Points to Ponder:
(From John Adams)
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
In politics the middle way is none at all.
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
On the "Catholics Against Rudy" Website:
Steve Dillard (formerly of Southern Appeal) has launched finally his Catholics Against Rudy website and I note it here so that readers of this humble weblog are aware that I support this endeavour. I have noted before that Rudy Guiliani would make a fine attorney general or even director of the FBI but not a good president.{1} The difference in the positions is not insignificant. The presidency is supposed to be a position of national influence and the morality of the officeholder is of no small significance. Rudy claims to be a Catholic and yet his stated positions in not a few areas{2} are contrary to accepted positions for Catholics to hold and profess.
Whatever one wants to say about the other candidates, they do not claim to be Catholic and flout what the Catholic Church teaches on several important issues as Rudy does. That is one argument whereby Catholics can oppose his candidacy at this time. For others who do not find this a convincing argument , try this one: Rudy Guiliani does not deserve support as president as long as there are more qualified people out there than him.
I am aware that there are differences in how some issues are interpreted. For that reason, I want to do my part at this time to ask fellow Catholics to support this venture and leave aside differences on interpretation of broader concepts for another day. The cause of shooting down Rudy Guiliani for the Republican nomination for president is more important than rehashing battles which can be fought another day.
Oh and lest I forget to mention it, after the next posting I am going to take the rest of the "blogging" month off here at Rerum Novarum which means no more postings until the start of the next "blogging month" (July 22, 2007).
Notes:
{1} I like Rudy Guiliani as Director of the FBI or as Attorney General but not as president. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 20, 2007)]
{2} Most notably the subject of abortion. To note two of the several threads written in the past on that subject for this humble weblog:
On Fundamental Rights, Common Law Principles, and Abortion (circa February 1, 2007)
A Brief Rerum Novarum Recapitulation Thread on the Abortion Subject (circa January 25, 2005)
Steve Dillard (formerly of Southern Appeal) has launched finally his Catholics Against Rudy website and I note it here so that readers of this humble weblog are aware that I support this endeavour. I have noted before that Rudy Guiliani would make a fine attorney general or even director of the FBI but not a good president.{1} The difference in the positions is not insignificant. The presidency is supposed to be a position of national influence and the morality of the officeholder is of no small significance. Rudy claims to be a Catholic and yet his stated positions in not a few areas{2} are contrary to accepted positions for Catholics to hold and profess.
Whatever one wants to say about the other candidates, they do not claim to be Catholic and flout what the Catholic Church teaches on several important issues as Rudy does. That is one argument whereby Catholics can oppose his candidacy at this time. For others who do not find this a convincing argument , try this one: Rudy Guiliani does not deserve support as president as long as there are more qualified people out there than him.
I am aware that there are differences in how some issues are interpreted. For that reason, I want to do my part at this time to ask fellow Catholics to support this venture and leave aside differences on interpretation of broader concepts for another day. The cause of shooting down Rudy Guiliani for the Republican nomination for president is more important than rehashing battles which can be fought another day.
Oh and lest I forget to mention it, after the next posting I am going to take the rest of the "blogging" month off here at Rerum Novarum which means no more postings until the start of the next "blogging month" (July 22, 2007).
Notes:
{1} I like Rudy Guiliani as Director of the FBI or as Attorney General but not as president. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 20, 2007)]
{2} Most notably the subject of abortion. To note two of the several threads written in the past on that subject for this humble weblog:
On Fundamental Rights, Common Law Principles, and Abortion (circa February 1, 2007)
A Brief Rerum Novarum Recapitulation Thread on the Abortion Subject (circa January 25, 2005)
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Points to Ponder:
(From George Washington)
(From George Washington)
It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn.
The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all.
Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for, I have grown not only gray, but almost blind in the service of my country.
Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.
No morn ever dawned more favorable than ours did; and no day was every more clouded than the present! Wisdom, and good examples are necessary at this time to rescue the political machine from the impending storm.
No morn ever dawned more favorable than ours did; and no day was every more clouded than the present! Wisdom, and good examples are necessary at this time to rescue the political machine from the impending storm.
There is a rank due to the United States, among nations, which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.
On President Bush and His Administration As of Mid 2007:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
There are a variety of things to point to in mid-2007 with regards to the presidency of George W. Bush. The most obvious ones thus far have to do with the war in Iraq, with the progress of the US Supreme Court, and the illegal amnesty subject. I will touch on these first before getting to other subject starting with the subject of the alien amnesty issue.
I noted a couple of times back in June{1} that I was coming to the conclusion that the immigration approach that President Bush wanted to undertake was potentially an impeachable offense -indeed this was the reason I decided to shelve a project I have worked on intermittently dealing with the whole "impeachment of Bush" issue.{2} However, as we noted the other day, since the illegal immigrant amnesty bill is dead and will not be revivable until the next congress and presidency for various and sundry reasons{3}, essentially President Bush dodged a bullet on this matter and therefore the subject previously noted as being shelved may be revived and completed for posting before the end of the year time and motivation-willing on my part.{4}
With regards to the US Supreme Court, as I noted recently{5},the signs are there that this court will be far more constitutional than many of its predecessors in recent decades. However, as National Review noted in an editorial recently, thus far the moves have been very modest ones despite the hysterical tones of many who view the Constitution not as the law of the land but as some sort of clay lump to mould as they see fit. The offer to play "evolving rules Texas Hold'Em to illustrate the absurdity of the "evolving constitution" crowd is extended once again to those sorts in the same fashion as we outlined it over two years ago:
The writer of this post would like to take this opportunity to to invite anyone who believes in an evolving constitutional interpretation to email him if they are fans of Texas Hold 'Em and are interested in playing for money. For your humble servant is not only a pretty decent poker player but he also has in mind starting a game with people like you for money to illustrate by demonstration the logical absurdity of your positions: Texas Hold 'Em with "evolving rules."[...] Something tells your host that such a game would amply clarify the absurdity of the "evolving constitution" position in precise proportion to the amount of money the promoters of the "evolving constitutional interpretation" theory lost their cash in the aforeproposed card game. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 25, 2005)]
Gee, thus far none of the readers of this humble weblog who have explicitly or implicitly taken the position of an "evolving Constitution" have taken us up on our challenge. Why is that??? It is because they know damn well they would never win a single hand. And yes I can say that not because I am unbeatable at poker but because of the principle of "evolving hand values."
