Cheney: Obama Team Should Be Debriefing CIA Interrogators, Not Investigating Them
It should not take even the assistant of the assistant of a rocket scientist to realize what actions such as these do. For one thing, they lower the morale of people who work at the CIA and are involved in national security. Secondly, if lawyers who give legal opinions which lead to or influence policy have to be concerned about future administrations even talking about (let alone actually) looking at investigating them for supposed "criminal behaviour"{1}, then this will inexorably lead to a weakening of national security. How could it otherwise since -the absolute idiocy if these assertions aside for a moment{2}- any motivations for taking tough measures against non-Geneva following enemy combatants will have to be weighed against the possibility of the person's views being considered "criminal."
This would furthermore (if the current crowd's methodology is observed and presumed to be the future norm in this area) not to be not be done an objective manifestation of the evidences.{3} Instead on the mere subjective intentions{4} of any given polemicist who finds himself in power later on and wants to extract political revenge against positional adversaries. The latter is what they do in communist/socialist/totalitarianist nations, it should not be what we see in a republic such as ours.
Notes:
{1} I say "supposed" because whatever one thinks about the manner in which detainees were treated, it borders on banana republic behaviour for one administration to be playing the "our predecessors were criminals" schtick. Plus, the idea that we were engaging in "torture" is so laughable as to be absurd but then again, when you have people refusing to define their terms, this is the sort of irrational drivel you get: people mindlessly parroting words and slogans as if this suffices to make their argument.
{2} Namely, this one:
On the Subject of CIA Interrogation of Terrorist Suspects In Light of Recent Events (circa April 30, 2009)
{3} On the Difference Between Objective Manifestation and Subjective Intention (circa February 27, 2007)
{4} See footnote three.
Showing posts with label Dick Cheney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dick Cheney. Show all posts
Thursday, August 20, 2009
I am finally scared of a White House administration (Nat Hentoff)
Nat Hentoff is someone whose work I have enjoyed over the years. I disagree with him oftentimes but he is a liberal with integrity. So when Hentoff writes "I was not intimidated during J. Edgar Hoover's FBI hunt for reporters like me who criticized him. I railed against the Bush-Cheney war on the Bill of Rights without blinking. But now I am finally scared of a White House administration", to me that is newsworthy!!!
Nat Hentoff is someone whose work I have enjoyed over the years. I disagree with him oftentimes but he is a liberal with integrity. So when Hentoff writes "I was not intimidated during J. Edgar Hoover's FBI hunt for reporters like me who criticized him. I railed against the Bush-Cheney war on the Bill of Rights without blinking. But now I am finally scared of a White House administration", to me that is newsworthy!!!
Thursday, April 30, 2009
On the Subject of CIA Interrogation of Terrorist Suspects In Light of Recent Events:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I want to start this posting by giving a smattering of links from various recent and older media source before getting to the crux of this posting:
The Memos Prove We Didn't Torture (The Wall Street Journal)
Intel Chief: Harsh Techniques Brought Good Info (MSNBC)
Obama Muddles...Message (Politico)
Intel director: High-Value Info Obtained (Breitbart)
Cheney Calls for Release of Memos Showing Results of Interrogation Efforts (Fox News)
Dick Cheney calls for release of CIA Waterboarding Success Memos (Telegraph/UK)
Cheney to Obama: Release All CIA Interrogation Memos (CNN)
Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002 (Washington Post circa December 9, 2007)
Now many will try to approach this from predictable polarity points and the use of the word "torture" will inexorably be brought out by those opposed to certain methods of interrogation. Others in defending those methods will point to the success they may or may not have had in procuring valuable intelligence information. There are those who will defend the release of these memos and those who would oppose their release and also those who take the view that if certain ones should be released than they all should be. Your humble servant wants to avoid the surface quibbles and get to the core of the matter --something that those who bring these issues up the most continually try to avoid and that is the purpose of the material you have before you.
From the very beginning of my more active involvement in what became known in some quarters as "the torture controversy"{1}, I insisted on a fundamental principle of reason and logic; namely, defining the terms one uses in discourse:
To start with, the notion of defining the terms that someone uses is so elementary that we are frankly embarrassed that it needs to even be mentioned. But experience has shown that the best way to deal with pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists of various stripes is to insist on this principle at all times. This is why we have insisted with greater frequency over the years[...] that those who want to be taken seriously define their terms much as we always have done. The willingness or lack thereof of anyone to conform to this fundamental principle of rational thought has always served as a kind of acid test by your host in ascertaining the integrity or lack thereof of a positional adversary. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 13, 2006)]
But readers of this weblog know I required that all along even if my explicit demands for such things have admittedly increased with time. Those readers who may have wondered why I insisted upon a workable definition for the word "torture"{2} all along{3} and every time this subject came up{4} -be it in incendiary{5} or irenic{6} contexts- you now have an answer on the whole "torture" issue. This is also the reason your host --in the face of all the public wailing and gnashing of teeth over a word that the most frequent of the public whiners on this subject used-- demanded that such people give a workable definition{7} or basically shut the hell up altogether. The principle behind this request should be obvious but since some parties more interested in obfuscation and fog than clarity and light continue to evade it, I restate it anew from words previously used on this weblog in the form of a general principle:
When the term in question is not given a definition, it is subject to a variety of applications some proper and some improper.
That summation{8} encapsulates the principle by which I have always approached this and other subject matters. I have never been interested in television scenarios from shows I have never watched. Nor have I been insisting on defining terms that are used as some sort of game of making excuses for anybody. But the bottom line is, words mean things. And when you have different parties who use the same terms, then those parties in exercising their right to give an opinion --if they are to have any credibility whatsoever as either sound thinkers or ethical persons-- have a corresponding moral obligation. They are morally obligated to strive for clarity not obfuscation, light and not fog, and to give a proper accounting of all pertinent data not merely that which they think supports their views while ignoring that which may not.
All people regardless of their views should be held to these standards. Failure to do so and any attempts made to evade this simple requirement of both ethics and common charity demonstrates a serious lack of a spine on their part as well as a corresponding lack of credibility.{9} Words mean things.{10}
This posting will stand in perpetuity as a testimony to why I approach subjects the way I do. It will also serve to illustrate why I have such a low opinion for those who act as if such things as defining the words one uses is somehow beneath basic charity and human decencies.{11} Now certainly those who try to avoid the realm of the ethical on these sorts of matters do not mind bearing false witness{12} against anyone who dares to question their simplistic and erroneous presuppositions -regardless of whatever they may say to the contrary.{13} But more than that, this kind of irrational hermeneutic has a way of inexorably working its way into any subject that these kinds of unethical, uncharitable, and worthless excuses for human beings touch on in some form or another.{14} The end result of the process is said persons become as bereft of their intellectual and moral senses as Helen Keller was of her physical ones.
Such persons --who criticize others for supposedly making "fine distinctions" while they themselves make no distinctions only end up looking pretty stupid in the end when the truth they played no small part in attempting to hide from or dissuade others from finding eventually becomes better known. Let the following post stand as a testament to the idea that it is better to get things right from the beginning --or, at the very least utilize a methodology that greatly improves one's chances of being right in the end. And this writer can think of no better principle to follow (apart from basic charity and ethics) than one that respects reason and logic which intrinsically demands that the words used to express oneself be given workable definitions. Without them, reason and logic cannot operate. And that's the bottom line.
