Feeling quite drowsy
Laptop battery dying
Time to go to bed
Saturday, September 08, 2007
"From the Mailbag" Dept.
(On the "Phantom Menace" of Distributivism)
This email was sent about ten weeks ago. The reader's words will be in blue font.
Hi, Shawn,
I wandered onto your blog today and found a very interesting exchange between a distributivist and you.
That was the third post on that topic in a seven day period of time actually.{1}
My understanding of distributivism is undoubtedly very amateurish, but that system is something that has long escaped me as a viable way of making certain that the poor are helped.
I should note that I believe the promoters of that approach generally mean well. I certainly believe that John means well. If I showed a bit of impatience with him it is mainly because I am sick of seeing distributivists accept a marxist definition of capitalism as their point of departure.
It bears a disconcerting resemblance to the forced taking of income by the IRS; even if the reasons for seizing others' property maybe more noble than governmental taxation, such a taking still is reminiscent of legalized theft.
Claude Frederic Bastiat{2} referred to this as "legalized plunder" and explained the problems that this perversion has on the consciences of people who tend by nature to presume a priori that something that is legal is therefore just. Or to quote from his magnum opus once again:
It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.
What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. Thus we must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking.
In the first place, it erases from everyone's conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.
No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.
The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are "just" because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (circa 1850) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa October 17, 2002)]
What is legal and what is just or moral should go hand in hand but at times they do not. And I will always firmly oppose a dichotomy in those areas no matter whom is making it or how good their intentions may be in doing it.
And in the end, distributivism, like taxation, is forced giving that denies the opportunity for the better-off group to practice voluntary charity, an avenue of many graces.
I believe that a confiscatory economic system deprives people of being able to be generous in their giving to others. It in other words is not only unjust from the standpoint of what it does to those who are robbed of their property but it also hinders their impulse to want to help others who are less fortunate than they are.
It was very good of you to try to clearly define and defend your position to the gentleman, and I hope he absorbs what you presented.
I hope that he reviews and reflects carefully upon what I presented to him.
In reading your material, it is evident that you have read Thomas Aquinas. That is why you do not use a brilliant medieval theologian to assist in your explication of economic theory on the ownership of private property. In Thomas' day, such ownership was the privilege of the few, not more commonly done as it is today. The Angelic Doctor has many wonderfully relevant things to offer, but not in this area, which if he were with us today, he would frankly admit was out of his life experience, cultureand education.
Well said and I do not say that because you are complementing me. St. Thomas' work is a very good source but like all sources it has its limits. The latter is something you would not know if you were to talk with someone who thinks Aquinas is the last word on everything.{3}
Well, end of drivel....
I suppose if St. Thomas could view his writings after heavenly visions as "so much straw", that you can view your comments as "drivel" too.
Pope Leo XIII must be very pleased with your choice of blog name and your understanding of his encyclical. ;)
I did not originally name this weblog after the encyclical per se. But to explain the reason for the name selection -or at least the ones I originally had and later on came to serendipitously view as the more appropriate reasons for the choice- will be for another time perhaps.
Notes:
{1} To list briefly in one spot all three of those postings in order from oldest to newest:
Revisiting Distributivism (circa May 25, 2007)
"TheEmpire Distributivist Strikes Back" Dept. (circa May 27, 2007)
On Fundamental Rights, Private Property, and Authentic Dialogue (circa May 31, 2007)
{2} As much as I dump on the French as a people overall, Bastiat was a brilliant man and unquestionably mankind's greatest advocate of liberty.
{3} This is what a lot of people prior to St. Thomas' time thought about the writings of St. Augustine. Obviously though he venerated St. Augustine, St. Thomas did not accept St. Augustine's work uncritically. He instead scrutinized St. Augustine's work and accepted and rejected certain parts based on what he saw as the correctness or incorrectness of St. Augustine's views. Indeed, the idea that St. Thomas' work should be viewed as some unimpeachable source is one that St. Thomas himself would have found both absurd as well as discomforting.
