"Down on the Corner" Dept.
(A Rerum Novarum Triple Slam)
In the styling of Our JunkYard BLOG and Volokh Conspiracy larger threads posted on occasion,{1} We offer the following from National Review Online at their Corner BLOG:
MEDIA-BIAS MOMENTS [Tim Graham]
As you head into the weekend, you might enjoy exploring the following topics in current media bias. Or they might make your head explode. You decide.
1. Does the media always reduce the federal budget debate into little heart-tugging political ads about how the poor will have their hearts ripped out by supposed Republican budget slashers? See here.
2. Why is a 30-year-old allegation of sexual fondling against a comedian considered "news" by CBS, but a 20-year-old allegation of rape against a sitting president is not? See here. [LINK]
Of course Tim Graham does not say anything about these issues that have not been enunciated before at this humble weblog and many others. Nonetheless, it is worth reiterating it again so that those who do not comprehend the obvious double standard involved here maybe will in time with enough inculcation.{2}
WARD CHURCHILL [Jonah Goldberg ]
If you hadn't figured out from my column I disagree with what seems to be the consensus view among conservatives about Ward Churchill. I think he should be canned. It would be preferable if they could do it for cause -- i.e. find fraud, or malfeasance or some such -- but if not I still think he should go. I appreciate the arguments on the other side from a lot of smart folks, but at the end of the day he should never have been hired in the first place (has anyone found out if he was hired as part of a "diversity" program on account of his almost certainly fictional Indian status?). And while I understand the worries of a "chilling-effect" backlash, I think academic freedom would actually be better served if he were fired in the long run. Right now the left chills speech it doesn't like with impunity and there is no sign that they see any reason to stop. Perhaps if they realized that this is a two way street we might get some more appreciation for real ideological diversity. [LINK]
Frankly, We must disagree with Jonah Goldberg on this one with one caveat. In Our view, if the university can find other reasons for dismissing Professor Churchill then that would be okay grounds for doing so. But his moronic comments about those in the Towers being "little Eichmans" and "deserving" what they got should not be grounds for firing him for one reason: it would be a source of various "suppression of free speech" cries from the contemporary ignorant who fail to realize that (logically speaking) any authentic freedom must possess a contingent responsibility attached to it.
Now admittedly while such an outcry would be both predictable as well as provide Us and many others with an opportunity to fisk such pseudo-"progressivist" lunacies; at the same time, it would be better to retain Professor Churchill if they cannot find other grounds to dismiss him. In Our view, if fraud or incompetence can be demonstrated, that would be a good way to open up a discussion on "affirmative action" style hiring or "quota preferences" and the inexorable diminishment of quality that results from such practices. That in Our view is a far better argument to have than "suppression of free speech part mcmlxxxiv" would be.
WRITING OFF ROMNEY [K. J. Lopez ]
What an obnoxious editorial in the NYTimes this morning about Massachusetts cloning. The editors begin: “Let's hope Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts was posturing for a national audience of conservative Republicans when he came out strongly for a ban on some of the most promising stem cell research planned at prominent institutions in his state.”
%#@%$!
I’ve already joked that I’ve been charmed by Romney. But no Boston reporter at yesterday’s press conference is going to persuasively tell me that he wasn’t impressed by how considered Romney was on the issue (I wasn’t in Boston, but listened to the audio). I wish he had gone all out and opposed using IVF embryos as well as creating new embryos for research, but he would have gotten nowhere had he taken that position there, for one thing. At the moment he’s really starting at a point where he’s reaching out: He says, ok, we can use frozen embryos. There’s meeting the other side at a point where they should be able to cooperate. And let’s look at all the many alternatives to using embryos in the first place.
See Romney’s problem seems to be—and I have no doubt this has something to do with his wife’s M.S.—he has really thought through this issue. So he gets it. He was citing that Dr. Hurlburt, who the bioethics commission had at their last meeting—who’s talking about another alternative possibility for the future. In other words, he just understands the issue just so much more than most pols and reporters writing on it.
Is he doing it because he wants to be president? Maybe. But I buy that he actually believes this stuff. And, to be brutally honest, he may fail, so I’m not sure as a political strategy it would be the world’s best road to the White House. But regardless, I think where he is right now is laudable and important and he deserves support from those of us who oppose human cloning, for taking this on.