Rationally, if you do not take a fixed approach to a law, precept, or principle, then they are subject to change. Noting that, it should also be considered that there would be a weird notion in place if such persons were to ascribe some fixed schedule for such evolutions when they do not recognize the concept of fixity to laws, precepts, or principles to begin with. So in the game of "evolving rules Texas Hold'Em", the values of the hands would change often -perhaps even hand to hand at times or intermittently during hands.
After all, no matter what I had in my hand, I could go all in and "win" because the "interpretation" of what hand was higher would change constantly to reflect what I was holding in my own hand.{6} As absurd as this premise may sound, stop and think for a moment what absurdity my proposed game plan is intended to illustrate.
It is impossible for there to be a stable society where the law is so manipulated as these sorts favouring an "evolving Constitution" would like to see. However, at the same time it is important to have some degree of room for revision of the laws of the land if we are to avoid being in the position of advocating that the law is made for man rather than the converse.{7} That is why the Founders put the amendment procedure into the mix at the very beginning: to insure that any adjustments to the Constitution would require effort to undertake and would require a super majority of states to ratify. This was to affirm the important understanding that law was not a minor trifle but instead was to some extent a requirement for societal stability by codifying the natural right of all to defend themselves and their natural God-given rights.
On the war front, the Iraq surge strategery is on the whole going pretty good. The Bush Administration is wisely understating this a bit in the period before a progress report due in September is released. No matter what the report says, it is going to be spun in as negative of a fashion as the msm and its willingseditionist comrades allies in the Democratic party and other places have a vested interest in seeing defeat in Iraq by any means necessary.
The economy is in excellent shape and the Democratic congress is trying desperately to make hay on minutiae issues -spinning irrelevant molehills into mountains. The whole firing of the attorneys "scandal" was touched on by this writer earlier in the year as the whole non-issue it was and the whole "lets defund Cheney's office" schtick is more of the same. As far as those who want to whine about President Bush's commutation of the sentence of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, they should consider the various degenerates that President Clinton pardoned{8} and their own silence about them before wasting my time or anyone else's with such gnats at the expense of genuine camels.{9}
Basically, the Dems cannot win on any of the major issues and they know it. Otherwise, they would stick with the significant issues and one issue which is not significant at all is yet another waste of time and ink on studying the "lead up to the war" or whatever. But this is the sort of time-wasting garbage that political losers do and the 20% approval rating Congress has now{10} is only going to go down further still the more they do it.
The more I have mused on their behaviour, the more apparent it is that their entire approach is akin to the old Articles of Confederation where the power was vested solely in a congressional body. For readers who do not know history very well, that is the sort of governmental arrangement that the Founding Fathers sought to do away with in writing the Constitution of the United States which intended to support and sustain a strong and vigorous executive branch. But to say anymore on that at the moment would be to tangent off and I want to wrap this thread up now.
On the whole, the Bush Administration is doing better in 2007 than in 2006 or 2005 but sometimes this is in spite of their intentions on some issues rather than because of them. History will give a better accounting to this administration than the contemporary ahistoric partisan and ignorant sorts currently are. Offhand, my guess is that it will rank about average overall. But right now, things are looking about as good as they probably can for an Administration which is on the verge of getting overall favourable news about the effects of the surge in Iraq come September. After all, we have an economy at very low unemployment, low inflation, a president who cannot run for re-election and who may have another court vacancy to fill. We also have a president who no longer has to worry about committing a kind of political hari-kiri with the illegal immigration issue as they were doing before that issue was rendered politically dead until the next Congress/Administration.
Notes:
{1} I am inclining towards the view that the immigration policy President Bush wants to undertake is itself a potentially impeachable offense!!! [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 8, 2007) and reiterated in a Rerum Novarum Post (circa June 23, 2007)]
{2} While appearing to not have much to do with the above thread per se, it is interesting that I have had on the drafting table for quite a while a planned post responding to twenty-five so-called "arguments" for impeaching President Bush. Most of those objections have been refuted in the draft as it is written now but the reason I am not likely to finish it anytime soon is this:
--I am inclining towards the view that the immigration policy President Bush wants to undertake is itself a potentially impeachable offense!!!
I do not intend to set forth the full panopoly of arguments to explain this at the present time. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 8, 2007)]
{3} Namely that most of those nimrod congresspeople who supported this would be defeated if they had to run for re-election after passing such a bill. (Excepting the states and districts where the voters are and have been stupid enough to keep electing the same incompetent incumbent senators and representatives because of the their ability to bring pork home to the district of course.)
{4} Admittedly I have lost any remaining motivation to complete it after the last round of trying to pass the illegal amnesty proposal and make it into law. The reason for lacking the motivation now is not because the arguments of the kooks are difficult to dispatch with. (Quite the contrary actually: the hardest part of it is finding the time to dispatch with them piece by piece in reasonable detail.) The problem is mainly that I have no confidence in President Bush to do much of anything right anymore. And since he has shown a lack of concern for having the back of those who have supported him over the years for the most part -or at the very least defended him from unfair attacks- why should anyone have his back now???