(On the "Phantom Menace" of Distributivism)
This email was sent about ten weeks ago. The reader's words will be in blue font.
Hi, Shawn,
I wandered onto your blog today and found a very interesting exchange between a distributivist and you.
That was the third post on that topic in a seven day period of time actually.{1}
My understanding of distributivism is undoubtedly very amateurish, but that system is something that has long escaped me as a viable way of making certain that the poor are helped.
I should note that I believe the promoters of that approach generally mean well. I certainly believe that John means well. If I showed a bit of impatience with him it is mainly because I am sick of seeing distributivists accept a marxist definition of capitalism as their point of departure.
It bears a disconcerting resemblance to the forced taking of income by the IRS; even if the reasons for seizing others' property maybe more noble than governmental taxation, such a taking still is reminiscent of legalized theft.
Claude Frederic Bastiat{2} referred to this as "legalized plunder" and explained the problems that this perversion has on the consciences of people who tend by nature to presume a priori that something that is legal is therefore just. Or to quote from his magnum opus once again:
It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.
What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. Thus we must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking.
In the first place, it erases from everyone's conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.
No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.
The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are "just" because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (circa 1850) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa October 17, 2002)]
What is legal and what is just or moral should go hand in hand but at times they do not. And I will always firmly oppose a dichotomy in those areas no matter whom is making it or how good their intentions may be in doing it.
And in the end, distributivism, like taxation, is forced giving that denies the opportunity for the better-off group to practice voluntary charity, an avenue of many graces.
I believe that a confiscatory economic system deprives people of being able to be generous in their giving to others. It in other words is not only unjust from the standpoint of what it does to those who are robbed of their property but it also hinders their impulse to want to help others who are less fortunate than they are.
It was very good of you to try to clearly define and defend your position to the gentleman, and I hope he absorbs what you presented.
I hope that he reviews and reflects carefully upon what I presented to him.
In reading your material, it is evident that you have read Thomas Aquinas. That is why you do not use a brilliant medieval theologian to assist in your explication of economic theory on the ownership of private property. In Thomas' day, such ownership was the privilege of the few, not more commonly done as it is today. The Angelic Doctor has many wonderfully relevant things to offer, but not in this area, which if he were with us today, he would frankly admit was out of his life experience, cultureand education.
Well said and I do not say that because you are complementing me. St. Thomas' work is a very good source but like all sources it has its limits. The latter is something you would not know if you were to talk with someone who thinks Aquinas is the last word on everything.{3}
Well, end of drivel....
I suppose if St. Thomas could view his writings after heavenly visions as "so much straw", that you can view your comments as "drivel" too.
Pope Leo XIII must be very pleased with your choice of blog name and your understanding of his encyclical. ;)
I did not originally name this weblog after the encyclical per se. But to explain the reason for the name selection -or at least the ones I originally had and later on came to serendipitously view as the more appropriate reasons for the choice- will be for another time perhaps.
Notes:
{1} To list briefly in one spot all three of those postings in order from oldest to newest:
Revisiting Distributivism (circa May 25, 2007)
"The
On Fundamental Rights, Private Property, and Authentic Dialogue (circa May 31, 2007)
{2} As much as I dump on the French as a people overall, Bastiat was a brilliant man and unquestionably mankind's greatest advocate of liberty.
{3} This is what a lot of people prior to St. Thomas' time thought about the writings of St. Augustine. Obviously though he venerated St. Augustine, St. Thomas did not accept St. Augustine's work uncritically. He instead scrutinized St. Augustine's work and accepted and rejected certain parts based on what he saw as the correctness or incorrectness of St. Augustine's views. Indeed, the idea that St. Thomas' work should be viewed as some unimpeachable source is one that St. Thomas himself would have found both absurd as well as discomforting.
Friday, September 07, 2007
Excerpts From Classic Writings:
This installment is from Plato's Republic and is titled Allegory of the Den. Enjoy...
SOCRATES
AND now, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: Behold! human beings living in an underground den, which has a mouth open toward the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette-players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.
GLAUCON
I see.
SOCRATES
And do you see, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.