I'll have a little more on this all in a bit. [LINK]
Basically K-Lo is on target here. It is probable that Gov. Romney's family situation has driven his stance on this issue. And if he was doing this for political aspirations, then he needs to fire his advisors because this is not a "safe" stance to be taking politically. Instead, it is a definite stance which will have repercussions politically -particularly since most of those opposed to Romney are (i)not very well informed on these issues yet (ii) control the apparati of the mainstream media (MSM) and are adept at arguing by soundbyte. Gov. Romney could very well win the arguments but lose in the realm of perception by virtue of being demonized by the soundbyte in the MSM. Nonetheless, this kind of stand shows backbone regardless of the reason he has for taking it and (therefore) should be of interest to the Republicans who are looking for someone to run in '08{3} even as We write this.
Notes:
{1} We just realized that it has been almost eighteen months since we posted a Volokh Conspiracy superthread. That negligence will be partially rectified soon with a new thread as time allows for it.
{2} Orrrr perrrhaaaaps Weeee couuuuld slooowwwwww Ourrrr verrrballlllll caaaaaadenceeeesssss dooownnnnnnnn fooorrrrrrr themmmmm.
{3} And for those who think Jeb Bush is a candidate, it is Our view that he would lose for one important reason (among others): Americans do not like political dynasties and a third Bush presidency would be precisely that.
Friday, February 11, 2005
Points to Ponder:
Psychiatrists are beginning to turn toward notions of evil, even while they make noises about defining religion as a pathology. Rational religious folks are starting to reassert that religion can be rational, and to apply that understanding to social constructs. Secularists continue their mutual indoctrination. Meanwhile, Islamofascists are working to undermine and destroy Western civilization in multiple ways, and the response in many Western nations still resembles a person the morning after a late, indulgent night alternately struggling to wake up and to ignore the faint alarm and continue sleeping. [Justin Katz (circa 02/10/04)]
Psychiatrists are beginning to turn toward notions of evil, even while they make noises about defining religion as a pathology. Rational religious folks are starting to reassert that religion can be rational, and to apply that understanding to social constructs. Secularists continue their mutual indoctrination. Meanwhile, Islamofascists are working to undermine and destroy Western civilization in multiple ways, and the response in many Western nations still resembles a person the morning after a late, indulgent night alternately struggling to wake up and to ignore the faint alarm and continue sleeping. [Justin Katz (circa 02/10/04)]
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Monday, February 07, 2005
On "Social Commentary" and St. Blog's "Awards":
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
As voting takes place in various categories for the various St. Blog's "Awards", it seems appropriate after noting my picks in various categories something that seems to be overlooked in how those listed in certain categories are picked. For example, this weblog was apparently nominated in the "best social commentary" category which is of course appreciated. However, upon looking at other nominees in that category,{1} it gives me reason to wonder what people are thinking when they nominate for various categories. For one thing, that the late Gerard Serafin's stellar weblog received no finalist consideration for anything is a crying shame. It makes this whole thing a charade to me from the get go but that point aside, let us consider the "best social commentary" category and what that category should entail.
First of all, let us get real: if we really want to get technical about it, (and modesty aside for the duration of this note) this category should be a three blog race between Rerum Novarum, Southern Appeal, and Dust in the Light. No one else who is nominated in that category of the "big five" finalists has anything particularly original to offer in these areas. All of which (thus far) confirms my long-viewed assessment about the "worth" of these kinds of awards: the predictable ones win and those who are truly creative in their analysis and suggestions (as in the three noted above are to some extent) tend to be more marginalized. But of course as assertions by themselves are cheap, here are several examples which pertain to the subject of social commentary as dealt with at Rerum Novarum --all of which are to some degree original (either in and of themselves) or in my development/refining of the underlying concepts involved.{2}
To start with, there is the renewal, further development (in some parameters), and careful application of the classical legal and economic theories of Claude Frederic Bastiat to the problems that beset society today -thereby providing a logical coherence to the authentic conservative position on these matters. The latter is a project that is an ongoing one at this weblog and from which there are probably thirty or forty threads from 2004 alone which would easily fit into this category. More will be taking place in 2005 as time allows for it -as this is an ambitious undertaking that has no small amount of work involved in it. But a short word on this process (since I see it as of no small significance) before moving onto the other subjects to be covered in this post.