{5} It is about time the Supreme Court got away from activist agendas and got back to doing what it is supposed to do and the latter involves interpreting the Constitution not inventing out of whole cloth penumbra of a penumbra kind of bull crap and passing it off as "constitutional." Or absurd "right to privacy"[...] schtick and claiming that such things are "constitutional." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 29, 2007)]
{6} With the way the latter game is played, it is possible for an ace high to beat three of a kind, two pair to beat a flush, or three of a kind to beat a full house, etc...if the lower hands were held in that round by your weblog host of course :) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 25, 2005)]
{7} Those who wonder why true conservatives worthy of the name[...] have an abhorrence of the federal government intervening everywhere and anywhere this is the reason in a nutshell even if those conservatives have never stopped to crystallize their instinct into a coherent principle before. The reason is an instinctive understanding that law is made for man not man for law: the understanding that law's purpose is to protect legitimate rights not to grant them and not to revoke them. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 1, 2007)]
{8} It's about time someone sounded off regarding the hypocrisy surrounding President Bush's commutation of "Scooter" Libby. It took White House spokesman Tony Snow to set the record straight and challenge the Democrats to look at the record of former President Bill Clinton and the numerous pardons he issued. Bush's commutation pales by comparison. It appears the spineless Republican members of Congress don't have the backbone to stand up in defense of President Bush and his decision. Instead they are letting the Democrats berate and undermine the president's authority.
How soon people forget the mass pardons generously handed out during the waning days of the Clinton administration.
Now on the campaign stump Bill and Hillary have the gall to criticize the president for his commutation of Mr. Libby.
Once again, the Clintons show they have no shame or class. [Boyce Clark of Edmonds (WA): Letter to the Editor of The Everett Herald (circa July 9, 2007)]
{9} To use a biblical analogy.
{10} Bush by contrast has to like his roughly 30% rating by comparison.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
There are a variety of things to point to in mid-2007 with regards to the presidency of George W. Bush. The most obvious ones thus far have to do with the war in Iraq, with the progress of the US Supreme Court, and the illegal amnesty subject. I will touch on these first before getting to other subject starting with the subject of the alien amnesty issue.
I noted a couple of times back in June{1} that I was coming to the conclusion that the immigration approach that President Bush wanted to undertake was potentially an impeachable offense -indeed this was the reason I decided to shelve a project I have worked on intermittently dealing with the whole "impeachment of Bush" issue.{2} However, as we noted the other day, since the illegal immigrant amnesty bill is dead and will not be revivable until the next congress and presidency for various and sundry reasons{3}, essentially President Bush dodged a bullet on this matter and therefore the subject previously noted as being shelved may be revived and completed for posting before the end of the year time and motivation-willing on my part.{4}
With regards to the US Supreme Court, as I noted recently{5},the signs are there that this court will be far more constitutional than many of its predecessors in recent decades. However, as National Review noted in an editorial recently, thus far the moves have been very modest ones despite the hysterical tones of many who view the Constitution not as the law of the land but as some sort of clay lump to mould as they see fit. The offer to play "evolving rules Texas Hold'Em to illustrate the absurdity of the "evolving constitution" crowd is extended once again to those sorts in the same fashion as we outlined it over two years ago:
The writer of this post would like to take this opportunity to to invite anyone who believes in an evolving constitutional interpretation to email him if they are fans of Texas Hold 'Em and are interested in playing for money. For your humble servant is not only a pretty decent poker player but he also has in mind starting a game with people like you for money to illustrate by demonstration the logical absurdity of your positions: Texas Hold 'Em with "evolving rules."[...] Something tells your host that such a game would amply clarify the absurdity of the "evolving constitution" position in precise proportion to the amount of money the promoters of the "evolving constitutional interpretation" theory lost their cash in the aforeproposed card game. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 25, 2005)]
Gee, thus far none of the readers of this humble weblog who have explicitly or implicitly taken the position of an "evolving Constitution" have taken us up on our challenge. Why is that??? It is because they know damn well they would never win a single hand. And yes I can say that not because I am unbeatable at poker but because of the principle of "evolving hand values."
Rationally, if you do not take a fixed approach to a law, precept, or principle, then they are subject to change. Noting that, it should also be considered that there would be a weird notion in place if such persons were to ascribe some fixed schedule for such evolutions when they do not recognize the concept of fixity to laws, precepts, or principles to begin with. So in the game of "evolving rules Texas Hold'Em", the values of the hands would change often -perhaps even hand to hand at times or intermittently during hands.
After all, no matter what I had in my hand, I could go all in and "win" because the "interpretation" of what hand was higher would change constantly to reflect what I was holding in my own hand.{6} As absurd as this premise may sound, stop and think for a moment what absurdity my proposed game plan is intended to illustrate.
It is impossible for there to be a stable society where the law is so manipulated as these sorts favouring an "evolving Constitution" would like to see. However, at the same time it is important to have some degree of room for revision of the laws of the land if we are to avoid being in the position of advocating that the law is made for man rather than the converse.{7} That is why the Founders put the amendment procedure into the mix at the very beginning: to insure that any adjustments to the Constitution would require effort to undertake and would require a super majority of states to ratify. This was to affirm the important understanding that law was not a minor trifle but instead was to some extent a requirement for societal stability by codifying the natural right of all to defend themselves and their natural God-given rights.
On the war front, the Iraq surge strategery is on the whole going pretty good. The Bush Administration is wisely understating this a bit in the period before a progress report due in September is released. No matter what the report says, it is going to be spun in as negative of a fashion as the msm and its willing
The economy is in excellent shape and the Democratic congress is trying desperately to make hay on minutiae issues -spinning irrelevant molehills into mountains. The whole firing of the attorneys "scandal" was touched on by this writer earlier in the year as the whole non-issue it was and the whole "lets defund Cheney's office" schtick is more of the same. As far as those who want to whine about President Bush's commutation of the sentence of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, they should consider the various degenerates that President Clinton pardoned{8} and their own silence about them before wasting my time or anyone else's with such gnats at the expense of genuine camels.{9}
Basically, the Dems cannot win on any of the major issues and they know it. Otherwise, they would stick with the significant issues and one issue which is not significant at all is yet another waste of time and ink on studying the "lead up to the war" or whatever. But this is the sort of time-wasting garbage that political losers do and the 20% approval rating Congress has now{10} is only going to go down further still the more they do it.
The more I have mused on their behaviour, the more apparent it is that their entire approach is akin to the old Articles of Confederation where the power was vested solely in a congressional body. For readers who do not know history very well, that is the sort of governmental arrangement that the Founding Fathers sought to do away with in writing the Constitution of the United States which intended to support and sustain a strong and vigorous executive branch. But to say anymore on that at the moment would be to tangent off and I want to wrap this thread up now.