Notes:
{1} On Torture and General Norms of Interpretation --Parts I-III (circa October 13, 2006)
{2} [O]n the subject of torture we are asking those who have seized on this as a major agenda item of theirs to give the rest of us the most basic of courtesies and explain themselves. Define for us what in a workable sense constitutes "torture" and what does not. Notice we are not asking for an abstract manualist definition of the term but one which can be applied to real life situations with reasonable assurance that it provides a point of reference on the subject in question. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 13, 2006)]
{3} To note what I believe is my earliest involvement in any recognizable capacity on the subject of what does and does not constitute "torture":
[XXXX XXXX's] "Torture Poll"
This whole scenario is reminding us of something spoken of last year pertaining to those who use terms they do not bother to define or who otherwise shirk from doing so when challenged to do so.[...] But enough on that matter for now. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 3, 2006)]
Readers can click on the links to see the person to whom I was referring -my interest here (as almost always) is to recall the principles of the dispute and not make this an issue of personalities.
{4} See footnote three and the quote from December of 2005. (One of the parties I had in mind when originally writing that passage was [XXXX XXXX] and the subject involved was the one I referred to back on July 3rd of this year.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 17, 2006)]
{5} For the sake of keeping this posting more to the irenic side, I will merely note that the archives of this weblog contain not a few less-than-irenic treatments on this matter and will leave it to the reader to track them down if they are so inclined.
{6} To give one example of being fairly irenic when (considering the person I was responding to) all my instincts were to the contrary on this matter:
On Coercion, the War on Terror, "Torture", and Fantasy Scenarios --Parts I-III (circa June 28-30, 2008)
{7} Defining the Word "Torture" Since No One Else Will -A Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG Posting (circa November 18, 2006)
{8} See footnote six.
{9} One of the problems I have with most bloggers or commentators in any genre is their frequent unwillingness to define their terms. Failure in this area is both dishonest as well as lazy. [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa June 23, 2006) as posted to Rerum Novarum (circa July 3, 2006)]
{10} Definitions are the tools of thought. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 17, 2004)]
{11} This principle was encapsulated in various and sundry ways at this weblog long before the whole "torture controversy" broke out involving (among other things) personal attacks on yours truly. To note one such example that I recalled and was able with the aid of a simple archival search to dig up:
[W]atch those who are incapable of giving a reasonable working definition of "rights" to claim that there is one. Definitions are the tools of thought and frankly, those who are not willing to define their terms do not deserve to be taken seriously...whether they are misappropriating the term "rights", "neo cons", or whatever. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 26, 2005)]
And to note another example from over four years ago:
My interest in any social commentary is in formulating workable solutions to societies problems and not just regurgitating the canned "Catholic" responses...
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.[...] 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"... [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 7, 2005)]
Like all solid principles, it has a variety of applications and is timeless in its validity thereof.
{12} A Case Study in the Importance of Reason and Logic (circa August 29, 2007)
{13} See footnote ten and also remember that while words mean things, actions speak louder than any words so judge these sorts by what they do not what they say. And remember, Pharisees in any era are quite good at talking the talk of acting in principle, acting morally, and being ethical but not so good walking the walk when the rubber meets the road if to do so proves to be an inconvenience for them.
{14} On "Consequentialism", "Proportionalism", and a Lesson in General Norms of Interpretation Theological and Otherwise (circa October 6, 2008)
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I want to start this posting by giving a smattering of links from various recent and older media source before getting to the crux of this posting:
The Memos Prove We Didn't Torture (The Wall Street Journal)
Intel Chief: Harsh Techniques Brought Good Info (MSNBC)
Obama Muddles...Message (Politico)
Intel director: High-Value Info Obtained (Breitbart)
Cheney Calls for Release of Memos Showing Results of Interrogation Efforts (Fox News)
Dick Cheney calls for release of CIA Waterboarding Success Memos (Telegraph/UK)
Cheney to Obama: Release All CIA Interrogation Memos (CNN)
Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002 (Washington Post circa December 9, 2007)
Now many will try to approach this from predictable polarity points and the use of the word "torture" will inexorably be brought out by those opposed to certain methods of interrogation. Others in defending those methods will point to the success they may or may not have had in procuring valuable intelligence information. There are those who will defend the release of these memos and those who would oppose their release and also those who take the view that if certain ones should be released than they all should be. Your humble servant wants to avoid the surface quibbles and get to the core of the matter --something that those who bring these issues up the most continually try to avoid and that is the purpose of the material you have before you.
From the very beginning of my more active involvement in what became known in some quarters as "the torture controversy"{1}, I insisted on a fundamental principle of reason and logic; namely, defining the terms one uses in discourse:
To start with, the notion of defining the terms that someone uses is so elementary that we are frankly embarrassed that it needs to even be mentioned. But experience has shown that the best way to deal with pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists of various stripes is to insist on this principle at all times. This is why we have insisted with greater frequency over the years[...] that those who want to be taken seriously define their terms much as we always have done. The willingness or lack thereof of anyone to conform to this fundamental principle of rational thought has always served as a kind of acid test by your host in ascertaining the integrity or lack thereof of a positional adversary. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 13, 2006)]
But readers of this weblog know I required that all along even if my explicit demands for such things have admittedly increased with time. Those readers who may have wondered why I insisted upon a workable definition for the word "torture"{2} all along{3} and every time this subject came up{4} -be it in incendiary{5} or irenic{6} contexts- you now have an answer on the whole "torture" issue. This is also the reason your host --in the face of all the public wailing and gnashing of teeth over a word that the most frequent of the public whiners on this subject used-- demanded that such people give a workable definition{7} or basically shut the hell up altogether. The principle behind this request should be obvious but since some parties more interested in obfuscation and fog than clarity and light continue to evade it, I restate it anew from words previously used on this weblog in the form of a general principle:
When the term in question is not given a definition, it is subject to a variety of applications some proper and some improper.
That summation{8} encapsulates the principle by which I have always approached this and other subject matters. I have never been interested in television scenarios from shows I have never watched. Nor have I been insisting on defining terms that are used as some sort of game of making excuses for anybody. But the bottom line is, words mean things. And when you have different parties who use the same terms, then those parties in exercising their right to give an opinion --if they are to have any credibility whatsoever as either sound thinkers or ethical persons-- have a corresponding moral obligation. They are morally obligated to strive for clarity not obfuscation, light and not fog, and to give a proper accounting of all pertinent data not merely that which they think supports their views while ignoring that which may not.
All people regardless of their views should be held to these standards. Failure to do so and any attempts made to evade this simple requirement of both ethics and common charity demonstrates a serious lack of a spine on their part as well as a corresponding lack of credibility.{9} Words mean things.{10}
This posting will stand in perpetuity as a testimony to why I approach subjects the way I do. It will also serve to illustrate why I have such a low opinion for those who act as if such things as defining the words one uses is somehow beneath basic charity and human decencies.{11} Now certainly those who try to avoid the realm of the ethical on these sorts of matters do not mind bearing false witness{12} against anyone who dares to question their simplistic and erroneous presuppositions -regardless of whatever they may say to the contrary.{13} But more than that, this kind of irrational hermeneutic has a way of inexorably working its way into any subject that these kinds of unethical, uncharitable, and worthless excuses for human beings touch on in some form or another.{14} The end result of the process is said persons become as bereft of their intellectual and moral senses as Helen Keller was of her physical ones.
Such persons --who criticize others for supposedly making "fine distinctions" while they themselves make no distinctions only end up looking pretty stupid in the end when the truth they played no small part in attempting to hide from or dissuade others from finding eventually becomes better known. Let the following post stand as a testament to the idea that it is better to get things right from the beginning --or, at the very least utilize a methodology that greatly improves one's chances of being right in the end. And this writer can think of no better principle to follow (apart from basic charity and ethics) than one that respects reason and logic which intrinsically demands that the words used to express oneself be given workable definitions. Without them, reason and logic cannot operate. And that's the bottom line.
