Points to Ponder:
Constitutions of civil government are not to be framed upon a calculation of existing exigencies, but upon a combination of these with the probable exigencies of ages, according to the natural and tried course of human affairs. Nothing, therefore, can be more fallacious than to infer the extent of any power, proper to be lodged in the national government, from an estimate of its immediate necessities. [Alexander Hamilton]
Friday, April 17, 2009
Dialogue...is a recognized method of the apostolate. It is a way of making spiritual contact. It should however have the following characteristics:
1) Clarity before all else; the dialogue demands that what is said should be intelligible. We can think of it as a kind of thought transfusion. It is an invitation to the exercise and development of the highest spiritual and mental powers a man possesses. This fact alone would suffice to make such dialogue rank among the greatest manifestations of human activity and culture. In order to satisfy this first requirement, all of us who feel the spur of the apostolate should examine closely the kind of speech we use. Is it easy to understand? Can it be grasped by ordinary people? Is it current idiom?
2) Our dialogue must be accompanied by that meekness which Christ bade us learn from Himself: "Learn of me, for I am meek and humble of heart." (Mt 11. 29.) It would indeed be a disgrace if our dialogue were marked by arrogance, the use of bared words or offensive bitterness. What gives it its authority is the fact that it affirms the truth, shares with others the gifts of charity, is itself an example of virtue, avoids peremptory language, makes no demands. It is peaceful, has no use for extreme methods, is patient under contradiction and inclines towards generosity.
3) Confidence is also necessary; confidence not only in the power of one's own words, but also in the good will of both parties to the dialogue. Hence dialogue promotes intimacy and friendship on both sides. It unites them in a mutual adherence to the Good, and thus excludes all self-seeking.
4) Finally, the prudence of a teacher who is most careful to make allowances for the psychological and moral circumstances of his hearer, (Mt 7.6.) particularly if he is a child, unprepared, suspicious or hostile. The person who speaks is always at pains to learn the sensitivities of his audience, and if reason demands it, he adapts himself and the manner of his presentation to the susceptibilities and the degree of intelligence of his hearers.
In a dialogue conducted with this kind of foresight, truth is wedded to charity and understanding to love. [Pope Paul VI: Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam Suam §81-82 (c. 1964) as quoted in my writing On the Intricacies of Dialogue (c. 2003)]
1) Clarity before all else; the dialogue demands that what is said should be intelligible. We can think of it as a kind of thought transfusion. It is an invitation to the exercise and development of the highest spiritual and mental powers a man possesses. This fact alone would suffice to make such dialogue rank among the greatest manifestations of human activity and culture. In order to satisfy this first requirement, all of us who feel the spur of the apostolate should examine closely the kind of speech we use. Is it easy to understand? Can it be grasped by ordinary people? Is it current idiom?
2) Our dialogue must be accompanied by that meekness which Christ bade us learn from Himself: "Learn of me, for I am meek and humble of heart." (Mt 11. 29.) It would indeed be a disgrace if our dialogue were marked by arrogance, the use of bared words or offensive bitterness. What gives it its authority is the fact that it affirms the truth, shares with others the gifts of charity, is itself an example of virtue, avoids peremptory language, makes no demands. It is peaceful, has no use for extreme methods, is patient under contradiction and inclines towards generosity.
3) Confidence is also necessary; confidence not only in the power of one's own words, but also in the good will of both parties to the dialogue. Hence dialogue promotes intimacy and friendship on both sides. It unites them in a mutual adherence to the Good, and thus excludes all self-seeking.
4) Finally, the prudence of a teacher who is most careful to make allowances for the psychological and moral circumstances of his hearer, (Mt 7.6.) particularly if he is a child, unprepared, suspicious or hostile. The person who speaks is always at pains to learn the sensitivities of his audience, and if reason demands it, he adapts himself and the manner of his presentation to the susceptibilities and the degree of intelligence of his hearers.
In a dialogue conducted with this kind of foresight, truth is wedded to charity and understanding to love. [Pope Paul VI: Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam Suam §81-82 (c. 1964) as quoted in my writing On the Intricacies of Dialogue (c. 2003)]
In Defense of Tax Havens
What is really sad is that a defense of tax havens is even necessary but the state to which people unfamiliar with the fundamental rights of man find themselves. Rather than expositate on the latter subject myself (and as time does not allow for me to), the above thread does a pretty good job so I will defer to it at the present time and reserve to myself the right to comment further later on as I see fit if and when I have the time and desire to.