On the whole, the Bush Administration is doing better in 2007 than in 2006 or 2005 but sometimes this is in spite of their intentions on some issues rather than because of them. History will give a better accounting to this administration than the contemporary ahistoric partisan and ignorant sorts currently are. Offhand, my guess is that it will rank about average overall. But right now, things are looking about as good as they probably can for an Administration which is on the verge of getting overall favourable news about the effects of the surge in Iraq come September. After all, we have an economy at very low unemployment, low inflation, a president who cannot run for re-election and who may have another court vacancy to fill. We also have a president who no longer has to worry about committing a kind of political hari-kiri with the illegal immigration issue as they were doing before that issue was rendered politically dead until the next Congress/Administration.
Notes:
{1} I am inclining towards the view that the immigration policy President Bush wants to undertake is itself a potentially impeachable offense!!! [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 8, 2007) and reiterated in a Rerum Novarum Post (circa June 23, 2007)]
{2} While appearing to not have much to do with the above thread per se, it is interesting that I have had on the drafting table for quite a while a planned post responding to twenty-five so-called "arguments" for impeaching President Bush. Most of those objections have been refuted in the draft as it is written now but the reason I am not likely to finish it anytime soon is this:
--I am inclining towards the view that the immigration policy President Bush wants to undertake is itself a potentially impeachable offense!!!
I do not intend to set forth the full panopoly of arguments to explain this at the present time. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 8, 2007)]
{3} Namely that most of those nimrod congresspeople who supported this would be defeated if they had to run for re-election after passing such a bill. (Excepting the states and districts where the voters are and have been stupid enough to keep electing the same incompetent incumbent senators and representatives because of the their ability to bring pork home to the district of course.)
{4} Admittedly I have lost any remaining motivation to complete it after the last round of trying to pass the illegal amnesty proposal and make it into law. The reason for lacking the motivation now is not because the arguments of the kooks are difficult to dispatch with. (Quite the contrary actually: the hardest part of it is finding the time to dispatch with them piece by piece in reasonable detail.) The problem is mainly that I have no confidence in President Bush to do much of anything right anymore. And since he has shown a lack of concern for having the back of those who have supported him over the years for the most part -or at the very least defended him from unfair attacks- why should anyone have his back now???
{5} It is about time the Supreme Court got away from activist agendas and got back to doing what it is supposed to do and the latter involves interpreting the Constitution not inventing out of whole cloth penumbra of a penumbra kind of bull crap and passing it off as "constitutional." Or absurd "right to privacy"[...] schtick and claiming that such things are "constitutional." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 29, 2007)]
{6} With the way the latter game is played, it is possible for an ace high to beat three of a kind, two pair to beat a flush, or three of a kind to beat a full house, etc...if the lower hands were held in that round by your weblog host of course :) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 25, 2005)]
{7} Those who wonder why true conservatives worthy of the name[...] have an abhorrence of the federal government intervening everywhere and anywhere this is the reason in a nutshell even if those conservatives have never stopped to crystallize their instinct into a coherent principle before. The reason is an instinctive understanding that law is made for man not man for law: the understanding that law's purpose is to protect legitimate rights not to grant them and not to revoke them. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 1, 2007)]
{8} It's about time someone sounded off regarding the hypocrisy surrounding President Bush's commutation of "Scooter" Libby. It took White House spokesman Tony Snow to set the record straight and challenge the Democrats to look at the record of former President Bill Clinton and the numerous pardons he issued. Bush's commutation pales by comparison. It appears the spineless Republican members of Congress don't have the backbone to stand up in defense of President Bush and his decision. Instead they are letting the Democrats berate and undermine the president's authority.
How soon people forget the mass pardons generously handed out during the waning days of the Clinton administration.
Now on the campaign stump Bill and Hillary have the gall to criticize the president for his commutation of Mr. Libby.
Once again, the Clintons show they have no shame or class. [Boyce Clark of Edmonds (WA): Letter to the Editor of The Everett Herald (circa July 9, 2007)]
{9} To use a biblical analogy.
{10} Bush by contrast has to like his roughly 30% rating by comparison.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Guest Editorial Outlining the Importance of Geopolitical Sanity and Knowledge of History Amidst a Sea of Rationally-Challenged Illiterates and the Historically Ignorant:
(By Donald R. McClarey)
I should note at the outset that this material is being posted with permission from the author. Because it was originally put up in a different context, the material may read a bit jagged but I wanted to keep it as close to the original as I could. For the sake of differentiation, I have put the words of the misinformed pseudo-"peacemaker" (or should I say useful idiot for Al Queda???) in red font to highlight the colour of their true sympathies and Donald's words in reply will be in blue font with any sources he quotes in darkblue font. Without further ado...
##########################
For those who wonder why this site is needed, I submit a copy of an e-mail I sent out tonight to a Catholic gentleman who took me to task for my recent comments on Open Book. My responses are underneath each of the quoted sections:
1."Not even the Bush people peddle that line. 93% of the Iraqi's want the American soliders out of the country. The only reason we are there is because the PNAC manifesto was adopted by Bush and others and a bogus war was launched. This was to neutralize Iraq and secure the oil fields, and the all important pipline to Haifa."
PNAC manifesto causing the invasion of Iraq? Please, that is tinfoil hat wearing conspiratorial garbage and unworthy of a response. We went to war against Saddam for numerous reasons, all of which were set forth in the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force. As for the Iraqi people, their freely elected government can ask us to depart at any time and we will. They haven't yet because they realize the blood bath that would ensue if US forces were to depart right now.
2. "Saddam was a dictator but one who allowed Catholics to practice their faith. America has installed more dictators in the world in the past 150 years, than there are states in our union. "
Actually the US has worked with the local governments thrown up by competing factions in other nations. The idea that the US is a malign force preventing people from choosing their own governments is ahistoric. Of course you hold this belief while also condemning the US for toppling a dictator and fostering democracy in Iraq. The US in your eyes is evil if it works with a dictator and evil if it topples a dictator. As to Catholics in Iraq, they made up their fair share of Saddam's victims, and now are under assault from the Jihadists who we are fighting. You of course would like us to withdraw yesterday and leave these fellow Catholics to the tender mercy of the beheaders.