Notes:
{1} On Torture and General Norms of Interpretation --Parts I-III (circa October 13, 2006)
{2} [O]n the subject of torture we are asking those who have seized on this as a major agenda item of theirs to give the rest of us the most basic of courtesies and explain themselves. Define for us what in a workable sense constitutes "torture" and what does not. Notice we are not asking for an abstract manualist definition of the term but one which can be applied to real life situations with reasonable assurance that it provides a point of reference on the subject in question. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 13, 2006)]
{3} To note what I believe is my earliest involvement in any recognizable capacity on the subject of what does and does not constitute "torture":
[XXXX XXXX's] "Torture Poll"
This whole scenario is reminding us of something spoken of last year pertaining to those who use terms they do not bother to define or who otherwise shirk from doing so when challenged to do so.[...] But enough on that matter for now. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 3, 2006)]
Readers can click on the links to see the person to whom I was referring -my interest here (as almost always) is to recall the principles of the dispute and not make this an issue of personalities.
{4} See footnote three and the quote from December of 2005. (One of the parties I had in mind when originally writing that passage was [XXXX XXXX] and the subject involved was the one I referred to back on July 3rd of this year.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 17, 2006)]
{5} For the sake of keeping this posting more to the irenic side, I will merely note that the archives of this weblog contain not a few less-than-irenic treatments on this matter and will leave it to the reader to track them down if they are so inclined.
{6} To give one example of being fairly irenic when (considering the person I was responding to) all my instincts were to the contrary on this matter:
On Coercion, the War on Terror, "Torture", and Fantasy Scenarios --Parts I-III (circa June 28-30, 2008)
{7} Defining the Word "Torture" Since No One Else Will -A Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG Posting (circa November 18, 2006)
{8} See footnote six.
{9} One of the problems I have with most bloggers or commentators in any genre is their frequent unwillingness to define their terms. Failure in this area is both dishonest as well as lazy. [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa June 23, 2006) as posted to Rerum Novarum (circa July 3, 2006)]
{10} Definitions are the tools of thought. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 17, 2004)]
{11} This principle was encapsulated in various and sundry ways at this weblog long before the whole "torture controversy" broke out involving (among other things) personal attacks on yours truly. To note one such example that I recalled and was able with the aid of a simple archival search to dig up:
[W]atch those who are incapable of giving a reasonable working definition of "rights" to claim that there is one. Definitions are the tools of thought and frankly, those who are not willing to define their terms do not deserve to be taken seriously...whether they are misappropriating the term "rights", "neo cons", or whatever. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 26, 2005)]
And to note another example from over four years ago:
My interest in any social commentary is in formulating workable solutions to societies problems and not just regurgitating the canned "Catholic" responses...
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.[...] 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"... [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 7, 2005)]
Like all solid principles, it has a variety of applications and is timeless in its validity thereof.
{12} A Case Study in the Importance of Reason and Logic (circa August 29, 2007)
{13} See footnote ten and also remember that while words mean things, actions speak louder than any words so judge these sorts by what they do not what they say. And remember, Pharisees in any era are quite good at talking the talk of acting in principle, acting morally, and being ethical but not so good walking the walk when the rubber meets the road if to do so proves to be an inconvenience for them.
{14} On "Consequentialism", "Proportionalism", and a Lesson in General Norms of Interpretation Theological and Otherwise (circa October 6, 2008)
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Michael Steele Gives His First Interview as RNC Chairman
My comments made offhand in various forums on this matter will clarify my own view on this event so I post them here for your consideration from an interactive chat thread with various friends:
[I]n light of the election of Steele to RNC chair [I am] going to strongly consider reaffiliating with the Republicans after years in political exile...[circa January 30, 2009 @ 3:30pm]
I said consider it JJJ...after twelve years of exile I am finally optimistic that things are as they were after Goldwater's defeat where the base is rising again. (We have not had that for over twenty years.) [circa January 30, 2009 @ 3:37pm]
I hope so CCCCC...I saw the mess that the GOP is in now coming over a decade ago and wanted nothing to do with it. I felt about the Republicans like Reagan did the Democrats: he did not leave them they left him. At least he had a party to move to and I did not so it is what it is now and not in the same sense of "is" President Clinton used ;-) It is at least on the table now and has not been for ages. As far as gun toting goes, as long as we do not go hunting with Cheney consider that a rain check if I am out in that area... [circa January 30, 2009 @ 3:46pm]
There are sadly those who think that anyone who does not agree with them either 100% or at least 100% on their pet issues is somehow not a "real conservative." Those people despite having good intentions nonetheless end up doing nearly as much damage as the RINOS do. [circa January 31, 2009 @ 10:32am]
Without the election of a conservative to party chair, I would not be feeling this optimistic Aaaaaa. But I am now sensing that 2008 could be 1964 all over again except the sacrificial lamb for the cause was not Goldwater but Palin. (Johnny Mac went down too but he was not the one who in a classic Goldwater-like way fired up the base.) [circa January 31, 2009 @ 10:36am]
I have been tired of the old boys for nearly twenty years Ccccc so believe me, I know. But Steele has me seriously thinking about re-upping again...if they are actually gonna fight for a change I would be glad to help them. But I will not carry water for RINOS -my view is the same as Reagan's in that if there is 80% agreement then join common cause. The remaining differences can always be hashed out later on but this "political perfection" crap that so many idealists seek never translates into victory in the political arena. [circa January 31, 2009 @ 10:42am]
I agree Ttttt but for the first time in eons I am actually optimistic that the GOP may be starting to get it again. [circa January 31, 2009 @ 6:56am]
With that in mind, I have decided that the often-mentioned and long-completed thread on the necessary third way in politics{1} will be posted on February 6, 2009.
So that is where I am at now folks, strongly considering something I have not given even a second's thought to for over twelve years after the results of a few days ago.
Note:
{1} To my knowledge (and I may be mistaken), this was the last time I mentioned the piece on this humble weblog:
But that point aside, the originally planned posting will be done soon -though I may lead off tomorrow's new blogging cycle with the oft-mentioned posting on the needed third way in politics.
I am not sure right now how I plan to do that and will basically decide on a whim tomorrow depending on if I am motivated to finish the aforementioned material into a bloggable piece or not at that time or thereabouts. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 21, 2008)]
My comments made offhand in various forums on this matter will clarify my own view on this event so I post them here for your consideration from an interactive chat thread with various friends:
[I]n light of the election of Steele to RNC chair [I am] going to strongly consider reaffiliating with the Republicans after years in political exile...[circa January 30, 2009 @ 3:30pm]
I said consider it JJJ...after twelve years of exile I am finally optimistic that things are as they were after Goldwater's defeat where the base is rising again. (We have not had that for over twenty years.) [circa January 30, 2009 @ 3:37pm]
I hope so CCCCC...I saw the mess that the GOP is in now coming over a decade ago and wanted nothing to do with it. I felt about the Republicans like Reagan did the Democrats: he did not leave them they left him. At least he had a party to move to and I did not so it is what it is now and not in the same sense of "is" President Clinton used ;-) It is at least on the table now and has not been for ages. As far as gun toting goes, as long as we do not go hunting with Cheney consider that a rain check if I am out in that area... [circa January 30, 2009 @ 3:46pm]
There are sadly those who think that anyone who does not agree with them either 100% or at least 100% on their pet issues is somehow not a "real conservative." Those people despite having good intentions nonetheless end up doing nearly as much damage as the RINOS do. [circa January 31, 2009 @ 10:32am]
Without the election of a conservative to party chair, I would not be feeling this optimistic Aaaaaa. But I am now sensing that 2008 could be 1964 all over again except the sacrificial lamb for the cause was not Goldwater but Palin. (Johnny Mac went down too but he was not the one who in a classic Goldwater-like way fired up the base.) [circa January 31, 2009 @ 10:36am]
I have been tired of the old boys for nearly twenty years Ccccc so believe me, I know. But Steele has me seriously thinking about re-upping again...if they are actually gonna fight for a change I would be glad to help them. But I will not carry water for RINOS -my view is the same as Reagan's in that if there is 80% agreement then join common cause. The remaining differences can always be hashed out later on but this "political perfection" crap that so many idealists seek never translates into victory in the political arena. [circa January 31, 2009 @ 10:42am]
I agree Ttttt but for the first time in eons I am actually optimistic that the GOP may be starting to get it again. [circa January 31, 2009 @ 6:56am]
With that in mind, I have decided that the often-mentioned and long-completed thread on the necessary third way in politics{1} will be posted on February 6, 2009.