For if nothing else at Rerum Novarum was accomplished in two and a half years (and for the remaining duration of this weblog's existence however long that will be), than the aforementioned ambitious project which has been undertaken here, the fact that I have sought to provide a consistent (and adaptable) rationale for advancing an agenda contrary to that which prevails in the society at large should suffice all by itself for that category. The subject being covered here is particularly pertinent to the whole subject because it involves an entire weltanschauung that is not only congruent with Catholic principles but which could be accepted by non-Catholics solely on the basis of the consistency of the positions and their relative logic thereof. (In other words, it has a dual benefit and is not only aimed at Catholics.) But of course there are others threads to consider too -some of which would be among the posts falling in the aforementioned area but nonetheless (to list roughly one per month):
--My posts on religious liberty and its application at large (particularly the one from December of 2004) which discusses the important components of any asserted "liberty" or "right" in a society. This has ramifications for a whole host of issues and therefore is of no small value.
--My musings on the role of the double effect principle in ethical argumentation as it pertains to issues which involve both the natural and supernatural. (Circa December of 2004.)
--The development of a unique application of the third party concept that could actually work in practice if implemented at the grass roots level over the next sixteen to twenty years. (Circa November of 2004.)
--My posts on voting circa September of 2004 -the one from the twenty-fifth on taking an integrated approach to voting and the one from the eighth on the myopic approach of pro lifers which is ultimately a self-defeating one.
--Posts such as the occasional "argumentation fallacy" posts which deal with the subject of how one properly utilizes reason and logic in argumentation. (The most recent one is circa August of 2004.) These are not directly involved with the social commentary subject but they do assist readers in being able to formulate viable arguments of their own as well as recognize fallacious forms of argumentation when others utilize it.
--The post from August 20, 2004 on the war, moral and constitutional principles, and "supporting the troops" in response to Ian McLean.
--My post on the logical fallacy of the "communist-fascist" political spectrum theory circa July 2004. The Beltway pundits who utilize this fallacious form of argumentation are legion but pointing this fallacy out and sustaining it by logical argumentation is something that you will not find in very many places. (If you will at all.)
--The post on humanizing formal enemies in a time of war (an audio post circa July 25th).
--The post on Paul Johnson and those who killed him (circa June 18, 2004).
--The post on Nick Berg and those who killed him (circa May 9, 2004)
--The two posts from March 2004 on John Kerry, Al Queda, and Spain
--My post on the 2004 elections circa February of 2004. This is a far more cogent argument for electing President Bush (his many warts and all) than the common boilerplate shrieking of certain Catholic "social commentators" who shall not be named.
--A rider reform proposal which is unlike any that I have seen offered anywhere else by anybody. (This one is circa January of 2004.) This proposal if enacted would clean up a lot of the crap that gets guided through the legislatures at the state and federal levels by making legislators accountable for their votes on these kinds of currently "under the radar" issues. The day someone puts through a rider mandating more federal funding for abortions and tacks it to some bill supported by Catholics at large is the day that they will realize why this proposal is of value and should be promoted.{3}
Though numerous others could be listed, that would result in an unnecessarily long biblical scroll of subjects. For that reason, I will refrain from mentioning any others here except for one caveat: my position on the war in Iraq as outlined in February of 2003 is not only one that was unique in the blogosphere but it also (in light of subsequent developments) has lost none of its credibility whatsoever.{4} The latter is an area where this weblog did a hell of a lot better job making a case for war than the Bush Administration did at the time. Many who took the same position have either done an about face or had to reconfigure their arguments significantly. But enough with presenting evidences.