GLAUCON
You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.
SOCRATES
Like ourselves, and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?
GLAUCON
True, how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?
SOCRATES
And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?
GLAUCON
Yes
SOCRATES
And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?
GLAUCON
Very true.
SOCRATES
And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?
GLAUCON
No question.
SOCRATES
To them, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.
GLAUCON
That is certain.
SOCRATES
And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look toward the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive someone saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned toward more real existence, he has a clearer vision—what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them—will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?
GLAUCON
Far truer.
SOCRATES
And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take refuge in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him?
GLAUCON
True.
SOCRATES
And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he is forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.
GLAUCON
Not all in a moment.
SOCRATES
He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day?
GLAUCON
Certainly.
SOCRATES
Last of all he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is.
GLAUCON
Certainly.
SOCRATES
He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold?
GLAUCON
Clearly, he would first see the sun and then reason about him.
SOCRATES
And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the den and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity him?
GLAUCON
Certainly, he would.
SOCRATES
And if they were in the habit of conferring honors among themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which followed after, and which were together; and who were therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that he would care for such honors and glories, or envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer,
"Better to be the poor servant of a poor master,"
and to endure anything, rather than think as they do and live after their manner?
GLAUCON
Yes, I think that he would rather suffer anything than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable manner.
SOCRATES
Imagine once more, such a one coming suddenly out of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?
GLAUCON
To be sure.
SOCRATES
And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable), would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if anyone tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.
GLAUCON
No question.
SOCRATES
This entire allegory, you may now append, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upward to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have expressed—whether rightly or wrongly, God knows. But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally either in public or private life must have his eye fixed.
GLAUCON
I agree, as far as I am able to understand you.
SOCRATES
Moreover, you must not wonder that those who attain to this beatific vision are unwilling to descend to human affairs; for their souls are ever hastening into the upper world where they desire to dwell; which desire of theirs is very natural, if our allegory may be trusted.
GLAUCON
Yes, very natural.
SOCRATES
And is there anything surprising in one who passes from divine contemplations to the evil state of man, misbehaving himself in a ridiculous manner; if, while his eyes are blinking and before he has become accustomed to the surrounding darkness, he is compelled to fight in courts of law, or in other places, about the images or the shadows of images of justice, and is endeavoring to meet the conceptions of those who have never yet seen absolute justice?
GLAUCON
Anything but surprising.
SOCRATES
Anyone who has common-sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eyes are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye; and he who remembers this when he sees anyone whose vision is perplexed and weak, will not be too ready to laugh; he will first ask whether that soul of man has come out of the brighter life, and is unable to see because unaccustomed to the dark, or having turned from darkness to the day is dazzled by excess of light. And he will count the one happy in his condition and state of being, and he will pity the other; or, if he have a mind to laugh at the soul which comes from below into the light, there will be more reason in this than in the laugh which greets him who returns from above out of the light into the den.
This installment is from Plato's Republic and is titled Allegory of the Den. Enjoy...
SOCRATES
AND now, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: Behold! human beings living in an underground den, which has a mouth open toward the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette-players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.
GLAUCON
I see.
SOCRATES
And do you see, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.
GLAUCON
You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.
SOCRATES
Like ourselves, and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?
GLAUCON
True, how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?
SOCRATES
And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?
GLAUCON
Yes
SOCRATES
And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?
GLAUCON
Very true.
SOCRATES
And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?
GLAUCON
No question.
SOCRATES
To them, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.
GLAUCON
That is certain.
SOCRATES
And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look toward the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive someone saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned toward more real existence, he has a clearer vision—what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them—will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?
GLAUCON
Far truer.
SOCRATES
And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take refuge in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him?
GLAUCON
True.
SOCRATES
And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he is forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.
GLAUCON
Not all in a moment.
SOCRATES
He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day?
GLAUCON
Certainly.
SOCRATES
Last of all he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is.
GLAUCON
Certainly.
SOCRATES
He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold?
GLAUCON
Clearly, he would first see the sun and then reason about him.