So that is where I am at now folks, strongly considering something I have not given even a second's thought to for over twelve years after the results of a few days ago.
Note:
{1} To my knowledge (and I may be mistaken), this was the last time I mentioned the piece on this humble weblog:
But that point aside, the originally planned posting will be done soon -though I may lead off tomorrow's new blogging cycle with the oft-mentioned posting on the needed third way in politics.
I am not sure right now how I plan to do that and will basically decide on a whim tomorrow depending on if I am motivated to finish the aforementioned material into a bloggable piece or not at that time or thereabouts. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 21, 2008)]
Thursday, August 21, 2008
"NostraShawnus" Dept.
I have a way of being rather eerily accurate in overall prognosticating if we exclude sports predictions.{1} One such example pertaining to the recent war between Russia and Georgia was this offhand quip to a friend in a short chat back on August 12, 2008:
[W]atch for some loony leftist to claim that Putin and Russia invading Georgia was a Rove and Bush ploy to help out McCain.
Readers can notice the accuracy of this prediction by reviewing the following Times Online article from August 15, 2008:
Kremlin dusts off Cold War lexicon to make US villain in Georgia
The part of the article of particular interest for this posting is this:
Russians were told over breakfast yesterday what really happened in Georgia: the conflict in South Ossetia was part of a plot by Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, to stop Barack Obama being elected president of the United States.
So folks, do not underestimate your host's prognosticating capabilities even when he is being deliberately absurd. We now return you to your regularly scheduled blogging (to the extent there is a regular schedule of course of which there is not).
Note:
{1} Where despite some pretty substantial analyses of what my favourite teams need to do to succeed nonetheless with actual predictions I am invariably almost always wrong as this list of sports related blogs will more than adequately attest to.
I have a way of being rather eerily accurate in overall prognosticating if we exclude sports predictions.{1} One such example pertaining to the recent war between Russia and Georgia was this offhand quip to a friend in a short chat back on August 12, 2008:
[W]atch for some loony leftist to claim that Putin and Russia invading Georgia was a Rove and Bush ploy to help out McCain.
Readers can notice the accuracy of this prediction by reviewing the following Times Online article from August 15, 2008:
Kremlin dusts off Cold War lexicon to make US villain in Georgia
The part of the article of particular interest for this posting is this:
Russians were told over breakfast yesterday what really happened in Georgia: the conflict in South Ossetia was part of a plot by Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, to stop Barack Obama being elected president of the United States.
So folks, do not underestimate your host's prognosticating capabilities even when he is being deliberately absurd. We now return you to your regularly scheduled blogging (to the extent there is a regular schedule of course of which there is not).
Note:
{1} Where despite some pretty substantial analyses of what my favourite teams need to do to succeed nonetheless with actual predictions I am invariably almost always wrong as this list of sports related blogs will more than adequately attest to.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
U.S. Senate report cites intelligence flaws in lead up to Iraq war
Just a snippet before I comment...
WASHINGTON: President George W. Bush and his aides built a public case for war against Iraq by exaggerating available intelligence and ignoring disagreements among spy agencies over Iraq's weapons programs and Saddam Hussein's links to Al Qaeda, according to a Senate report long delayed by partisan squabbling.
To start with, I covered the revisionism on these matters four years ago in two postings prior to the 2004 election. Here they are for those who may be new to this reading audience since that time:
"Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain" Dept. --On Democrat Lies and WMD's (circa August 4, 2004)
"Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain" Dept. --On Democrat Lies and WMD's Revisited (circa August 5, 2004)
And to supplement those reminders, consider this text from the very same Senator Jay Rockefeller delivered on the floor of the US Senate on October 10, 2002. A small snippet seems appropriate to remind readers who have forgotten so here goes...
Just a snippet before I comment...
WASHINGTON: President George W. Bush and his aides built a public case for war against Iraq by exaggerating available intelligence and ignoring disagreements among spy agencies over Iraq's weapons programs and Saddam Hussein's links to Al Qaeda, according to a Senate report long delayed by partisan squabbling.
The report accuses Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other top officials of repeatedly overstating the Iraqi threat in the months before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, and playing on American fears in emotional aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Okay now, here it goes folks.To start with, I covered the revisionism on these matters four years ago in two postings prior to the 2004 election. Here they are for those who may be new to this reading audience since that time:
"Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain" Dept. --On Democrat Lies and WMD's (circa August 4, 2004)
"Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain" Dept. --On Democrat Lies and WMD's Revisited (circa August 5, 2004)
And to supplement those reminders, consider this text from the very same Senator Jay Rockefeller delivered on the floor of the US Senate on October 10, 2002. A small snippet seems appropriate to remind readers who have forgotten so here goes...
We cannot know for certain that Saddam will use the weapons of mass destruction he currently possesses, or that he will use them against us. But we do know Saddam has the capability. Rebuilding that capability has been a higher priority for Saddam than the welfare of his own people -- and he has ill-will toward America.
I am forced to conclude, on all the evidence, that Saddam poses a significant risk.
Pardon those of us familiar with history if we view Sen. Rockefeller's attempts to run from his past statements and whitewash the past noxious to say the least. But enough on that for now.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
On President Bush and His Administration As of Mid 2007:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
There are a variety of things to point to in mid-2007 with regards to the presidency of George W. Bush. The most obvious ones thus far have to do with the war in Iraq, with the progress of the US Supreme Court, and the illegal amnesty subject. I will touch on these first before getting to other subject starting with the subject of the alien amnesty issue.
I noted a couple of times back in June{1} that I was coming to the conclusion that the immigration approach that President Bush wanted to undertake was potentially an impeachable offense -indeed this was the reason I decided to shelve a project I have worked on intermittently dealing with the whole "impeachment of Bush" issue.{2} However, as we noted the other day, since the illegal immigrant amnesty bill is dead and will not be revivable until the next congress and presidency for various and sundry reasons{3}, essentially President Bush dodged a bullet on this matter and therefore the subject previously noted as being shelved may be revived and completed for posting before the end of the year time and motivation-willing on my part.{4}
With regards to the US Supreme Court, as I noted recently{5},the signs are there that this court will be far more constitutional than many of its predecessors in recent decades. However, as National Review noted in an editorial recently, thus far the moves have been very modest ones despite the hysterical tones of many who view the Constitution not as the law of the land but as some sort of clay lump to mould as they see fit. The offer to play "evolving rules Texas Hold'Em to illustrate the absurdity of the "evolving constitution" crowd is extended once again to those sorts in the same fashion as we outlined it over two years ago:
The writer of this post would like to take this opportunity to to invite anyone who believes in an evolving constitutional interpretation to email him if they are fans of Texas Hold 'Em and are interested in playing for money. For your humble servant is not only a pretty decent poker player but he also has in mind starting a game with people like you for money to illustrate by demonstration the logical absurdity of your positions: Texas Hold 'Em with "evolving rules."[...] Something tells your host that such a game would amply clarify the absurdity of the "evolving constitution" position in precise proportion to the amount of money the promoters of the "evolving constitutional interpretation" theory lost their cash in the aforeproposed card game. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 25, 2005)]
Gee, thus far none of the readers of this humble weblog who have explicitly or implicitly taken the position of an "evolving Constitution" have taken us up on our challenge. Why is that??? It is because they know damn well they would never win a single hand. And yes I can say that not because I am unbeatable at poker but because of the principle of "evolving hand values."