My interest in any social commentary is in formulating workable solutions to societies problems and not just regurgitating the canned "Catholic" responses ala what the likely "winners" of this "award" will produce. Every entry which falls into this area intends to either advance, fortify, recall, or develop further the kind of core principles that enable someone to provide a coherent and consistent (not to mention workable) alternative to the ideas which permeate society at large in the present day. The reason for this is because definitions are the tools of thought.{4} I refuse to merely go along with "status quo" nebulous concepts -but apparently that is what one has to do to be considered a "social commentator" in these kinds of "awards." Along with the refusal to nominate Gerard Serafin's wonderful weblog for anything, we see the true "value" in these kinds of "awards."{5}
I should note that it is my concern for ideas such as those noted above reaching a broader audience that I have made any issue out of this "award." It is certainly not for the sake of the "award" itself -heck, I am frankly surprised that anyone would nominate this weblog for a specialized kind of category when it does not categorize well by my own admission. But at the very least, if Rerum Novarum is nominated for this category, then it deserves to be in there with weblogs which actually fit the category itself. And other than Southern Appeal and Dust in the Light{6} the nominees of this category do not belong and it is that simple really. This proves that the so-called "award" process in general is merely an exercise of nominating people for the sake of nominating them -not because they actually fit into the category to which they are being nominated. I need not explain further why this cheapens any pretense of a genuine "award" being offered here presumably; ergo I will not belabour this point further.
In closing, the "award" in and of itself is something that I frankly could care less about if not for the ideas I have worked on at this weblog over the years and crystallized into viable policies and principled arguments. It is with an eye towards reaching that broader audience with these concepts which is why I raise these issues at all at the present time. For that reason, "social commentary" nominees should be able to make a case for similar contributions{7} and not merely be there because they were nominated in every category under the sun regardless of their qualifications to be in a respective category thereof.
Notes:
{1} One of the weblogs nominated for "social commentary" is that of St. Blog's resident diva Amy Welborn. She has a good weblog -of this there is not doubt. However, this category is specifically one of "social commentary." And on that subject, when Amy has deigned to make commentary in this area, I have seen little that is truly original or which rises about the standard canned "responses" of the sort that are commonly blogged in these areas by most Catholics. If canned commentary is what wins in "best social commentary" than we are in a lot more trouble viz. having any relevancy in the blogosphere arena of ideas than I thought.
{2} I am incapable of producing a similar sampling from Dust in the Light or Southern Appeal but what I have read of those weblogs certainly does qualify them to be in this category.
{3} I intend to approach an initiative pusher in my state on this issue to try and get it on the ballot for the 2006 election.
{4} As one of my mentors Michael J. Mentzer was noted for saying at times.
{5} Apparently Gerard (may he rest in peace) has fallen prey to the "publish or perish" mantra which permeates fundamentalism and the short attention span of society at large these days. Oh well, he is in my "St. Blog's Hall of Fame" if no one else's. But I digress.
{6} Both of which have been considered for addition to my list of weblogs for some time now btw. (And one of which will probably be added in the next update whenever that happens to be.)
{7} Someone pointed out to me that the bulk of "social commentary" at Ms. Welborn's weblog takes place in the comments boxes. Here is what I noted about that argument in an email correspondence:
If that is the criteria, then how is it any different than a message board??? Social/political commentary should be voted on with the contributions of the weblog contributors in mind first and foremost. Whatever happens in Amy's comments boxes (and I do peruse them on occasion and even comment at times) I do not consider anything I say in comments boxes to be contributions to those weblogs.
Now it is true that I oftentimes blog stuff I put in comments boxes (usually refining it further in the process) but only then do I consider it as contributing to a weblog -and of course at that point it is a contribution to my own weblog. I certainly do not vote for any weblogs in any category based on what happens in their comments boxes. It should be by definition what the contributors to the weblog post-if a single weblog than that person's if a group than the contributions of the group [involved.]
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
As voting takes place in various categories for the various St. Blog's "Awards", it seems appropriate after noting my picks in various categories something that seems to be overlooked in how those listed in certain categories are picked. For example, this weblog was apparently nominated in the "best social commentary" category which is of course appreciated. However, upon looking at other nominees in that category,{1} it gives me reason to wonder what people are thinking when they nominate for various categories. For one thing, that the late Gerard Serafin's stellar weblog received no finalist consideration for anything is a crying shame. It makes this whole thing a charade to me from the get go but that point aside, let us consider the "best social commentary" category and what that category should entail.
