On the Weblog Anniversary:
(Musings from your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Prefatory Note: Most of this thread was written or otherwise formulated the day before yesterday. -ISM]
Though August 22nd was the anniversary of this weblog's birth, I do not have time or the desire to go over this event in and of itself, note what I see as key points along the way among the 2255 postings logged in the first five years, or anything else along those lines. However, a five year anniversary does not come around very often so I feel I should say something about it. With that in mind, here goes...
How does one account with a reasonable sense of completion for five years of blogging and the literally innumerable subjects we have covered at different times here??? I frankly would not know where to begin. I am also not one to want to spend much time with this kind of introspection because it is an endless subject in and of itself. Plus, even as I write this, there are numerous subjects I have a reasonable knowledge of and which interest me which have barely if at all been touched on at this weblog yet (if they will be at all). I touched a bit on some of what has always motivated me in the 2007 posting of resolutions for the year and refer the reader to it now with a short snippet from that posting:
I anticipate the following year will involve a greater exploration into the realm of foundational presuppositions than I have done in years past -how much more I am not certain as of this writing...
Ideas have been fought for and died over and that is and will always be the case as long as there are those who believe passionately that there is such a thing as truth. The problem is, most people do not take the time to attempt to assess whether what they hold as truth actually is or not -operating instead from an intellectual prison of solipsism to varying degrees.
It has been my goal over the years to try and move those I have spoken with towards reassessing their foundational presuppositions or the filter through which they strain all information that comes their way from divers sources. While doing this though, I have rarely done more than mention a few bits in passing about why I go about things this way but the long and short of it is this: it has the potential to save a lot of time and effort by cutting down on the ratio of useless discussion. This alone can help pave the way for much more potentially fruitful dialogue to take place. Plus, I simply loathe talking points approaches to subjects and always have[...] viewing such things as shutting off the thinking mechanism and creating an environment detrimental to the cultivation of one's intellectual capabilities.[...] [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 2, 2007)]
I cannot emphasize enough how much I abhor anything that smacks of blind or uncritical acceptance of a position or worldview. There are a few reasons for this{1} but rather than go over that now, I want to focus instead on some of this weblog in the shapes it has taken over time. In the May categorization project where we placed primary and secondary tags on every post in the weblog, we were reminded of past postings directly as that project involved having to look at virtually every posting{2} and figure out how to categorize it into primary non-overlapping groups and additional overlapping secondary groupings.
In perusing the postings, many of them found favour with us in reviewing them, others were overall approved of even if some minor elements would be different if they were written today, some had been forgotten completely, and there was even a few (some forgotten, others not) which were in retrospect rather embarrassing either in part or completely. Yes, I admit to that and will not run from it as practically everyone else who writes on subjects wants to do. For much as anything, projects like this weblog are a learning process to some extent. And when pondering over how best to address this matter and taking account for our own views on people who engage in historical airbrushing, we decided on the following formulation of explanation:
[W]e would be less than fully honest if we did not admit that there are some postings in the archive which we do not find to be of value anymore for a variety of reasons which we are not going to delve into at the moment[...] except to note one significant reason which went into this determination. For you see, your host has refused to purge his archives of stuff which in retrospect he regrets posting. Part of the reason for this is principles as we have been critical of others for trying to airbrush the historical record at their own sites to avoid telling the truth about their past actions or statements in a given point of time. But another reason is that life itself is a process of growth and development across a broad continuum. This includes weblog writing and interests. We have no problem admitting that it took a bit of time before this weblog really started to take a discernable shape and some of the features and/or principles which have become standard or typical over time were in the "finding their feet" stage early on. The posts noted in the "archivally obsolete/duplicate posting/minutiae" category may also have been a localized kind of project which either was left incomplete due to time or interest factors or which was of a limited applicability back before your host sought to as much as possible make this weblog's contents have both a timeless and general applicability and also a particular circumstantial one.[...] But that is all that this writer intends to say on the matter at the present time except to say that yes, we have even categorized the obsolete or otherwise no-longer-of-any-real-value chaff from the archives. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 15, 2007)]
We do not believe it behooves anyone to airbrush their past even if it would be better for them to because oftentimes, turns in one's views can be traced out in their work and having it available can help the person themself as much as anyone else see the path they have taken. To erase the path is to erase the memory to some extent as the worst of writings stand up better than the best of memories. Having the trail outlined can also help in outlining a person's foundational presuppositions{3} or at the very least, giving an idea as to what they are. I do not believe one can progress as a human being without being aware of the lenses whereby they view reality{4} and this is one reason we not only preserve the archives at this weblog but are critical of others who refuse a similar service to their readers.