Rationally, if you do not take a fixed approach to a law, precept, or principle, then they are subject to change. Noting that, it should also be considered that there would be a weird notion in place if such persons were to ascribe some fixed schedule for such evolutions when they do not recognize the concept of fixity to laws, precepts, or principles to begin with. So in the game of "evolving rules Texas Hold'Em", the values of the hands would change often -perhaps even hand to hand at times or intermittently during hands.
After all, no matter what I had in my hand, I could go all in and "win" because the "interpretation" of what hand was higher would change constantly to reflect what I was holding in my own hand.{6} As absurd as this premise may sound, stop and think for a moment what absurdity my proposed game plan is intended to illustrate.
It is impossible for there to be a stable society where the law is so manipulated as these sorts favouring an "evolving Constitution" would like to see. However, at the same time it is important to have some degree of room for revision of the laws of the land if we are to avoid being in the position of advocating that the law is made for man rather than the converse.{7} That is why the Founders put the amendment procedure into the mix at the very beginning: to insure that any adjustments to the Constitution would require effort to undertake and would require a super majority of states to ratify. This was to affirm the important understanding that law was not a minor trifle but instead was to some extent a requirement for societal stability by codifying the natural right of all to defend themselves and their natural God-given rights.
On the war front, the Iraq surge strategery is on the whole going pretty good. The Bush Administration is wisely understating this a bit in the period before a progress report due in September is released. No matter what the report says, it is going to be spun in as negative of a fashion as the msm and its willingseditionist comrades allies in the Democratic party and other places have a vested interest in seeing defeat in Iraq by any means necessary.
The economy is in excellent shape and the Democratic congress is trying desperately to make hay on minutiae issues -spinning irrelevant molehills into mountains. The whole firing of the attorneys "scandal" was touched on by this writer earlier in the year as the whole non-issue it was and the whole "lets defund Cheney's office" schtick is more of the same. As far as those who want to whine about President Bush's commutation of the sentence of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, they should consider the various degenerates that President Clinton pardoned{8} and their own silence about them before wasting my time or anyone else's with such gnats at the expense of genuine camels.{9}
Basically, the Dems cannot win on any of the major issues and they know it. Otherwise, they would stick with the significant issues and one issue which is not significant at all is yet another waste of time and ink on studying the "lead up to the war" or whatever. But this is the sort of time-wasting garbage that political losers do and the 20% approval rating Congress has now{10} is only going to go down further still the more they do it.
The more I have mused on their behaviour, the more apparent it is that their entire approach is akin to the old Articles of Confederation where the power was vested solely in a congressional body. For readers who do not know history very well, that is the sort of governmental arrangement that the Founding Fathers sought to do away with in writing the Constitution of the United States which intended to support and sustain a strong and vigorous executive branch. But to say anymore on that at the moment would be to tangent off and I want to wrap this thread up now.
On the whole, the Bush Administration is doing better in 2007 than in 2006 or 2005 but sometimes this is in spite of their intentions on some issues rather than because of them. History will give a better accounting to this administration than the contemporary ahistoric partisan and ignorant sorts currently are. Offhand, my guess is that it will rank about average overall. But right now, things are looking about as good as they probably can for an Administration which is on the verge of getting overall favourable news about the effects of the surge in Iraq come September. After all, we have an economy at very low unemployment, low inflation, a president who cannot run for re-election and who may have another court vacancy to fill. We also have a president who no longer has to worry about committing a kind of political hari-kiri with the illegal immigration issue as they were doing before that issue was rendered politically dead until the next Congress/Administration.
Notes:
{1} I am inclining towards the view that the immigration policy President Bush wants to undertake is itself a potentially impeachable offense!!! [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 8, 2007) and reiterated in a Rerum Novarum Post (circa June 23, 2007)]
{2} While appearing to not have much to do with the above thread per se, it is interesting that I have had on the drafting table for quite a while a planned post responding to twenty-five so-called "arguments" for impeaching President Bush. Most of those objections have been refuted in the draft as it is written now but the reason I am not likely to finish it anytime soon is this:
--I am inclining towards the view that the immigration policy President Bush wants to undertake is itself a potentially impeachable offense!!!
I do not intend to set forth the full panopoly of arguments to explain this at the present time. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 8, 2007)]
{3} Namely that most of those nimrod congresspeople who supported this would be defeated if they had to run for re-election after passing such a bill. (Excepting the states and districts where the voters are and have been stupid enough to keep electing the same incompetent incumbent senators and representatives because of the their ability to bring pork home to the district of course.)
{4} Admittedly I have lost any remaining motivation to complete it after the last round of trying to pass the illegal amnesty proposal and make it into law. The reason for lacking the motivation now is not because the arguments of the kooks are difficult to dispatch with. (Quite the contrary actually: the hardest part of it is finding the time to dispatch with them piece by piece in reasonable detail.) The problem is mainly that I have no confidence in President Bush to do much of anything right anymore. And since he has shown a lack of concern for having the back of those who have supported him over the years for the most part -or at the very least defended him from unfair attacks- why should anyone have his back now???
{5} It is about time the Supreme Court got away from activist agendas and got back to doing what it is supposed to do and the latter involves interpreting the Constitution not inventing out of whole cloth penumbra of a penumbra kind of bull crap and passing it off as "constitutional." Or absurd "right to privacy"[...] schtick and claiming that such things are "constitutional." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 29, 2007)]
{6} With the way the latter game is played, it is possible for an ace high to beat three of a kind, two pair to beat a flush, or three of a kind to beat a full house, etc...if the lower hands were held in that round by your weblog host of course :) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 25, 2005)]
{7} Those who wonder why true conservatives worthy of the name[...] have an abhorrence of the federal government intervening everywhere and anywhere this is the reason in a nutshell even if those conservatives have never stopped to crystallize their instinct into a coherent principle before. The reason is an instinctive understanding that law is made for man not man for law: the understanding that law's purpose is to protect legitimate rights not to grant them and not to revoke them. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 1, 2007)]
{8} It's about time someone sounded off regarding the hypocrisy surrounding President Bush's commutation of "Scooter" Libby. It took White House spokesman Tony Snow to set the record straight and challenge the Democrats to look at the record of former President Bill Clinton and the numerous pardons he issued. Bush's commutation pales by comparison. It appears the spineless Republican members of Congress don't have the backbone to stand up in defense of President Bush and his decision. Instead they are letting the Democrats berate and undermine the president's authority.
How soon people forget the mass pardons generously handed out during the waning days of the Clinton administration.
Now on the campaign stump Bill and Hillary have the gall to criticize the president for his commutation of Mr. Libby.
Once again, the Clintons show they have no shame or class. [Boyce Clark of Edmonds (WA): Letter to the Editor of The Everett Herald (circa July 9, 2007)]
{9} To use a biblical analogy.
{10} Bush by contrast has to like his roughly 30% rating by comparison.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
There are a variety of things to point to in mid-2007 with regards to the presidency of George W. Bush. The most obvious ones thus far have to do with the war in Iraq, with the progress of the US Supreme Court, and the illegal amnesty subject. I will touch on these first before getting to other subject starting with the subject of the alien amnesty issue.