SOCRATES
And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the den and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity him?
GLAUCON
Certainly, he would.
SOCRATES
And if they were in the habit of conferring honors among themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which followed after, and which were together; and who were therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that he would care for such honors and glories, or envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer,
"Better to be the poor servant of a poor master,"
and to endure anything, rather than think as they do and live after their manner?
GLAUCON
Yes, I think that he would rather suffer anything than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable manner.
SOCRATES
Imagine once more, such a one coming suddenly out of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?
GLAUCON
To be sure.
SOCRATES
And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable), would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if anyone tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.
GLAUCON
No question.
SOCRATES
This entire allegory, you may now append, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upward to be the ascent of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I have expressed—whether rightly or wrongly, God knows. But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally either in public or private life must have his eye fixed.
GLAUCON
I agree, as far as I am able to understand you.
SOCRATES
Moreover, you must not wonder that those who attain to this beatific vision are unwilling to descend to human affairs; for their souls are ever hastening into the upper world where they desire to dwell; which desire of theirs is very natural, if our allegory may be trusted.
GLAUCON
Yes, very natural.
SOCRATES
And is there anything surprising in one who passes from divine contemplations to the evil state of man, misbehaving himself in a ridiculous manner; if, while his eyes are blinking and before he has become accustomed to the surrounding darkness, he is compelled to fight in courts of law, or in other places, about the images or the shadows of images of justice, and is endeavoring to meet the conceptions of those who have never yet seen absolute justice?
GLAUCON
Anything but surprising.
SOCRATES
Anyone who has common-sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eyes are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye; and he who remembers this when he sees anyone whose vision is perplexed and weak, will not be too ready to laugh; he will first ask whether that soul of man has come out of the brighter life, and is unable to see because unaccustomed to the dark, or having turned from darkness to the day is dazzled by excess of light. And he will count the one happy in his condition and state of being, and he will pity the other; or, if he have a mind to laugh at the soul which comes from below into the light, there will be more reason in this than in the laugh which greets him who returns from above out of the light into the den.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
On the Exodus of Karl Rove:
[Note: This thread was written ten days ago but only finished for posting (with some last minute adjustments including omitting parts of the text for a later posting) today. -ISM]
As far as thesoon-to-be exit of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, I have a mixed view. Ultimately he is to President Bush what Dick Morris was to President Clinton: a tactician whose pluses outweighed his minuses in that area. He also was one who was no small source of irritation to those whose views he worked at opposing.{1} My initial hunch despite claims made by Rove that this is family motivated is that there is a political reason also but that should not surprise readers of this weblog presumably.
I am not claiming that Rove is lying about the family claim as people can and do make decisions for a variety of reasons. But he is a political animal and taking the politics out of someone like Rove is not easy to do. I am sure at some election level, Rove will have involvement in 2008. But back to my personal view of Rove which is mixed and always has been. The main burr under my saddle with him was the support of the illegal immigrants amnesty: that is effectively dead for the time being though it will rise like Jason in a bad Friday the 13th sequel as soon as the 2008 elections are over -of that we can be sure so vigilance is definitely called for in that area. But that is a subject for another time and back to the subject of Karl Rove we go.
I am sure there will be many who will try to make Rove's accomplishments look far more meager than they are among the Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) crowd. After all, he is Senator Palpatine to Bush's Darth Vader to that crowd. Plus, there is a tradition of treating the president as an idiot who has his strings pulled by nefarious behind the scenes sorts remains alive and well it seems -except this time the fixture of the caricature was not Jewish.{2}
I also suppose the lack of a Jewish mastermind who pulls the president's strings is a minor improvement worth noting though I suspect that the BDS crowd will point to Kristol, Wolfowitz, and Ledeen and probably claim Rove was their puppet or something along those lines. Unless they try and claim that Rove's real name is Rovestein or something along those lines -who knows what the Mother Jones and World Socialist Review sorts will do in this area. About all I will predict is that it will be a standard illogical diatribe or more and have a number of very predictable operative presuppositions behind it -one of which is to blame the Jews for everything though not usually as brazenly as the John Birch Society sorts do.{3}
But however those sorts spin it, Karl Rove is gone now from the Bush Administration. I also predict that if the Republicans win back congress and retain the White House in 2008 that we will hear the predictable "stolen election" crap that has been the stock in trade of those moonbats since they tried it in 2000{4} and for the sake of not going off on another tangent will spare the readers at this time examples of the hypocritical double standards of the latter sorts of people.