What is really sad is that a defense of tax havens is even necessary but the state to which people unfamiliar with the fundamental rights of man find themselves. Rather than expositate on the latter subject myself (and as time does not allow for me to), the above thread does a pretty good job so I will defer to it at the present time and reserve to myself the right to comment further later on as I see fit if and when I have the time and desire to.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Gov. Perry Backs Resolution Affirming Texas’ Sovereignty Under 10th Amendment
While I would argue that his interpretation of the constitution is a bit too narrow if I was in the mood to quibble{1} -failing to account for necessary implied powers for example{2}- I nonetheless fully support the governor of Texas standing up to the federal leviathan and saying "enough" when it comes to federal encroachments onto state prerogatives. And before we can talk about the aforementioned implied powers aspect and what it lawfully entails{3}, we need to stop unchecked federal impositions into the states at the whim of federal legislators and bureaucrats. And as an important step in that direction, the governor of Texas deserves credit and he has the support of this writer.
Notes:
{1} Between Unconstitutionality and Unworkability (circa February 6, 2009)
{2} See footnote one for some examples.
{3} Yes this can be unlawfully appealed to; ergo my distinction here.
While I would argue that his interpretation of the constitution is a bit too narrow if I was in the mood to quibble{1} -failing to account for necessary implied powers for example{2}- I nonetheless fully support the governor of Texas standing up to the federal leviathan and saying "enough" when it comes to federal encroachments onto state prerogatives. And before we can talk about the aforementioned implied powers aspect and what it lawfully entails{3}, we need to stop unchecked federal impositions into the states at the whim of federal legislators and bureaucrats. And as an important step in that direction, the governor of Texas deserves credit and he has the support of this writer.
Notes:
{1} Between Unconstitutionality and Unworkability (circa February 6, 2009)
{2} See footnote one for some examples.
{3} Yes this can be unlawfully appealed to; ergo my distinction here.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Points to Ponder:
(On the Common Good)
It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn. [George Washington]
(On the Common Good)
It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn. [George Washington]
Responding to Various Statements About President Barack Hussein Obama:
This stuff was written between 7:47 and 7:50am Saturday morning in another publishing medium. The words of the person being responded to will be in dark green font. Without further ado...
Just for the record Dubya spent more than all the presidents that preceded HIM.
And Obama will under his watch see a larger amount of spending in the first two years than all eight of Dubya's.
Secondly Obama doesn't need a teleprompter
Then why does he use one for almost everything??? And why when he speaks without one does he sound like such a blithering idiot???
because he already runs circles around Bush both intellectually and verbally.
And you can prove this how??? Lest you forget, Obama is too much of a coward to let his transcripts from Harvard be released. Kerry did the same thing and though many people claimed he was an "intellectual" and Bush was an "idiot", only one person actually ran the numbers as best they could determine them from Kerry and Bush's military assessment tests and found that (i) Bush's IQ was with a high degree of probability higher than Kerry's and (ii) both men would score in the highest percentile of Americans. To wit:
This Just In: Kerry's IQ Likely Lower Than Bush's
Furthermore, Sailer like myself spent at least as much time criticizing Bush as he did defending him so for that reason, he cannot be accused of the sort of bias you display in your fawning love for Obama.
I am willing to wager that the reason Obama will not release the transcripts is that he did not do all that well and prefers to maintain this media myth that he is some ultra smart guy. But we unfortunately do not have a way of running a similar test in the absence of your hero's refusal to release his transcripts and a lack of similar military assessment tests to compare the two. Nonetheless, if you want to so easily dismiss a man with two Ivy League degrees including an MBA in business (Bush) and laud the supposed brilliance of someone whose understanding of how economies work is so pathetically laughable as to be an embarrassment (Obama), that is your prerogative. I knew more about how economies worked before I took economics than Obama seems to know now so if he is as smart as you claim, obviously it does not translate into economics knowledge.