I noted a couple of times back in June{1} that I was coming to the conclusion that the immigration approach that President Bush wanted to undertake was potentially an impeachable offense -indeed this was the reason I decided to shelve a project I have worked on intermittently dealing with the whole "impeachment of Bush" issue.{2} However, as we noted the other day, since the illegal immigrant amnesty bill is dead and will not be revivable until the next congress and presidency for various and sundry reasons{3}, essentially President Bush dodged a bullet on this matter and therefore the subject previously noted as being shelved may be revived and completed for posting before the end of the year time and motivation-willing on my part.{4}
With regards to the US Supreme Court, as I noted recently{5},the signs are there that this court will be far more constitutional than many of its predecessors in recent decades. However, as National Review noted in an editorial recently, thus far the moves have been very modest ones despite the hysterical tones of many who view the Constitution not as the law of the land but as some sort of clay lump to mould as they see fit. The offer to play "evolving rules Texas Hold'Em to illustrate the absurdity of the "evolving constitution" crowd is extended once again to those sorts in the same fashion as we outlined it over two years ago:
The writer of this post would like to take this opportunity to to invite anyone who believes in an evolving constitutional interpretation to email him if they are fans of Texas Hold 'Em and are interested in playing for money. For your humble servant is not only a pretty decent poker player but he also has in mind starting a game with people like you for money to illustrate by demonstration the logical absurdity of your positions: Texas Hold 'Em with "evolving rules."[...] Something tells your host that such a game would amply clarify the absurdity of the "evolving constitution" position in precise proportion to the amount of money the promoters of the "evolving constitutional interpretation" theory lost their cash in the aforeproposed card game. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 25, 2005)]
Gee, thus far none of the readers of this humble weblog who have explicitly or implicitly taken the position of an "evolving Constitution" have taken us up on our challenge. Why is that??? It is because they know damn well they would never win a single hand. And yes I can say that not because I am unbeatable at poker but because of the principle of "evolving hand values."
Rationally, if you do not take a fixed approach to a law, precept, or principle, then they are subject to change. Noting that, it should also be considered that there would be a weird notion in place if such persons were to ascribe some fixed schedule for such evolutions when they do not recognize the concept of fixity to laws, precepts, or principles to begin with. So in the game of "evolving rules Texas Hold'Em", the values of the hands would change often -perhaps even hand to hand at times or intermittently during hands.
After all, no matter what I had in my hand, I could go all in and "win" because the "interpretation" of what hand was higher would change constantly to reflect what I was holding in my own hand.{6} As absurd as this premise may sound, stop and think for a moment what absurdity my proposed game plan is intended to illustrate.
It is impossible for there to be a stable society where the law is so manipulated as these sorts favouring an "evolving Constitution" would like to see. However, at the same time it is important to have some degree of room for revision of the laws of the land if we are to avoid being in the position of advocating that the law is made for man rather than the converse.{7} That is why the Founders put the amendment procedure into the mix at the very beginning: to insure that any adjustments to the Constitution would require effort to undertake and would require a super majority of states to ratify. This was to affirm the important understanding that law was not a minor trifle but instead was to some extent a requirement for societal stability by codifying the natural right of all to defend themselves and their natural God-given rights.
On the war front, the Iraq surge strategery is on the whole going pretty good. The Bush Administration is wisely understating this a bit in the period before a progress report due in September is released. No matter what the report says, it is going to be spun in as negative of a fashion as the msm and its willing
The economy is in excellent shape and the Democratic congress is trying desperately to make hay on minutiae issues -spinning irrelevant molehills into mountains. The whole firing of the attorneys "scandal" was touched on by this writer earlier in the year as the whole non-issue it was and the whole "lets defund Cheney's office" schtick is more of the same. As far as those who want to whine about President Bush's commutation of the sentence of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, they should consider the various degenerates that President Clinton pardoned{8} and their own silence about them before wasting my time or anyone else's with such gnats at the expense of genuine camels.{9}
Basically, the Dems cannot win on any of the major issues and they know it. Otherwise, they would stick with the significant issues and one issue which is not significant at all is yet another waste of time and ink on studying the "lead up to the war" or whatever. But this is the sort of time-wasting garbage that political losers do and the 20% approval rating Congress has now{10} is only going to go down further still the more they do it.
The more I have mused on their behaviour, the more apparent it is that their entire approach is akin to the old Articles of Confederation where the power was vested solely in a congressional body. For readers who do not know history very well, that is the sort of governmental arrangement that the Founding Fathers sought to do away with in writing the Constitution of the United States which intended to support and sustain a strong and vigorous executive branch. But to say anymore on that at the moment would be to tangent off and I want to wrap this thread up now.
On the whole, the Bush Administration is doing better in 2007 than in 2006 or 2005 but sometimes this is in spite of their intentions on some issues rather than because of them. History will give a better accounting to this administration than the contemporary ahistoric partisan and ignorant sorts currently are. Offhand, my guess is that it will rank about average overall. But right now, things are looking about as good as they probably can for an Administration which is on the verge of getting overall favourable news about the effects of the surge in Iraq come September. After all, we have an economy at very low unemployment, low inflation, a president who cannot run for re-election and who may have another court vacancy to fill. We also have a president who no longer has to worry about committing a kind of political hari-kiri with the illegal immigration issue as they were doing before that issue was rendered politically dead until the next Congress/Administration.
Notes:
{1} I am inclining towards the view that the immigration policy President Bush wants to undertake is itself a potentially impeachable offense!!! [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 8, 2007) and reiterated in a Rerum Novarum Post (circa June 23, 2007)]
{2} While appearing to not have much to do with the above thread per se, it is interesting that I have had on the drafting table for quite a while a planned post responding to twenty-five so-called "arguments" for impeaching President Bush. Most of those objections have been refuted in the draft as it is written now but the reason I am not likely to finish it anytime soon is this:
--I am inclining towards the view that the immigration policy President Bush wants to undertake is itself a potentially impeachable offense!!!
I do not intend to set forth the full panopoly of arguments to explain this at the present time. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 8, 2007)]
{3} Namely that most of those nimrod congresspeople who supported this would be defeated if they had to run for re-election after passing such a bill. (Excepting the states and districts where the voters are and have been stupid enough to keep electing the same incompetent incumbent senators and representatives because of the their ability to bring pork home to the district of course.)
{4} Admittedly I have lost any remaining motivation to complete it after the last round of trying to pass the illegal amnesty proposal and make it into law. The reason for lacking the motivation now is not because the arguments of the kooks are difficult to dispatch with. (Quite the contrary actually: the hardest part of it is finding the time to dispatch with them piece by piece in reasonable detail.) The problem is mainly that I have no confidence in President Bush to do much of anything right anymore. And since he has shown a lack of concern for having the back of those who have supported him over the years for the most part -or at the very least defended him from unfair attacks- why should anyone have his back now???
{5} It is about time the Supreme Court got away from activist agendas and got back to doing what it is supposed to do and the latter involves interpreting the Constitution not inventing out of whole cloth penumbra of a penumbra kind of bull crap and passing it off as "constitutional." Or absurd "right to privacy"[...] schtick and claiming that such things are "constitutional." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 29, 2007)]
{6} With the way the latter game is played, it is possible for an ace high to beat three of a kind, two pair to beat a flush, or three of a kind to beat a full house, etc...if the lower hands were held in that round by your weblog host of course :) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 25, 2005)]
{7} Those who wonder why true conservatives worthy of the name[...] have an abhorrence of the federal government intervening everywhere and anywhere this is the reason in a nutshell even if those conservatives have never stopped to crystallize their instinct into a coherent principle before. The reason is an instinctive understanding that law is made for man not man for law: the understanding that law's purpose is to protect legitimate rights not to grant them and not to revoke them. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 1, 2007)]
{8} It's about time someone sounded off regarding the hypocrisy surrounding President Bush's commutation of "Scooter" Libby. It took White House spokesman Tony Snow to set the record straight and challenge the Democrats to look at the record of former President Bill Clinton and the numerous pardons he issued. Bush's commutation pales by comparison. It appears the spineless Republican members of Congress don't have the backbone to stand up in defense of President Bush and his decision. Instead they are letting the Democrats berate and undermine the president's authority.
How soon people forget the mass pardons generously handed out during the waning days of the Clinton administration.
Now on the campaign stump Bill and Hillary have the gall to criticize the president for his commutation of Mr. Libby.
Once again, the Clintons show they have no shame or class. [Boyce Clark of Edmonds (WA): Letter to the Editor of The Everett Herald (circa July 9, 2007)]
{9} To use a biblical analogy.