First of all, let us get real: if we really want to get technical about it, (and modesty aside for the duration of this note) this category should be a three blog race between Rerum Novarum, Southern Appeal, and Dust in the Light. No one else who is nominated in that category of the "big five" finalists has anything particularly original to offer in these areas. All of which (thus far) confirms my long-viewed assessment about the "worth" of these kinds of awards: the predictable ones win and those who are truly creative in their analysis and suggestions (as in the three noted above are to some extent) tend to be more marginalized. But of course as assertions by themselves are cheap, here are several examples which pertain to the subject of social commentary as dealt with at Rerum Novarum --all of which are to some degree original (either in and of themselves) or in my development/refining of the underlying concepts involved.{2}
To start with, there is the renewal, further development (in some parameters), and careful application of the classical legal and economic theories of Claude Frederic Bastiat to the problems that beset society today -thereby providing a logical coherence to the authentic conservative position on these matters. The latter is a project that is an ongoing one at this weblog and from which there are probably thirty or forty threads from 2004 alone which would easily fit into this category. More will be taking place in 2005 as time allows for it -as this is an ambitious undertaking that has no small amount of work involved in it. But a short word on this process (since I see it as of no small significance) before moving onto the other subjects to be covered in this post.
For if nothing else at Rerum Novarum was accomplished in two and a half years (and for the remaining duration of this weblog's existence however long that will be), than the aforementioned ambitious project which has been undertaken here, the fact that I have sought to provide a consistent (and adaptable) rationale for advancing an agenda contrary to that which prevails in the society at large should suffice all by itself for that category. The subject being covered here is particularly pertinent to the whole subject because it involves an entire weltanschauung that is not only congruent with Catholic principles but which could be accepted by non-Catholics solely on the basis of the consistency of the positions and their relative logic thereof. (In other words, it has a dual benefit and is not only aimed at Catholics.) But of course there are others threads to consider too -some of which would be among the posts falling in the aforementioned area but nonetheless (to list roughly one per month):
--My posts on religious liberty and its application at large (particularly the one from December of 2004) which discusses the important components of any asserted "liberty" or "right" in a society. This has ramifications for a whole host of issues and therefore is of no small value.
--My musings on the role of the double effect principle in ethical argumentation as it pertains to issues which involve both the natural and supernatural. (Circa December of 2004.)
--The development of a unique application of the third party concept that could actually work in practice if implemented at the grass roots level over the next sixteen to twenty years. (Circa November of 2004.)
--My posts on voting circa September of 2004 -the one from the twenty-fifth on taking an integrated approach to voting and the one from the eighth on the myopic approach of pro lifers which is ultimately a self-defeating one.
--Posts such as the occasional "argumentation fallacy" posts which deal with the subject of how one properly utilizes reason and logic in argumentation. (The most recent one is circa August of 2004.) These are not directly involved with the social commentary subject but they do assist readers in being able to formulate viable arguments of their own as well as recognize fallacious forms of argumentation when others utilize it.
--The post from August 20, 2004 on the war, moral and constitutional principles, and "supporting the troops" in response to Ian McLean.
--My post on the logical fallacy of the "communist-fascist" political spectrum theory circa July 2004. The Beltway pundits who utilize this fallacious form of argumentation are legion but pointing this fallacy out and sustaining it by logical argumentation is something that you will not find in very many places. (If you will at all.)
--The post on humanizing formal enemies in a time of war (an audio post circa July 25th).
--The post on Paul Johnson and those who killed him (circa June 18, 2004).
--The post on Nick Berg and those who killed him (circa May 9, 2004)
--The two posts from March 2004 on John Kerry, Al Queda, and Spain
--My post on the 2004 elections circa February of 2004. This is a far more cogent argument for electing President Bush (his many warts and all) than the common boilerplate shrieking of certain Catholic "social commentators" who shall not be named.
--A rider reform proposal which is unlike any that I have seen offered anywhere else by anybody. (This one is circa January of 2004.) This proposal if enacted would clean up a lot of the crap that gets guided through the legislatures at the state and federal levels by making legislators accountable for their votes on these kinds of currently "under the radar" issues. The day someone puts through a rider mandating more federal funding for abortions and tacks it to some bill supported by Catholics at large is the day that they will realize why this proposal is of value and should be promoted.{3}
Though numerous others could be listed, that would result in an unnecessarily long biblical scroll of subjects. For that reason, I will refrain from mentioning any others here except for one caveat: my position on the war in Iraq as outlined in February of 2003 is not only one that was unique in the blogosphere but it also (in light of subsequent developments) has lost none of its credibility whatsoever.{4} The latter is an area where this weblog did a hell of a lot better job making a case for war than the Bush Administration did at the time. Many who took the same position have either done an about face or had to reconfigure their arguments significantly. But enough with presenting evidences.