Notes:
{1} The difference is that people who were opposed to Clinton had a begrudging respect for Morris despite their annoyance at him. By contrast, those suffering from BDS (see the main post text above) froth at the mouth when talking about Rove every bit as much as they do with Dubya.
{2} This pattern if memory serves started in the adminstration of President Woodrow Wilson who was the supposed "dummy puppet" of Col. Edward Mandell House his chief advisor. (House also was an advisor to Franklin D. Roosevelt in the latter's first term.)
{3} I have been planning to write a bit on the conspiracy theory mindset and why it is not worth taking seriously so part of this post can be considered a prelude of sorts on that subject much as a few others in recent months have been.
{4} And many of which are still deluded enough to believe was an accurate description of reality.
[Note: This thread was written ten days ago but only finished for posting (with some last minute adjustments including omitting parts of the text for a later posting) today. -ISM]
As far as the
I am not claiming that Rove is lying about the family claim as people can and do make decisions for a variety of reasons. But he is a political animal and taking the politics out of someone like Rove is not easy to do. I am sure at some election level, Rove will have involvement in 2008. But back to my personal view of Rove which is mixed and always has been. The main burr under my saddle with him was the support of the illegal immigrants amnesty: that is effectively dead for the time being though it will rise like Jason in a bad Friday the 13th sequel as soon as the 2008 elections are over -of that we can be sure so vigilance is definitely called for in that area. But that is a subject for another time and back to the subject of Karl Rove we go.
I am sure there will be many who will try to make Rove's accomplishments look far more meager than they are among the Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) crowd. After all, he is Senator Palpatine to Bush's Darth Vader to that crowd. Plus, there is a tradition of treating the president as an idiot who has his strings pulled by nefarious behind the scenes sorts remains alive and well it seems -except this time the fixture of the caricature was not Jewish.{2}
I also suppose the lack of a Jewish mastermind who pulls the president's strings is a minor improvement worth noting though I suspect that the BDS crowd will point to Kristol, Wolfowitz, and Ledeen and probably claim Rove was their puppet or something along those lines. Unless they try and claim that Rove's real name is Rovestein or something along those lines -who knows what the Mother Jones and World Socialist Review sorts will do in this area. About all I will predict is that it will be a standard illogical diatribe or more and have a number of very predictable operative presuppositions behind it -one of which is to blame the Jews for everything though not usually as brazenly as the John Birch Society sorts do.{3}
But however those sorts spin it, Karl Rove is gone now from the Bush Administration. I also predict that if the Republicans win back congress and retain the White House in 2008 that we will hear the predictable "stolen election" crap that has been the stock in trade of those moonbats since they tried it in 2000{4} and for the sake of not going off on another tangent will spare the readers at this time examples of the hypocritical double standards of the latter sorts of people.
Notes:
{1} The difference is that people who were opposed to Clinton had a begrudging respect for Morris despite their annoyance at him. By contrast, those suffering from BDS (see the main post text above) froth at the mouth when talking about Rove every bit as much as they do with Dubya.
{2} This pattern if memory serves started in the adminstration of President Woodrow Wilson who was the supposed "dummy puppet" of Col. Edward Mandell House his chief advisor. (House also was an advisor to Franklin D. Roosevelt in the latter's first term.)
{3} I have been planning to write a bit on the conspiracy theory mindset and why it is not worth taking seriously so part of this post can be considered a prelude of sorts on that subject much as a few others in recent months have been.
{4} And many of which are still deluded enough to believe was an accurate description of reality.