{10} Bush by contrast has to like his roughly 30% rating by comparison.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
On Nancy Pelosi, Pseudo "Peace Activists", and a Reminder of Why Conservatives Should Remain Optimistic About 2008:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
We could not let this one pass without comment and a bit of analysis:
Peace activists to rally at Pelosi’s San Francisco home
Here is part of the article:
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) A few dozen peace activists marched across the Golden Gate Bridge and gathered outside the San Francisco home of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday, demanding that Congress stop funding the war in Iraq.
"San Francisco has been against this war from the very beginning," said Toby Blome, a physical therapist who organized the event. "This is our fifth year of the war, and Nancy needs to wake up and represent San Franciscans."
Blome, holding a plate of cheese and bread and a glass of wine, was stopped on her way to Pelosi’s front door and told the Speaker would not see them. Blom and about ten other activists said they plan to camp outside the residence overnight.
Aaah the beautiful noise of implosion!!! Do not say that your host did not predict this folks -indeed the writing was on the wall from the beginning of the election last year.{1} A key problem that many who support the Democratic majority have --to say nothing of those who took a "doom and gloom" approach to the Republican defeats in the last election-- is that the media as a whole misdiagnosed the election results last year and what they actually mean. To remind the readers of what we wrote on that matter last December in response to a friend who was depressed by the election results:
[W]hat was rebuked in this election was not conservatism but party politics. Conservatives who have supported Republicans for years to get treated like dog turds except around election time finally said (in the words of the great western philosopher Dee Snyder) "we're not gonna take it anymore" and enough of them sat this election out to allow the Republicans to be knocked off of their lofty perch. The war issue served more to galvanize the anti-Bush crowd and while there are enough errors of fact and misperceptions in the "this war is an abomination" crowd to fill a small ocean; nonetheless, perception is often viewed by people as reality.
President Bush was also hurt (even though he was not running) because of the absurd and illogical "amnesty for criminals" issue he has promoted. Throw in the Katrina debacle and a few other areas where the Bush Administration has looked less than adequate and the general six year pattern for voting historically, and the result is not that surprising.
I would advise against being too pessimistic about this and remind you of an old proverb: it is often darkest just before the dawn. That is how I view this situation and believe this makes it more likely to elect a conservative as president in 2008 than it would have been if the Republicans had gotten away with their normal "treat conservatives like crap and then throw them an occasional scrap to shut them up" approach. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 7, 2006)]
In short, this kind of implosion{2} was inevitable due to the very make-up of the Pelosi-Reid coalition majority -a one seat Senate majority which we predicted could become a key factor and it has in more than one way thus far.{3}
With over a year and a half until the 2008 elections, a lot more could happen still but one thing is for certain: Pelosi and Reid are caught between a rock and a hard place because if they placate these fringe sorts, they will lose the support of Blue Dog Democrats of a much more conservative persuasion who could align politically on key issues with the Republicans.
Conversely, if the Pelosi-Reid contingent try to placate the Blue Dogs too much, then the fringe sorts who are causing the biggest ruckus will be the ones offended. The latter may not have a position of genuine power but they can teach the Pelosi and Reid contingent the same lesson that many conservatives taught the Republicans in 2006 by refusing to support the Pelosi-Reid coalition in 2008.
In summary, remain optimistic folks because the opposition is not as strong as the MSM portrays them. There are a lot of internal divisions and many within the collective who are not very geopolitically shrewd when it comes to governing in contrast to winning an election majority where they were very shrewd indeed as your host noted in his 2006 election synopsis/analysis thread.{4} But what we are seeing with the attitudes taken by the kook fringe wierdos is music to our ears or to borrow a bit from that great western literary figure Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore "I love the smell of Democratic Party implosion in the morning!!!" :)
Notes:
{1} Or as we noted in a post-election synopsis thread:
The reason the Dems will have majorities in both houses is because of southern conservative Democrats being elected. This makes the majority the Democrats will have a very fragile one -particularly in the Senate- and if the more rabid Democrat sorts do not show that they can work and play well with others[...], then they will fail to govern effectively and will be thrown out in 2008. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 24, 2006)]
{2} Far from an isolated incident, the Pelosi protest is one of several that have taken place or are scheduled to take place -as the originally mentioned NC Times article noted.
{3} The main points thus far are the potential incapacitation of Democratic Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota (who though thankfully recovering well thus far still has a long way to go) and the possiblity of Independent Senator Joseph Lieberman (who is caucusing with the Democrats) to shift his alllegience to the Republicans if the Democrats try to defund the military involvement in Iraq. These are not situations that bode well for the Democrat majority in the Senate and could place the Senate in a position where tiebreaking votes are cast on key issues by the President of the Senate. (For those who do not know, the President of the Senate -who only votes when there is a tiebreaker needed- is Vice President Dick Cheney.)
{4} Obviously our concern there ended up being not founded as the Republicans were rebuked on election day. And the reasons why they were rebuked are ones which your host outlined in advance. In other words, while we outlined what the Dems would need to do to win and also noted the historical trackrecord, we obviously underestimated the Dems being smart enough to know what they needed to do to win and to actually do it. We said they would need to nationalize the election around Bush and they did that. We also said that they would need to shut their traps and not tell people what they really planned to do[...] and they actually did that also. Give them credit for actually learning from past mistakes if nothing else. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 24, 2006)]
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
We could not let this one pass without comment and a bit of analysis:
Peace activists to rally at Pelosi’s San Francisco home
Here is part of the article:
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) A few dozen peace activists marched across the Golden Gate Bridge and gathered outside the San Francisco home of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday, demanding that Congress stop funding the war in Iraq.
"San Francisco has been against this war from the very beginning," said Toby Blome, a physical therapist who organized the event. "This is our fifth year of the war, and Nancy needs to wake up and represent San Franciscans."
Blome, holding a plate of cheese and bread and a glass of wine, was stopped on her way to Pelosi’s front door and told the Speaker would not see them. Blom and about ten other activists said they plan to camp outside the residence overnight.
Aaah the beautiful noise of implosion!!! Do not say that your host did not predict this folks -indeed the writing was on the wall from the beginning of the election last year.{1} A key problem that many who support the Democratic majority have --to say nothing of those who took a "doom and gloom" approach to the Republican defeats in the last election-- is that the media as a whole misdiagnosed the election results last year and what they actually mean. To remind the readers of what we wrote on that matter last December in response to a friend who was depressed by the election results:
[W]hat was rebuked in this election was not conservatism but party politics. Conservatives who have supported Republicans for years to get treated like dog turds except around election time finally said (in the words of the great western philosopher Dee Snyder) "we're not gonna take it anymore" and enough of them sat this election out to allow the Republicans to be knocked off of their lofty perch. The war issue served more to galvanize the anti-Bush crowd and while there are enough errors of fact and misperceptions in the "this war is an abomination" crowd to fill a small ocean; nonetheless, perception is often viewed by people as reality.
President Bush was also hurt (even though he was not running) because of the absurd and illogical "amnesty for criminals" issue he has promoted. Throw in the Katrina debacle and a few other areas where the Bush Administration has looked less than adequate and the general six year pattern for voting historically, and the result is not that surprising.
I would advise against being too pessimistic about this and remind you of an old proverb: it is often darkest just before the dawn. That is how I view this situation and believe this makes it more likely to elect a conservative as president in 2008 than it would have been if the Republicans had gotten away with their normal "treat conservatives like crap and then throw them an occasional scrap to shut them up" approach. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 7, 2006)]
In short, this kind of implosion{2} was inevitable due to the very make-up of the Pelosi-Reid coalition majority -a one seat Senate majority which we predicted could become a key factor and it has in more than one way thus far.{3}
With over a year and a half until the 2008 elections, a lot more could happen still but one thing is for certain: Pelosi and Reid are caught between a rock and a hard place because if they placate these fringe sorts, they will lose the support of Blue Dog Democrats of a much more conservative persuasion who could align politically on key issues with the Republicans.
