the proponent agrees with the source's argument, whether he agrees with the methodology, and whether and why he disagrees with the source's conclusions in some respects and not others (for example, he considers one statement as a proper conclusions of a reliable inductive methodology, while the other is the source's mere opinion).
Precisely!!! That has been my point all along but for some reason, particular controversialists are either unable or unwilling to see it. I did not think what I have written over the years in this respect was any kind of rubix cube.
My intention was to point out how a fallacy is properly identified and what is intrinsic to its nature. Hence the manner in which I stated the thesis of the posting:
--A fallacy of argument is by definition erroneous in the areas of usage and application of logic and reason thereof and nothing else.
I realize that someone can come to correct conclusions with invalid or faulty arguments but outside of the supernatural sciences and certain mechanisms that are contained therein for providing solid points of reference, such situations are more conducive to dumb luck or simply betting on the come viz. picking a particular authority with which to accept the conclusion of. In everyday discussions though, the natural lights of reason and logic are ample when they are properly understood and inculcated. As far as the distinction between inductive and deductive, you are right but the tenor of my posting implies deductive reasoning.
Strictly speaking, deductive reasoning is the only reasoning which can be said to be reliable to a substantial degree when properly utilized as it is not as prone to the degree of open or nebulous constructs which inductive reasoning has. Furthermore, I do not see how inductive reasoning can ever be said to actually bind anyone rationally. Its value is in my view very circumscribed and anyone who would use it against an argument based on deduction would find themselves on the losing side far more frequently than not -all things presumed equal of course.
But at the same time, if one is committed to achieving true and correct beliefs by reasoning, as opposed to mere emotion or opinion, then one's arguments must be logically valid.
Without question.
Likewise, even on purely inductive matters, it might be permissible to appeal to authority in a way that is not proper for deductive arguments, but then only insofar as the authority in question is following a method of inquiry deemed reliable for establishing the sorts of conclusions being asserted (and the proponent should be plain if he is relying on someone else's expertise in this way, so that one can challenge the source's qualifications or methodology for the benefit of those who might rely on him).
Precisely. And as this is so rarely done, one can take it as a general norm that any appeal to authority will fail in this area unless demonstrated to the contrary. (Putting the burden of proof on the one so appealing where it belongs and not conversely.)
4. The last recommendation is simply my own personal preference, and I don't intend it to be an assertion of any cognitive duty so much as an option for your consideration.
Ok.
I personally prefer to bypass entirely the question as to whether what someone's words objectively manifest matches upwith their subjective intent. Frankly, if someone is willing to say "I meant X when I said Y," then I thenceforth act as if they said X even ifthere is no possible way that Y could objectively be interpreted to mean X. This is because, quite frankly, people sometimes just make mistakes (e.g.,typing the wrong thing, picking a statement without sufficient consideration), but no one ever wants to admit having made a mistake.
Well, pointing it out can give people reason to pause -particularly if they continue to claim they did not say something and accuse of "lying" various persons who see the same objective manifestation in their writings.
Rather than putting someone on the defensive about a mistake, which drags down the quality of the discussion, I would generally let the correction pass, because then at least what is being discussed is what ought to be discussed.
Generally this is true. But I know people who mess up in this area not infrequently and yet are not called out on it.
I freely confess that my bias in this regard is also motivated by the fact that some of the most disreptuable debaters on the Internet (e.g., Svendsen, Engwer, White) absolutely love the rhetorical tactic of accusing the opponent of mistake, using it even when the mistake is irrelevant and sometimes deliberately misrepresenting an opponent to createa mistake where none has been made.
Well, I do of course always presume good-will in all parties involved a priori even if this is not always explicitly apparent.{1} We both know that White and Svendsen do not do that nor does Engwer. I allow them to demonstrate that they are not acting in good will or at least provide me with sufficient enough motives of credibility to make an objective assessment on the matter. While not always an accurate read, my trackrecord in this area over the years is significantly more correct than incorrect.
Respectfully submitted, Jonathan Prejean
Thank you for your intelligent, thought-provoking input Jonathan. Let me know what you think of the reasons I noted above -my focus is essentially universal and particular on this posting as is often the case.