Monday, September 03, 2007
On Able Danger:
(A Rerum Novarum Revisitation and Update Thread)
[Prefatory Note: The lions share of this thread was drafted last year, slated for a September 29, 2006 posting, but for reasons which I cannot remember was never finished. I only discovered this when doing a search for my last Able Danger thread to flesh out a recent "miscellaneous musings" thread where two of the subjects discussed were the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the credibility problems of George Tenet. When I discovered that the last post to this weblogon Able Danger was in February of 2006 (and that the late 2006 thread was incomplete), I decided to update it to reflect the situation since September of 2006 and post it to the weblog; ergo the thread you have in front of you. -ISM]
To start with, here is a catalogue of sorts of the threads on Able Danger posted to this humble weblog that we can recall via a brief archive search:{1}
As I have noted in private correspondence to a few individuals, what he has done (in writing a book about Able Danger and 9/11) and what he is saying (in promoting his book on the various media curcuits), Rep. Curt Weldon has taken quite a gamble here...[I]f he is called and does not produce the cards, he will be finished politically. However, if he can deliver on what he says he can, then his prestige will increase. In fact, if the latter proves to be true, look for Rep. Weldon to become a Republican darkhorse candidate for the presidency in 2008 (whether he wants it or not). My money is on Weldon's gamble paying off because generally speaking people do not make public stances like this unless they can deliver. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 16, 2005)]
On Able Danger and A Potential Defense Department Coverup (circa September 21, 2005)
Briefly Revisiting Able Danger (circa October 20, 2005)
"Focus on Able Danger Stupid" Dept. (circa November 2, 2005)
"Focus on Able Danger" Revisited (circa November 3, 2005)
Bug your senators people...including Senator Arlen Spector who expressed interest in [Able Danger] back in September but may well get wishy washy in true congressional fashion on the matter in question. Of course those of us who have Maria Cantvotewell and Patty Murray (the latter of whose lips have been firmly attached to the backside of Robert "Sheets" Byrd for the past thirteen years), it will not make much of a difference but one must try nonetheless. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 19, 2005)]
As one who has not been quiet on the Able Danger subject myself,[...] I concur with Mr. McCarthy's assessments on the matter in question. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa December 26, 2005)]
On Able Danger and Hearings Being Opened in the House of Representatives (circa February 13, 2006)
As of August 2005, there were three sources backing the claims made by Rep. Curt Weldon about a defense department coverup of information that could have prevented 9/11.
It may seem strange to posit a bunch of stuff on an issue whichwill not be was not the election issue of 2006. However, what your host has written on these things is a matter of public record and we do not shirk from it unlike certain other parties who shall not be mentioned. We also explained why this should be the issue back in February of this year last year and (in saying that) pointed out the reason it would not be:
I do not give a damn about who or which party these hearings will "help" or "hurt" since what is at stake here is possible national security lapses in the past which (if they had not happened) may have averted what happened on 9/11. National security should be a non-partisan issue but I sense that this will be as politicized as any other issue is in today's climate and it should not be. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 13, 2006)]
The election of 2006 was decided on a number of issues and to some extent fit a historical pattern as we outlined on this weblog after the election when noting the extent to which we were accurate in predicting what would most likely happen.
Since the election, there have been some attempts by the Pentagon and a few senators to try and bury this issue. Certainly the congress elected in 2006{2} has done nothing whatsoever to get to the bottom of this issue. They have instead sought to manufacture "scandals" to get at President Bush and I have my suspicions as to why they have avoided this issue.{3} Meanwhile, it appears that the attempt to smear former congressman Curt Weldon (which I believe is directly tied to his involvement in investigating Chinagate and Able Danger) continues.
I for one want to see hearings on this and not ones behind closed doors. This issue needs to be examined and partisan politics set aside. If it has credibility, those who were behind the intelligence blunders should account for them and I do not care which party they belong to. But then again, it is easy for someone such as myself who has long been independent of the two main parties to take that stance. National security should be a non-partisan issue. And that is the bottom line really.