3. "John NegroPonte turned a blind eye to the massacres in Central America in the 1980's.
And he is just one of many with blood soaked hands that helped push this war in Iraq. "
Balderdash. The Reagan policy in Central America prevented the creation of a series of little Cubas where the populations would have to endured the type of tyranny that have caused millions of Cubans to flee their own country. The attitude of the Sandanistas when the Pope visited Nicaragua in the 80s showed the contempt the Marxists had for the Catholic faith.
4. "America was not threatened by Iraq. and if Iraq had WMD's at one time, it is because America sold them to Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld was the salesman in 1983!"
You really don't know your history do you? The US had zero involvement in any chemical weapons produced by Saddam. His arms purchases from the US during 1973-1990 constituted .5% of total arms sales to Iraq. Arms from the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact totaled 68.9%, France 12.7% and mainland China 11.8%. Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. As to Iraq not constituting a threat are you kidding me? In 1990 Saddam attempted to corner the world oil market by seizing Kuwait. He failed to honor any of the terms of the truce which ended the First Gulf War. He was up his eyeballs in the first World Trade Center bombing and an attempt to assassinate Bush 41. Through the oil for food scam he was rapidly rebuilding his military. He had links, and had given funding, to most Arab terrorist groups. He was a clear and present danger.
5. "Israel has 800-2000 nukes, and yet not one American politician calls for inspections. If they have nukes they are not allowed to receive any aid. israel kiiled 34 unarmed americans in 1967. Iraq has killed no Americans, until forced to defend itself."
Got a thing about Jews don't you? It doesn't matter to us if Israel has nukes. They are not a threat to us, just as we do not care that the Brits or the French have nukes. Iraq didn't kill many Americans during the First Gulf War, but it wasn't for want of trying, or do you contend that Iraq was merely defending itself when it invaded Kuwait? As for the attack on the Liberty, Israel instantly apologized and paid compensation to the families of the survivors. In other words it acted like a friendly power that had made a mistake and not an enemy power out to kill Americans.
6. "George Bush is a man who has introduced real WMD's into the nation of Iraq by using depleted Urainium."
You really have got to stop getting your information from Moonbat sites on the net. Depleted uranium rounds pose no health risk except to occupants of an armored vehicle when the rounds slam home.
7. "Any Catholic who supports Bush and his Neo Bolsheviks in their pursuit of plundering other nations is acting in opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church ,which has ruled this war
totally unjust. "
The Church hasn't ruled the war unjust, and all the neo-Bolsheviks probably contribute to anti-Bush sites you frequent. You will find a lot of them under a group known as A.N.S.W.E.R
My correspondent came back for more. Interesting how wackdoodle Bush hatred often walks in tandem with Jew hatred. The last comment from my correspondent is classic.
1."Your responses offer a level of obstinate ignorance in the face of indisputable truth."
That statement has as much substance as "No, I'm right, you're wrong."
2."Please look up the definition of delusional."
Why, when I see such a fine example of it in your ravings?
2. "Yes, the good ole USA only acts to do good and help other nations all the time. And Jews are the friends of America."
Yes almost all the time to the first, and most Jews I believe are friends of America due to our lack of persecution of members of their faith, no doubt to your dismay.
3." Do you also believe the Jews who brutally took over Palestine in 1946-1948 did so because God wanted them there."
No, they created Israel by accepting the UN division of Palestine. The Palestinians did not because they thought they could exterminate the Jews with the aid of the armies of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Egypt. Big mistake. To the astonishment of the world, the outnumbered Jews won.
4. "Look, you are 100% wrong on the USS Liberty. Obviously you never served in the military."
Three years in the US Army Reserves 1975-78.
5. "The radar codes that are emitted from ships have a unique fingerprint which identifies them as US. French etc...
The Israel defense forces had to jam our radar in order to prevent the USS Liberty from radioing for help. That means they had to jam USA military codes.
It was not a mistake and our American flag on that ship was 15 x 30. 2 Israeli pilots were punished for refusing to attack the ship becasue they knew it was American. Israel never admitted it was a mistake. "
Too bad every official report has found that the attack was a tragic error caused by the Israeli pilots misidentifying the ship. You can find these reports online:
U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry, June 18, 1967
" Available evidence combines to indicate the attack on the Liberty on 8 June was in fact a case of mistaken identity."
CIA Report, June 13, 1967
The attack was a mistake. In 1978, in a response to an inquiry, Director of Central Intelligence Stansfield Turner wrote: "It remains our best judgment that the Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty was not made in malice toward the United States and was a mistake."
Joint Chiefs of Staff, Russ Report, June 9-20, 1967 General Russ did not make any findings about the actual attack. The report compiled all message traffic and contains no evidence that the attack was not a mistake.
Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, Clifford Report, July 18, 1967
"The information thus far available does not reflect that the Israeli high command made a premeditated attack on a ship known to be American…. "
National Security Agency, 1981
"Liberty was mistaken for an Egyptian ship as a result of miscalculation and egregious errors."
Israeli Report
Ram Ron Commission of Inquiry, June 16, 1967
"[T]he attack on the ship by the Israeli Defense Forces was made neither maliciously nor in gross negligence, but as a result of a bona fide mistake."
6. "You think DU is not toxic? Then why was it banned under international treaties? The known birth defects from its use are well documented."
More Moonbattery. Here are the facts:
"Study Finds Little Risk From Depleted-Uranium Particles
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Oct. 19, 2004 – A new study finds the health risks from inhaling airborne particles of depleted uranium are very low.
The Capstone Study found that even soldiers in armored vehicles hit by depleted-uranium munitions would still not suffer health risks from inhaling the particles. Of course, officials said, soldiers would certainly have other problems if their tank or armored personnel carrier was hit by a depleted- uranium round.