Note:
{1} A couple significant examples come to mind where this principle has been explicitly or implicitly noted over the years -including this one which was blogged very recently:
[S]ometimes a person can unknowingly convey a sense or impression towards others that they do not intend to convey. Certainly as a rule one must presume continuity in these areas. Nonetheless, at the same time, there are exceptions whereby the actions and statements of a person do not necessarily correctly reveal their inner intentions. And while one should strive at all times to verify things by objective criteria; at the same time, the evidence does not always point to the reality of something as it subsists in the mind of the other party involved in a dispute. With that in mind, and however it may appear to contradict objective manifestations, greater care at times needs to be given to what someone says they intend however appearances to the contrary may fail to countenance it. In other words: faith is required to some extent that an individual's assessment of their intentions is correct because by non-normative criteria it cannot be ascertained. This is not always easy to do mind you when there is a history of bad blood between persons. However, whenever an opportunity to put things right presents itself that manifests the possibility of success (however remote), I have always viewed it as something to be seized upon because one never knows when such opportunities may present themselves again if ever. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 5, 2007)]
The principle animating the above observations was encapsulated in a weblog post thread on charity from about three years ago in the following words which were written almost two hundred years before your weblog host was even born:
Always be ready and willing to excuse the faults of your neighbour, and never put an unfavourable interpretation upon his actions. The same action, says St. Francis de Sales, may be looked upon under many different aspects: a charitable person will ever suppose the best, an uncharitable person will just as certainly choose the worst. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 24, 2004)]
The above principle either explicitly or implicitly was referenced in a number of postings to this weblog prior to that time (the earliest being August 23, 2002) and quoted or linked to numerous posts subsequent to that time including the following ones found on a very brief (five minute) archival search of a few of the several possible search terms:
August 26, 2004, August 27, 2004, December 30, 2004, May 14, 2005, December 13, 2005, December 14, 2005, January 23, 2006, February 9, 2006, February 12, 2006, March 6, 2006, August 5, 2006, August 14, 2006, September 21, 2006, November 14, 2006.
If more time was taken and additional search terms were used, many others would be found both in the period prior to January 24, 2004 and particularly after it but the above ones will have to do at the present time.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Some Springtime Poetry:
For winter's rains and ruins are over,
And all the season of snows and sins;
The days dividing lover and lover,
The light that loses, the night that wins;
And time remembered is grief forgotten,
And frosts are slain and flowers begotten,
And in green underwood and cover
Blossom by blossom the spring begins.
-Algernon Charles Swinburne (circa. 1865)
For winter's rains and ruins are over,
And all the season of snows and sins;
The days dividing lover and lover,
The light that loses, the night that wins;
And time remembered is grief forgotten,
And frosts are slain and flowers begotten,
And in green underwood and cover
Blossom by blossom the spring begins.
-Algernon Charles Swinburne (circa. 1865)
Miscellaneous Threads Worth Noting:
Very briefly on each as time is short...
Investigation Reveals VA Hospital Conditions
Those who wonder why I take the approach I take towards the federal government being in charge of running too many things not within its general competence need only consider examples such as the one above. And anyone who thinks that nationalized health care will be some kind of panacea can consider how well the government already runs everything from VA hospitals to...well...countless other entities. (The public school system comes to mind to note one briefly.)
Furthermore, these kinds of problems are not new at all with the VA but to go into this will involve an examination of the issue of constitutionality and federal intervention. While I may touch again on these issues in the coming days or so, that is all I have time to note at the present time except (of course) that if any group is deserving of our nation's support, it is those who have fought to preserve our freedom in the armed forces either as active soldiers or as other forms of battlefield military support.
FBI Puts Local Officials on Notice About Extremists Trying to Sign Up to Be School Bus Drivers
Hopefully enough people have perspective of recent historical events to make any comment by your host unnecessary at the present time.
Very briefly on each as time is short...
Investigation Reveals VA Hospital Conditions
Those who wonder why I take the approach I take towards the federal government being in charge of running too many things not within its general competence need only consider examples such as the one above. And anyone who thinks that nationalized health care will be some kind of panacea can consider how well the government already runs everything from VA hospitals to...well...countless other entities. (The public school system comes to mind to note one briefly.)
Furthermore, these kinds of problems are not new at all with the VA but to go into this will involve an examination of the issue of constitutionality and federal intervention. While I may touch again on these issues in the coming days or so, that is all I have time to note at the present time except (of course) that if any group is deserving of our nation's support, it is those who have fought to preserve our freedom in the armed forces either as active soldiers or as other forms of battlefield military support.
FBI Puts Local Officials on Notice About Extremists Trying to Sign Up to Be School Bus Drivers
Hopefully enough people have perspective of recent historical events to make any comment by your host unnecessary at the present time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)