Notes:
{1} While it is possible that there are other threads -as we have discussed this issue for a long time- it was a late bloomer of sorts for blogging; ergo this may be all there is in the archives up to the present day.
{2} And seated in January of 2007.
{3} Namely the administration of President Bill Clinton the wife of whom is running for president as I type this.
(A Rerum Novarum Revisitation and Update Thread)
[Prefatory Note: The lions share of this thread was drafted last year, slated for a September 29, 2006 posting, but for reasons which I cannot remember was never finished. I only discovered this when doing a search for my last Able Danger thread to flesh out a recent "miscellaneous musings" thread where two of the subjects discussed were the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the credibility problems of George Tenet. When I discovered that the last post to this weblogon Able Danger was in February of 2006 (and that the late 2006 thread was incomplete), I decided to update it to reflect the situation since September of 2006 and post it to the weblog; ergo the thread you have in front of you. -ISM]
To start with, here is a catalogue of sorts of the threads on Able Danger posted to this humble weblog that we can recall via a brief archive search:{1}
As I have noted in private correspondence to a few individuals, what he has done (in writing a book about Able Danger and 9/11) and what he is saying (in promoting his book on the various media curcuits), Rep. Curt Weldon has taken quite a gamble here...[I]f he is called and does not produce the cards, he will be finished politically. However, if he can deliver on what he says he can, then his prestige will increase. In fact, if the latter proves to be true, look for Rep. Weldon to become a Republican darkhorse candidate for the presidency in 2008 (whether he wants it or not). My money is on Weldon's gamble paying off because generally speaking people do not make public stances like this unless they can deliver. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 16, 2005)]
On Able Danger and A Potential Defense Department Coverup (circa September 21, 2005)
Briefly Revisiting Able Danger (circa October 20, 2005)
"Focus on Able Danger Stupid" Dept. (circa November 2, 2005)
"Focus on Able Danger" Revisited (circa November 3, 2005)
Bug your senators people...including Senator Arlen Spector who expressed interest in [Able Danger] back in September but may well get wishy washy in true congressional fashion on the matter in question. Of course those of us who have Maria Cant
As one who has not been quiet on the Able Danger subject myself,[...] I concur with Mr. McCarthy's assessments on the matter in question. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa December 26, 2005)]
On Able Danger and Hearings Being Opened in the House of Representatives (circa February 13, 2006)
As of August 2005, there were three sources backing the claims made by Rep. Curt Weldon about a defense department coverup of information that could have prevented 9/11.
It may seem strange to posit a bunch of stuff on an issue which
I do not give a damn about who or which party these hearings will "help" or "hurt" since what is at stake here is possible national security lapses in the past which (if they had not happened) may have averted what happened on 9/11. National security should be a non-partisan issue but I sense that this will be as politicized as any other issue is in today's climate and it should not be. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 13, 2006)]
The election of 2006 was decided on a number of issues and to some extent fit a historical pattern as we outlined on this weblog after the election when noting the extent to which we were accurate in predicting what would most likely happen.
Since the election, there have been some attempts by the Pentagon and a few senators to try and bury this issue. Certainly the congress elected in 2006{2} has done nothing whatsoever to get to the bottom of this issue. They have instead sought to manufacture "scandals" to get at President Bush and I have my suspicions as to why they have avoided this issue.{3} Meanwhile, it appears that the attempt to smear former congressman Curt Weldon (which I believe is directly tied to his involvement in investigating Chinagate and Able Danger) continues.
I for one want to see hearings on this and not ones behind closed doors. This issue needs to be examined and partisan politics set aside. If it has credibility, those who were behind the intelligence blunders should account for them and I do not care which party they belong to. But then again, it is easy for someone such as myself who has long been independent of the two main parties to take that stance. National security should be a non-partisan issue. And that is the bottom line really.
Notes:
{1} While it is possible that there are other threads -as we have discussed this issue for a long time- it was a late bloomer of sorts for blogging; ergo this may be all there is in the archives up to the present day.
{2} And seated in January of 2007.
{3} Namely the administration of President Bill Clinton the wife of whom is running for president as I type this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)