The U.S. military uses depleted uranium as armor and in munitions. The five- year, $6 million study, analyzed for the Army and the DoD Deployment Health Support Directorate by Batelle Memorial Institute, found that even in extreme cases exposure to "aerosolized" depleted uranium did not pose a health risk.
The study looked at the health risks faced by servicemembers who had been in an armored vehicle that was breached by a depleted-uranium round. It also looked at the exposures mechanics or other maintenance personnel would get from working in such a vehicle. "What we found in this study is the highest-exposed individuals are those that are in, on or near vehicles when they were struck," said Army Lt. Col. Mark Melanson.
"What we found is the radiation doses for people in that situation are below peacetime safety standards," he continued. "We also found that the chemical risks of breathing in uranium dust is so low that it won't cause any long-term health risks."
Melanson, who holds a doctorate in radiation health sciences, is the program manager of the Health Physics Program at the Army's Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.
DoD has been assessing the safety of depleted uranium for more than 30 years. The radiation risk from the rounds and armor is negligible. Melanson pointed out that uranium is a common element. Depleted uranium has most of the U-235 isotope -- the type used to make atomic bombs -- taken out of it, leaving the more stable U-238.
But uranium is a heavy metal and, like lead or mercury, can pose problems if enough is ingested.
Specialists at Aberdeen fired depleted-uranium rounds at the turrets of M-1 tanks and at Bradley fighting vehicles. They measured the concentration of DU inside the turrets and passenger compartments and compared those rates with allowable peacetime standards. The levels were below the standards set for peacetime civilian workers.
"If it's safe for workers in the States to receive these exposures during peacetime, it's definitely safe for our troops to receive them in combat when there are other more dangerous risks out there on the battlefield," Melanson said.
The study is further proof that DU poses little danger. Since 1993, the Department of Veterans Affairs has been assessing the health of American soldiers wounded in 1991's Operation Desert Storm by depleted-uranium rounds. These individuals have particles of depleted uranium remaining inside them.
"There are no health affects attributable to DU," Melanson said. "There are health problems from their wounding, but nothing from depleted uranium."
7. "America sold Iraq its WMD and it was Donald Rumsfeld who was the salesman."
Only in Moonbat land. The US sold no chemical or biological weapons to Iraq.
8. "You forget that John Negroponte helped to organize and fund the death squads in Guatemala under General Martinez, a man responsible for 50,000 deaths in the region. General Martinez was his most frequent lunch guest."
You can't even keep the info you get from kook leftist or paleocon web sites straight. Negroponte was ambassador to Honduras not Guatemala. General Gustavo Alvarez Martinez is probably the man you are attempting to refer to. He was the head of the Honduran military while Negroponte was ambassador. As for the figure of 50,000, here is the reality:
"The human rights situation deteriorated significantly after the return to civilian rule in 1982. Under the new civilian president, the military, under the command of General Gustavo Álvarez Martínez, initiated a campaign against leftists. This campaign allegedly led to the disappearance of more than 100 people. Small insurgent groups also began operating during this period, but the overwhelming majority of political killings were carried out by the military, according to human rights observers. Although this violence paled in comparison to that in neighboring El Salvador and Guatemala, it marked a departure from the relatively tranquil Honduran political environment. " Source: Library of Congress Country Studies.
Where you get the 50,000 figure from, only God and the Moonbats know.
8. "The Downing Street memos prove that Bush had no reason to invade Iraq. He went with WMD because there was no link to Osama or anyone else. The war is all about reordering the Middle east according to the PNAC manifesto which if you ever read it, which you have not, clearly outlines regime change in Iraq, Syria and Iran, as good for the United States"
Actually virtually every intelligence agency on Earth thought that Saddam had WMDs. His own generals were shocked during the war when Saddam did not order the use of chemical weapons because they assumed he had them. The rest of what you say is typical of the type of paranoia common among conspiracy mongers.
9. " As to the Israelis and their illegal nukes, why are you so willing to turn a blind eye to the law?"
Actually, Israel possessing nukes is no more illegal than the US possessing nukes. I assume that your statement is merely rhetorical, and you are not referring to a specific statute of Israel that would prevent it from having nuclear weapons.
10. "I assuem you are a Jewish Zionist. Let me encourage you to convert to the One True Faith soon, as the blood curse your forefathers called down upon you, will remain with you, until you are baptized."
Actually, as you might have guessed from my name, my forebears are Scots and Irish with a few Cherokees tossed in for seasoning. I am a Catholic as you might also have guessed from my frequent posts at Open Book. As for you, you are a deluded anti-Semite. Here is something for you to contemplate. Saint Ignatius of Loyola was warned that one of his novices might have Jewish blood. This was at a time when such a charge was serious business in Spain. The Saint responded how fortunate for the novice in having a blood kinship with Our Lord and His mother.
Free yourself from the foul hatred that obviously has you in its grip, lest it be held against you when your soul comes before Christ.
##########################
Oh and I would be remiss if I did not thank Donald for saving me a lot of time rehashing these subjects myself which I had planned to do around the time I came across this material. And while I do not always agree with the contents of guest editorials, with the above it converges so well with what I would say (if not in how I would say it) that I want to note that here for the benefit of those reading this text.
(By Donald R. McClarey)
I should note at the outset that this material is being posted with permission from the author. Because it was originally put up in a different context, the material may read a bit jagged but I wanted to keep it as close to the original as I could. For the sake of differentiation, I have put the words of the misinformed pseudo-"peacemaker" (or should I say useful idiot for Al Queda???) in red font to highlight the colour of their true sympathies and Donald's words in reply will be in blue font with any sources he quotes in darkblue font. Without further ado...
##########################
For those who wonder why this site is needed, I submit a copy of an e-mail I sent out tonight to a Catholic gentleman who took me to task for my recent comments on Open Book. My responses are underneath each of the quoted sections:
1."Not even the Bush people peddle that line. 93% of the Iraqi's want the American soliders out of the country. The only reason we are there is because the PNAC manifesto was adopted by Bush and others and a bogus war was launched. This was to neutralize Iraq and secure the oil fields, and the all important pipline to Haifa."