Of course if he does actually know basic economics and still pushes what he is pushing than he is formally trying to destroy this country rather than materially and out of ignorance but there are no other alternatives than that based on what he is trying to push.
He already has more respect from foreign leaders than Dubya ever enjoyed.
Foreign leaders do not respect Obama. They like him because he is their lapdog and will not dare criticize them when warranted. You would like me too if I gave you a bunch of money but you would not respect me. Ditto for Obama and the foreign leaders of which you speak.
It is sad to see another black American embrace willingly the party that enslaved his ancestors, fought to keep them enslaved, founded the Ku Klux Klan after they were freed to try and put them back into slavery, enacted Jim Crow discrimination laws against them, fought desegregation, fought against Ike's Civil Rights Act of 1957, fought against LBJ's Civil Rights Act of 1964, fought against the Voters Rights Act of 1965, and has sought as a party and in general (with some notable exceptions I will admit) a variety of means to enslave black people both psychologically and economically all along. But that is probably why Martin Luther King was a Republican anyway -he believed in judging people by the content of their character not the colour of their skin. Remember that the next time someone brings race into the argument to attempt to discredit someone criticizing the incompetence of this president: they are spitting in the face of Dr. King and what he died for. And that's the bottom line.
This stuff was written between 7:47 and 7:50am Saturday morning in another publishing medium. The words of the person being responded to will be in dark green font. Without further ado...
Just for the record Dubya spent more than all the presidents that preceded HIM.
And Obama will under his watch see a larger amount of spending in the first two years than all eight of Dubya's.
Secondly Obama doesn't need a teleprompter
Then why does he use one for almost everything??? And why when he speaks without one does he sound like such a blithering idiot???
because he already runs circles around Bush both intellectually and verbally.
And you can prove this how??? Lest you forget, Obama is too much of a coward to let his transcripts from Harvard be released. Kerry did the same thing and though many people claimed he was an "intellectual" and Bush was an "idiot", only one person actually ran the numbers as best they could determine them from Kerry and Bush's military assessment tests and found that (i) Bush's IQ was with a high degree of probability higher than Kerry's and (ii) both men would score in the highest percentile of Americans. To wit:
This Just In: Kerry's IQ Likely Lower Than Bush's
Furthermore, Sailer like myself spent at least as much time criticizing Bush as he did defending him so for that reason, he cannot be accused of the sort of bias you display in your fawning love for Obama.
I am willing to wager that the reason Obama will not release the transcripts is that he did not do all that well and prefers to maintain this media myth that he is some ultra smart guy. But we unfortunately do not have a way of running a similar test in the absence of your hero's refusal to release his transcripts and a lack of similar military assessment tests to compare the two. Nonetheless, if you want to so easily dismiss a man with two Ivy League degrees including an MBA in business (Bush) and laud the supposed brilliance of someone whose understanding of how economies work is so pathetically laughable as to be an embarrassment (Obama), that is your prerogative. I knew more about how economies worked before I took economics than Obama seems to know now so if he is as smart as you claim, obviously it does not translate into economics knowledge.
Of course if he does actually know basic economics and still pushes what he is pushing than he is formally trying to destroy this country rather than materially and out of ignorance but there are no other alternatives than that based on what he is trying to push.
He already has more respect from foreign leaders than Dubya ever enjoyed.
Foreign leaders do not respect Obama. They like him because he is their lapdog and will not dare criticize them when warranted. You would like me too if I gave you a bunch of money but you would not respect me. Ditto for Obama and the foreign leaders of which you speak.
It is sad to see another black American embrace willingly the party that enslaved his ancestors, fought to keep them enslaved, founded the Ku Klux Klan after they were freed to try and put them back into slavery, enacted Jim Crow discrimination laws against them, fought desegregation, fought against Ike's Civil Rights Act of 1957, fought against LBJ's Civil Rights Act of 1964, fought against the Voters Rights Act of 1965, and has sought as a party and in general (with some notable exceptions I will admit) a variety of means to enslave black people both psychologically and economically all along. But that is probably why Martin Luther King was a Republican anyway -he believed in judging people by the content of their character not the colour of their skin. Remember that the next time someone brings race into the argument to attempt to discredit someone criticizing the incompetence of this president: they are spitting in the face of Dr. King and what he died for. And that's the bottom line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)