My interest in any social commentary is in formulating workable solutions to societies problems and not just regurgitating the canned "Catholic" responses ala what the likely "winners" of this "award" will produce. Every entry which falls into this area intends to either advance, fortify, recall, or develop further the kind of core principles that enable someone to provide a coherent and consistent (not to mention workable) alternative to the ideas which permeate society at large in the present day. The reason for this is because definitions are the tools of thought.{4} I refuse to merely go along with "status quo" nebulous concepts -but apparently that is what one has to do to be considered a "social commentator" in these kinds of "awards." Along with the refusal to nominate Gerard Serafin's wonderful weblog for anything, we see the true "value" in these kinds of "awards."{5}
I should note that it is my concern for ideas such as those noted above reaching a broader audience that I have made any issue out of this "award." It is certainly not for the sake of the "award" itself -heck, I am frankly surprised that anyone would nominate this weblog for a specialized kind of category when it does not categorize well by my own admission. But at the very least, if Rerum Novarum is nominated for this category, then it deserves to be in there with weblogs which actually fit the category itself. And other than Southern Appeal and Dust in the Light{6} the nominees of this category do not belong and it is that simple really. This proves that the so-called "award" process in general is merely an exercise of nominating people for the sake of nominating them -not because they actually fit into the category to which they are being nominated. I need not explain further why this cheapens any pretense of a genuine "award" being offered here presumably; ergo I will not belabour this point further.
In closing, the "award" in and of itself is something that I frankly could care less about if not for the ideas I have worked on at this weblog over the years and crystallized into viable policies and principled arguments. It is with an eye towards reaching that broader audience with these concepts which is why I raise these issues at all at the present time. For that reason, "social commentary" nominees should be able to make a case for similar contributions{7} and not merely be there because they were nominated in every category under the sun regardless of their qualifications to be in a respective category thereof.
Notes:
{1} One of the weblogs nominated for "social commentary" is that of St. Blog's resident diva Amy Welborn. She has a good weblog -of this there is not doubt. However, this category is specifically one of "social commentary." And on that subject, when Amy has deigned to make commentary in this area, I have seen little that is truly original or which rises about the standard canned "responses" of the sort that are commonly blogged in these areas by most Catholics. If canned commentary is what wins in "best social commentary" than we are in a lot more trouble viz. having any relevancy in the blogosphere arena of ideas than I thought.
{2} I am incapable of producing a similar sampling from Dust in the Light or Southern Appeal but what I have read of those weblogs certainly does qualify them to be in this category.
{3} I intend to approach an initiative pusher in my state on this issue to try and get it on the ballot for the 2006 election.
{4} As one of my mentors Michael J. Mentzer was noted for saying at times.
{5} Apparently Gerard (may he rest in peace) has fallen prey to the "publish or perish" mantra which permeates fundamentalism and the short attention span of society at large these days. Oh well, he is in my "St. Blog's Hall of Fame" if no one else's. But I digress.
{6} Both of which have been considered for addition to my list of weblogs for some time now btw. (And one of which will probably be added in the next update whenever that happens to be.)
{7} Someone pointed out to me that the bulk of "social commentary" at Ms. Welborn's weblog takes place in the comments boxes. Here is what I noted about that argument in an email correspondence:
If that is the criteria, then how is it any different than a message board??? Social/political commentary should be voted on with the contributions of the weblog contributors in mind first and foremost. Whatever happens in Amy's comments boxes (and I do peruse them on occasion and even comment at times) I do not consider anything I say in comments boxes to be contributions to those weblogs.
Now it is true that I oftentimes blog stuff I put in comments boxes (usually refining it further in the process) but only then do I consider it as contributing to a weblog -and of course at that point it is a contribution to my own weblog. I certainly do not vote for any weblogs in any category based on what happens in their comments boxes. It should be by definition what the contributors to the weblog post-if a single weblog than that person's if a group than the contributions of the group [involved.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)