PNAC manifesto causing the invasion of Iraq? Please, that is tinfoil hat wearing conspiratorial garbage and unworthy of a response. We went to war against Saddam for numerous reasons, all of which were set forth in the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force. As for the Iraqi people, their freely elected government can ask us to depart at any time and we will. They haven't yet because they realize the blood bath that would ensue if US forces were to depart right now.
2. "Saddam was a dictator but one who allowed Catholics to practice their faith. America has installed more dictators in the world in the past 150 years, than there are states in our union. "
Actually the US has worked with the local governments thrown up by competing factions in other nations. The idea that the US is a malign force preventing people from choosing their own governments is ahistoric. Of course you hold this belief while also condemning the US for toppling a dictator and fostering democracy in Iraq. The US in your eyes is evil if it works with a dictator and evil if it topples a dictator. As to Catholics in Iraq, they made up their fair share of Saddam's victims, and now are under assault from the Jihadists who we are fighting. You of course would like us to withdraw yesterday and leave these fellow Catholics to the tender mercy of the beheaders.
3. "John NegroPonte turned a blind eye to the massacres in Central America in the 1980's.
And he is just one of many with blood soaked hands that helped push this war in Iraq. "
Balderdash. The Reagan policy in Central America prevented the creation of a series of little Cubas where the populations would have to endured the type of tyranny that have caused millions of Cubans to flee their own country. The attitude of the Sandanistas when the Pope visited Nicaragua in the 80s showed the contempt the Marxists had for the Catholic faith.
4. "America was not threatened by Iraq. and if Iraq had WMD's at one time, it is because America sold them to Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld was the salesman in 1983!"
You really don't know your history do you? The US had zero involvement in any chemical weapons produced by Saddam. His arms purchases from the US during 1973-1990 constituted .5% of total arms sales to Iraq. Arms from the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact totaled 68.9%, France 12.7% and mainland China 11.8%. Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. As to Iraq not constituting a threat are you kidding me? In 1990 Saddam attempted to corner the world oil market by seizing Kuwait. He failed to honor any of the terms of the truce which ended the First Gulf War. He was up his eyeballs in the first World Trade Center bombing and an attempt to assassinate Bush 41. Through the oil for food scam he was rapidly rebuilding his military. He had links, and had given funding, to most Arab terrorist groups. He was a clear and present danger.
5. "Israel has 800-2000 nukes, and yet not one American politician calls for inspections. If they have nukes they are not allowed to receive any aid. israel kiiled 34 unarmed americans in 1967. Iraq has killed no Americans, until forced to defend itself."
Got a thing about Jews don't you? It doesn't matter to us if Israel has nukes. They are not a threat to us, just as we do not care that the Brits or the French have nukes. Iraq didn't kill many Americans during the First Gulf War, but it wasn't for want of trying, or do you contend that Iraq was merely defending itself when it invaded Kuwait? As for the attack on the Liberty, Israel instantly apologized and paid compensation to the families of the survivors. In other words it acted like a friendly power that had made a mistake and not an enemy power out to kill Americans.
6. "George Bush is a man who has introduced real WMD's into the nation of Iraq by using depleted Urainium."
You really have got to stop getting your information from Moonbat sites on the net. Depleted uranium rounds pose no health risk except to occupants of an armored vehicle when the rounds slam home.
7. "Any Catholic who supports Bush and his Neo Bolsheviks in their pursuit of plundering other nations is acting in opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church ,which has ruled this war
totally unjust. "
The Church hasn't ruled the war unjust, and all the neo-Bolsheviks probably contribute to anti-Bush sites you frequent. You will find a lot of them under a group known as A.N.S.W.E.R
My correspondent came back for more. Interesting how wackdoodle Bush hatred often walks in tandem with Jew hatred. The last comment from my correspondent is classic.
1."Your responses offer a level of obstinate ignorance in the face of indisputable truth."
That statement has as much substance as "No, I'm right, you're wrong."
2."Please look up the definition of delusional."
Why, when I see such a fine example of it in your ravings?
2. "Yes, the good ole USA only acts to do good and help other nations all the time. And Jews are the friends of America."
Yes almost all the time to the first, and most Jews I believe are friends of America due to our lack of persecution of members of their faith, no doubt to your dismay.
3." Do you also believe the Jews who brutally took over Palestine in 1946-1948 did so because God wanted them there."
No, they created Israel by accepting the UN division of Palestine. The Palestinians did not because they thought they could exterminate the Jews with the aid of the armies of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Egypt. Big mistake. To the astonishment of the world, the outnumbered Jews won.
4. "Look, you are 100% wrong on the USS Liberty. Obviously you never served in the military."
Three years in the US Army Reserves 1975-78.
5. "The radar codes that are emitted from ships have a unique fingerprint which identifies them as US. French etc...
The Israel defense forces had to jam our radar in order to prevent the USS Liberty from radioing for help. That means they had to jam USA military codes.
It was not a mistake and our American flag on that ship was 15 x 30. 2 Israeli pilots were punished for refusing to attack the ship becasue they knew it was American. Israel never admitted it was a mistake. "
Too bad every official report has found that the attack was a tragic error caused by the Israeli pilots misidentifying the ship. You can find these reports online:
U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry, June 18, 1967
" Available evidence combines to indicate the attack on the Liberty on 8 June was in fact a case of mistaken identity."
CIA Report, June 13, 1967
The attack was a mistake. In 1978, in a response to an inquiry, Director of Central Intelligence Stansfield Turner wrote: "It remains our best judgment that the Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty was not made in malice toward the United States and was a mistake."
Joint Chiefs of Staff, Russ Report, June 9-20, 1967 General Russ did not make any findings about the actual attack. The report compiled all message traffic and contains no evidence that the attack was not a mistake.
Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, Clifford Report, July 18, 1967
"The information thus far available does not reflect that the Israeli high command made a premeditated attack on a ship known to be American…. "
National Security Agency, 1981
"Liberty was mistaken for an Egyptian ship as a result of miscalculation and egregious errors."