Beyond those notes above, we cannot think of anything we want to cover on the occasion of this anniversary so with that will conclude this posting.
Notes:
{1} Part of the reason is because I myself despite priding myself on being a good utilizer of reason and logic was seduced during and a bit after my college years by what are often called "conspiracy theories." It was only in my working through the logical ramifications of those issues with a focused concern for the law of non-contradiction that I was able to set that outlook aside for the illogical internally contradictory paranoid mishmash that it is.
{2} Not in a micro sense as that would have been impossible to do in any reasonable time frame let alone the short one we gave ourselves to do it in.
{3} No one can claim to approach issues in a purely abstract way and apart from personal mitigating factors in their apprehension of reality. This is why I have focused more and more on foundational presuppositions and less on the round and round kinds of arguments that go nowhere as I have gotten older and (hopefully) aged with some measure of grace. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 7, 2007)]
{4} In a nutshell, someone who is not willing to reassess themselves in this area from time to time -to (in paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin) "doubt a bit of their own infallibility" makes themselves incapable of any potential progress as a human being. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 7, 2007)]
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
On the Iraq Situation, the Military Surge, and Playing Politics:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I have said next to nothing about the Iraq surge since the strategy was announced late last year in the wake of the probable election losses for the Republicans in the congressional races.{1} Part of the reason for this is that it takes a while to implement a new military strategy and when I did speak on the matter back in July{2}, the full number of extra troops were still not in place yet. I did however know that the surge was working about as well as it could be expected under the circumstances including that the msm has no interest in winning in Iraq for political reasons any more than the Democrats do.
I have in the past expressed the depth of my disgust for this and sometimes in quite strident prose at that.{3} My view has not wavered. Indeed, the only reason I raise the subject now is not because of yet another msm pile of horse crap on how supposedly "bad" things are going in Iraq and how we are "losing" over there but instead because of a rather surprising about face by the two main Democratic candidates.
Obama, Clinton Both Cite Iraq Progress, Say It's Not Enough (Perry Bacon, Jr. of WashingtonPost.Com)
Now it is true that each tries to find a way of supporting the surge while not supporting it and this is so that they can be on record no matter what General Petraeus reports in September as being able to say they either "support" or "oppose" what we are doing there. But remember folks, these are people who have opposed any kind of forceful response to the Islamofascist sorts all along...well...at least Senator Obama has. Senator Clinton on this issue took the right position for the wrong reasons back in 2002 as we noted on this weblog some time ago{4} -indeed a lot of Democrats did this who have since then tried to run from their past.{5}
This is why principles need to be formulated on solid rather than shaky foundations -something we of course never fail to do on this weblog.{6} The problem is, three to four years ago is an age of sorts in media and a lot of people have short term memories. Throw in the fact that there are many readers who were not followers of this weblog three and four years ago and it is easy for our principled positions on the war and its aftermath to be forgotten.
To summarize my position from four years ago briefly, in substance there is no change whatsoever nor will there be. The reason is that the criteria we based it on back then{7} is not and cannot change. Despite that though, we would be less than forthright if we did not note that just because we support the general direction or idea behind a policy does not mean we support all of the particulars. But admittedly we have not wanted to talk about particulars on this matter very often. The reason is the mountains of ignorance that come from the usual contingent{8} whose solipsistic weltanschauung has no concept of the law of non-contradiction.
We noted in an audioposting recorded sometime in 2004 about a key factor which we were continually considering. Since audioblogger is not working again, we cannot figure out for sure which posting it is but we believe it was a two parter recorded in mid September of 2004.{9} Within that recording, we noted the serious problem of the 24/7 news cycle and how it was not an asset in this war on terror which will take years to sort out.{10}
To reiterate that theme anew at this time, the problem with a 24/7 news cycle is that it can wear down the most resolute of people. Obviously therefore, if you have people who are not as principled or who do not look that deeply into issues, they are even more likely to be swayed by the cumulation of perceived "bad news" on the matter. And based on the polling data across the board, it would appear that our concerns as articulated at that time have shown themselves to be accurate. It also does not help that the msm by and large are at least materially seditionist but to go off on that tangent at this time would make this posting overlong and therefore would not be prudent.
In summary, we rarely have discussed the day to day msm war reports and that is not going to change anytime soon. The reason for this is one of principles and points to why reason and logic are so indispensible to analyzing the facts of reality and in proportion to how well those are grasped, the greater the solidity of one's outlook on a given matter. And with the war in Iraq, the big picture is not going to change and no assemblage of trivial drivel matters an iota. But enough on that subject for now at least until General Petraeus gives his progress report in mid September of this year.