Israeli Report
Ram Ron Commission of Inquiry, June 16, 1967
"[T]he attack on the ship by the Israeli Defense Forces was made neither maliciously nor in gross negligence, but as a result of a bona fide mistake."
6. "You think DU is not toxic? Then why was it banned under international treaties? The known birth defects from its use are well documented."
More Moonbattery. Here are the facts:
"Study Finds Little Risk From Depleted-Uranium Particles
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Oct. 19, 2004 – A new study finds the health risks from inhaling airborne particles of depleted uranium are very low.
The Capstone Study found that even soldiers in armored vehicles hit by depleted-uranium munitions would still not suffer health risks from inhaling the particles. Of course, officials said, soldiers would certainly have other problems if their tank or armored personnel carrier was hit by a depleted- uranium round.
The U.S. military uses depleted uranium as armor and in munitions. The five- year, $6 million study, analyzed for the Army and the DoD Deployment Health Support Directorate by Batelle Memorial Institute, found that even in extreme cases exposure to "aerosolized" depleted uranium did not pose a health risk.
The study looked at the health risks faced by servicemembers who had been in an armored vehicle that was breached by a depleted-uranium round. It also looked at the exposures mechanics or other maintenance personnel would get from working in such a vehicle. "What we found in this study is the highest-exposed individuals are those that are in, on or near vehicles when they were struck," said Army Lt. Col. Mark Melanson.
"What we found is the radiation doses for people in that situation are below peacetime safety standards," he continued. "We also found that the chemical risks of breathing in uranium dust is so low that it won't cause any long-term health risks."
Melanson, who holds a doctorate in radiation health sciences, is the program manager of the Health Physics Program at the Army's Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.
DoD has been assessing the safety of depleted uranium for more than 30 years. The radiation risk from the rounds and armor is negligible. Melanson pointed out that uranium is a common element. Depleted uranium has most of the U-235 isotope -- the type used to make atomic bombs -- taken out of it, leaving the more stable U-238.
But uranium is a heavy metal and, like lead or mercury, can pose problems if enough is ingested.
Specialists at Aberdeen fired depleted-uranium rounds at the turrets of M-1 tanks and at Bradley fighting vehicles. They measured the concentration of DU inside the turrets and passenger compartments and compared those rates with allowable peacetime standards. The levels were below the standards set for peacetime civilian workers.
"If it's safe for workers in the States to receive these exposures during peacetime, it's definitely safe for our troops to receive them in combat when there are other more dangerous risks out there on the battlefield," Melanson said.
The study is further proof that DU poses little danger. Since 1993, the Department of Veterans Affairs has been assessing the health of American soldiers wounded in 1991's Operation Desert Storm by depleted-uranium rounds. These individuals have particles of depleted uranium remaining inside them.
"There are no health affects attributable to DU," Melanson said. "There are health problems from their wounding, but nothing from depleted uranium."
7. "America sold Iraq its WMD and it was Donald Rumsfeld who was the salesman."
Only in Moonbat land. The US sold no chemical or biological weapons to Iraq.
8. "You forget that John Negroponte helped to organize and fund the death squads in Guatemala under General Martinez, a man responsible for 50,000 deaths in the region. General Martinez was his most frequent lunch guest."
You can't even keep the info you get from kook leftist or paleocon web sites straight. Negroponte was ambassador to Honduras not Guatemala. General Gustavo Alvarez Martinez is probably the man you are attempting to refer to. He was the head of the Honduran military while Negroponte was ambassador. As for the figure of 50,000, here is the reality:
"The human rights situation deteriorated significantly after the return to civilian rule in 1982. Under the new civilian president, the military, under the command of General Gustavo Álvarez Martínez, initiated a campaign against leftists. This campaign allegedly led to the disappearance of more than 100 people. Small insurgent groups also began operating during this period, but the overwhelming majority of political killings were carried out by the military, according to human rights observers. Although this violence paled in comparison to that in neighboring El Salvador and Guatemala, it marked a departure from the relatively tranquil Honduran political environment. " Source: Library of Congress Country Studies.
Where you get the 50,000 figure from, only God and the Moonbats know.
8. "The Downing Street memos prove that Bush had no reason to invade Iraq. He went with WMD because there was no link to Osama or anyone else. The war is all about reordering the Middle east according to the PNAC manifesto which if you ever read it, which you have not, clearly outlines regime change in Iraq, Syria and Iran, as good for the United States"
Actually virtually every intelligence agency on Earth thought that Saddam had WMDs. His own generals were shocked during the war when Saddam did not order the use of chemical weapons because they assumed he had them. The rest of what you say is typical of the type of paranoia common among conspiracy mongers.
9. " As to the Israelis and their illegal nukes, why are you so willing to turn a blind eye to the law?"
Actually, Israel possessing nukes is no more illegal than the US possessing nukes. I assume that your statement is merely rhetorical, and you are not referring to a specific statute of Israel that would prevent it from having nuclear weapons.
10. "I assuem you are a Jewish Zionist. Let me encourage you to convert to the One True Faith soon, as the blood curse your forefathers called down upon you, will remain with you, until you are baptized."
Actually, as you might have guessed from my name, my forebears are Scots and Irish with a few Cherokees tossed in for seasoning. I am a Catholic as you might also have guessed from my frequent posts at Open Book. As for you, you are a deluded anti-Semite. Here is something for you to contemplate. Saint Ignatius of Loyola was warned that one of his novices might have Jewish blood. This was at a time when such a charge was serious business in Spain. The Saint responded how fortunate for the novice in having a blood kinship with Our Lord and His mother.
Free yourself from the foul hatred that obviously has you in its grip, lest it be held against you when your soul comes before Christ.
##########################
Oh and I would be remiss if I did not thank Donald for saving me a lot of time rehashing these subjects myself which I had planned to do around the time I came across this material. And while I do not always agree with the contents of guest editorials, with the above it converges so well with what I would say (if not in how I would say it) that I want to note that here for the benefit of those reading this text.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)