Notes:
{1} Though a number of threads were posted on this subject, one in particular which synthesized a number of them into one place is deserving of particular mention; ergo we will do that now:
A Synopsis of Our Overall Prescience Viz. the 2006 Elections and A Bit of Analysis As Well (circa November 24, 2006)
Another worth mentioning is this thread from the year prior which is quoted in the above thread:
One Hundred Years of Mid Term Election History, Etc. (circa June 21, 2005)
{2} 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 seditionist comrades allies in the Democratic party and other places have a vested interest in seeing defeat in Iraq by any means necessary. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 11, 2007)]
{3} Wake up you self-anointed "activists" with your blind and irrational hatred of George Walker Bush. Your position is not only illogical but further: it is idiotic and plays Russian roulette with this nation's national security. You would compromise the safety of American citizens for the sake of political advantage in an election. For that, I spit on you!!! [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 18, 2004)]
{4} "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." [Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Oct 10, 2002 which was quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa August 4, 2004)]
{5} Your humble servant at Rerum Novarum -seeing a clear violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction in the above situation must ask you readers these questions:
1) Were the above "esteemed Senators" (falsely so-called) lying prior to March 17, 2003 or did they tell the truth then and start lying on these matters since March 17, 2003???
2) If the above "esteemed Senators" (falsely so-called) were lying prior to March 17, 2003, why should we trust them to tell us the truth now???
3) If the above "esteemed Senators" (falsely so-called) were telling the truth prior to March 17, 2003, then they are quite evidently lying now. Why therefore should we trust them now???
Oh what a tangled web they weave...[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 4, 2004)]
{6} We will on occasion set something out in short form for further musing and sometimes those threads are advanced tentatively. However, they are always based on solid foundations even if the principles set forth admit at times of more than one possible application thereof.
{7} The issue of whether there were or were not WMD's was (at most) a very small part of the equation -not enough to be a determining factor in and of itself.
{8} By "usual suspects", I refer of course to the marxists, seditionists, and general all-around "we hate America but love totalitarian regimes where they suppress people's freedoms" crowd.
{9} We refer to these recordings from 2004:
Miscellaneous Reflections on the Most Recent Beheadings and the War on Terror --Part I (circa September 22, 2004)
Miscellaneous Reflections on the Most Recent Beheadings and the War on Terror --Part II (circa September 22, 2004)
For some reason, audioblogger is not working so we cannot verify for sure but we believe the principle was enunciated in one or more of those recordings.
{10} And yes, we mean "years" as history well testifies to every time we have been involved in a similar situation -be it the early nineteenth century Philippines, the aftermath of Germany and Japan post-WWII, or any other example we can think of: it always took three to seven years or more to get things completely stabilized. The difference between past endeavours and the current one is that there was no 24/7 media cycle to hinder more than help with public morale on these matters.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I have said next to nothing about the Iraq surge since the strategy was announced late last year in the wake of the probable election losses for the Republicans in the congressional races.{1} Part of the reason for this is that it takes a while to implement a new military strategy and when I did speak on the matter back in July{2}, the full number of extra troops were still not in place yet. I did however know that the surge was working about as well as it could be expected under the circumstances including that the msm has no interest in winning in Iraq for political reasons any more than the Democrats do.
I have in the past expressed the depth of my disgust for this and sometimes in quite strident prose at that.{3} My view has not wavered. Indeed, the only reason I raise the subject now is not because of yet another msm pile of horse crap on how supposedly "bad" things are going in Iraq and how we are "losing" over there but instead because of a rather surprising about face by the two main Democratic candidates.
Obama, Clinton Both Cite Iraq Progress, Say It's Not Enough (Perry Bacon, Jr. of WashingtonPost.Com)
Now it is true that each tries to find a way of supporting the surge while not supporting it and this is so that they can be on record no matter what General Petraeus reports in September as being able to say they either "support" or "oppose" what we are doing there. But remember folks, these are people who have opposed any kind of forceful response to the Islamofascist sorts all along...well...at least Senator Obama has. Senator Clinton on this issue took the right position for the wrong reasons back in 2002 as we noted on this weblog some time ago{4} -indeed a lot of Democrats did this who have since then tried to run from their past.{5}
This is why principles need to be formulated on solid rather than shaky foundations -something we of course never fail to do on this weblog.{6} The problem is, three to four years ago is an age of sorts in media and a lot of people have short term memories. Throw in the fact that there are many readers who were not followers of this weblog three and four years ago and it is easy for our principled positions on the war and its aftermath to be forgotten.
To summarize my position from four years ago briefly, in substance there is no change whatsoever nor will there be. The reason is that the criteria we based it on back then{7} is not and cannot change. Despite that though, we would be less than forthright if we did not note that just because we support the general direction or idea behind a policy does not mean we support all of the particulars. But admittedly we have not wanted to talk about particulars on this matter very often. The reason is the mountains of ignorance that come from the usual contingent{8} whose solipsistic weltanschauung has no concept of the law of non-contradiction.
We noted in an audioposting recorded sometime in 2004 about a key factor which we were continually considering. Since audioblogger is not working again, we cannot figure out for sure which posting it is but we believe it was a two parter recorded in mid September of 2004.{9} Within that recording, we noted the serious problem of the 24/7 news cycle and how it was not an asset in this war on terror which will take years to sort out.{10}
To reiterate that theme anew at this time, the problem with a 24/7 news cycle is that it can wear down the most resolute of people. Obviously therefore, if you have people who are not as principled or who do not look that deeply into issues, they are even more likely to be swayed by the cumulation of perceived "bad news" on the matter. And based on the polling data across the board, it would appear that our concerns as articulated at that time have shown themselves to be accurate. It also does not help that the msm by and large are at least materially seditionist but to go off on that tangent at this time would make this posting overlong and therefore would not be prudent.
In summary, we rarely have discussed the day to day msm war reports and that is not going to change anytime soon. The reason for this is one of principles and points to why reason and logic are so indispensible to analyzing the facts of reality and in proportion to how well those are grasped, the greater the solidity of one's outlook on a given matter. And with the war in Iraq, the big picture is not going to change and no assemblage of trivial drivel matters an iota. But enough on that subject for now at least until General Petraeus gives his progress report in mid September of this year.
Notes:
{1} Though a number of threads were posted on this subject, one in particular which synthesized a number of them into one place is deserving of particular mention; ergo we will do that now:
A Synopsis of Our Overall Prescience Viz. the 2006 Elections and A Bit of Analysis As Well (circa November 24, 2006)
Another worth mentioning is this thread from the year prior which is quoted in the above thread:
One Hundred Years of Mid Term Election History, Etc. (circa June 21, 2005)
{2} 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 seditionist comrades allies in the Democratic party and other places have a vested interest in seeing defeat in Iraq by any means necessary. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 11, 2007)]
{3} Wake up you self-anointed "activists" with your blind and irrational hatred of George Walker Bush. Your position is not only illogical but further: it is idiotic and plays Russian roulette with this nation's national security. You would compromise the safety of American citizens for the sake of political advantage in an election. For that, I spit on you!!! [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 18, 2004)]
{4} "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." [Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Oct 10, 2002 which was quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa August 4, 2004)]
{5} Your humble servant at Rerum Novarum -seeing a clear violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction in the above situation must ask you readers these questions:
1) Were the above "esteemed Senators" (falsely so-called) lying prior to March 17, 2003 or did they tell the truth then and start lying on these matters since March 17, 2003???
2) If the above "esteemed Senators" (falsely so-called) were lying prior to March 17, 2003, why should we trust them to tell us the truth now???
3) If the above "esteemed Senators" (falsely so-called) were telling the truth prior to March 17, 2003, then they are quite evidently lying now. Why therefore should we trust them now???
Oh what a tangled web they weave...[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 4, 2004)]
{6} We will on occasion set something out in short form for further musing and sometimes those threads are advanced tentatively. However, they are always based on solid foundations even if the principles set forth admit at times of more than one possible application thereof.
{7} The issue of whether there were or were not WMD's was (at most) a very small part of the equation -not enough to be a determining factor in and of itself.
{8} By "usual suspects", I refer of course to the marxists, seditionists, and general all-around "we hate America but love totalitarian regimes where they suppress people's freedoms" crowd.
{9} We refer to these recordings from 2004:
Miscellaneous Reflections on the Most Recent Beheadings and the War on Terror --Part I (circa September 22, 2004)
Miscellaneous Reflections on the Most Recent Beheadings and the War on Terror --Part II (circa September 22, 2004)
For some reason, audioblogger is not working so we cannot verify for sure but we believe the principle was enunciated in one or more of those recordings.
{10} And yes, we mean "years" as history well testifies to every time we have been involved in a similar situation -be it the early nineteenth century Philippines, the aftermath of Germany and Japan post-WWII, or any other example we can think of: it always took three to seven years or more to get things completely stabilized. The difference between past endeavours and the current one is that there was no 24/7 media cycle to hinder more than help with public morale on these matters.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Monday, August 20, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)