Conversely, if the Pelosi-Reid contingent try to placate the Blue Dogs too much, then the fringe sorts who are causing the biggest ruckus will be the ones offended. The latter may not have a position of genuine power but they can teach the Pelosi and Reid contingent the same lesson that many conservatives taught the Republicans in 2006 by refusing to support the Pelosi-Reid coalition in 2008.
In summary, remain optimistic folks because the opposition is not as strong as the MSM portrays them. There are a lot of internal divisions and many within the collective who are not very geopolitically shrewd when it comes to governing in contrast to winning an election majority where they were very shrewd indeed as your host noted in his 2006 election synopsis/analysis thread.{4} But what we are seeing with the attitudes taken by the kook fringe wierdos is music to our ears or to borrow a bit from that great western literary figure Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore "I love the smell of Democratic Party implosion in the morning!!!" :)
Notes:
{1} Or as we noted in a post-election synopsis thread:
The reason the Dems will have majorities in both houses is because of southern conservative Democrats being elected. This makes the majority the Democrats will have a very fragile one -particularly in the Senate- and if the more rabid Democrat sorts do not show that they can work and play well with others[...], then they will fail to govern effectively and will be thrown out in 2008. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 24, 2006)]
{2} Far from an isolated incident, the Pelosi protest is one of several that have taken place or are scheduled to take place -as the originally mentioned NC Times article noted.
{3} The main points thus far are the potential incapacitation of Democratic Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota (who though thankfully recovering well thus far still has a long way to go) and the possiblity of Independent Senator Joseph Lieberman (who is caucusing with the Democrats) to shift his alllegience to the Republicans if the Democrats try to defund the military involvement in Iraq. These are not situations that bode well for the Democrat majority in the Senate and could place the Senate in a position where tiebreaking votes are cast on key issues by the President of the Senate. (For those who do not know, the President of the Senate -who only votes when there is a tiebreaker needed- is Vice President Dick Cheney.)
{4} Obviously our concern there ended up being not founded as the Republicans were rebuked on election day. And the reasons why they were rebuked are ones which your host outlined in advance. In other words, while we outlined what the Dems would need to do to win and also noted the historical trackrecord, we obviously underestimated the Dems being smart enough to know what they needed to do to win and to actually do it. We said they would need to nationalize the election around Bush and they did that. We also said that they would need to shut their traps and not tell people what they really planned to do[...] and they actually did that also. Give them credit for actually learning from past mistakes if nothing else. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 24, 2006)]
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Miscellaneous Musings:
---I wonder when there will be some consistency from the crowd which was all up in hackles over the supposed "outing" of Valerie Plame's supposed "covert" CIA status by either Karl "Darth" Rove or one of his supporters.{1} Right now Lewis "Scooter" Libby is on trial accused of perjury. Here is what he is facing according to the above link:
Mr Libby is charged with two counts of perjury, two counts of making false statements and one count of obstruction of justice. He faces up to 30 years in prison and $1.25 million in fines if found guilty.
Imagine that folks, 30 years in prison and a million quart all for mere perjury!!! I thought perjury was no big deal -indeed that is what certain nattering nabobs of the "anybody but Bush" contingent were saying back in 1999. Do we need to remind readers that back in 1999 President Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice??? And the consensus of those who opposed impeachment at the time{2} was that lying under oath was "no big deal." Now these same people want to approach Lewis Libby as if perjury in his case was somehow "a big deal." The reason that they do this of course should be obvious: perjury is "no big deal" when one of their people does it but when it is not one of their people then it is a problem. How about merely recognizing that perjury is wrong period. Or is asking for people to not engage in double standards simply too much to ask for anymore???
---Those who remember your host's contemplations of possible support for a Lieberman campaign in early 2004 and wondered what would bring that about, the reason is simple folks: he has principles.{3} And on the crucial issue of national security and recognizing the nature of the threat we face, Senator Lieberman has stood firm writing a very good Op-Ed piece for The Wall Street Journal this morning which includes this encapsulation of what we are facing right now in Iraq:
Congress thus faces a choice in the weeks and months ahead. Will we allow our actions to be driven by the changing conditions on the ground in Iraq--or by the unchanging political and ideological positions long ago staked out in Washington? What ultimately matters more to us: the real fight over there, or the political fight over here? [Senator Joseph Lieberman: From The Choice on Iraq (circa February 26, 2007)]
In other words, are those who make a cottage industry out of bitching and moaning about the war interested in the real war or the political one??? More could be said by us but Sen. Lieberman sums it up well in the article above. It really is annoying at times that so many people are obtuse to what we are really facing in the world today threat-wise. There is a serious problem with modern people lacking historical perspective when it comes to matters of war.{4} For all of the Keystone Kops problems that have attended this war, it has still been remarkably successful if you gauge it to other wars in American history.
This writer for one does not write much on the war subject and the everyday flotsam and jetsam that the msm puts together because he took a well-reasoned consistent position on this back in 2003 which remains as valid as it was when it was first written.{5} Your host certainly never took his position based on the case made for war publicly made by the Bush Administration. And it would be pointless to note the areas where things could have been done better as that would cover the lions share of the post-war stability element of the equation.
The approach in the post-war stabilization area has changed in the past month as President Bush noted it would after the election of 2006. It seems appropriate therefore in light of a different approach being taken in Iraq in recent weeks -and judging from what we have seen so far, it is working- to at the very least take a "wait and see" approach. That is all your host plans to say on the matter at the present time.
---There is also a recent attempted Taliban assassination of Vice President Dick Cheney which is is now in the news. On that matter, it is summed up so well by Powerline that I will defer to what they have to say on the matter for now.
Notes:
{1} Briefly on the Karl Rove Situation (circa July 14, 2005)
{2} Your host thought then and thinks today that Kenneth Starr made a serious tactical blunder here when there were two other areas where far stronger cases for impeachment could have been made.
{3} The present writer has some serious issues with not a few of those principles but considering the flim flam nature of the present Administration at times, we were well within our rights to consider other feaasible options if they were presented to us. (Ultimately of course, they were not but that is another subject altogether.)
{4} [O]nly a military blow to the insurgency will allow the necessary window for the government to gain time, trust, and confidence to press ahead with reform and services. And this is as it always has been in wars. [Victor David Hanson: Give Petraeus a Chance (circa February 6, 2007)]
{5} Nothing of a significant nature since that time has happened to warrant a revision of the position as taken at that time -one which it should be noted was arrived at at a fairly slow and deliberative pace.
---I wonder when there will be some consistency from the crowd which was all up in hackles over the supposed "outing" of Valerie Plame's supposed "covert" CIA status by either Karl "Darth" Rove or one of his supporters.{1} Right now Lewis "Scooter" Libby is on trial accused of perjury. Here is what he is facing according to the above link:
Mr Libby is charged with two counts of perjury, two counts of making false statements and one count of obstruction of justice. He faces up to 30 years in prison and $1.25 million in fines if found guilty.
Imagine that folks, 30 years in prison and a million quart all for mere perjury!!! I thought perjury was no big deal -indeed that is what certain nattering nabobs of the "anybody but Bush" contingent were saying back in 1999. Do we need to remind readers that back in 1999 President Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice??? And the consensus of those who opposed impeachment at the time{2} was that lying under oath was "no big deal." Now these same people want to approach Lewis Libby as if perjury in his case was somehow "a big deal." The reason that they do this of course should be obvious: perjury is "no big deal" when one of their people does it but when it is not one of their people then it is a problem. How about merely recognizing that perjury is wrong period. Or is asking for people to not engage in double standards simply too much to ask for anymore???
---Those who remember your host's contemplations of possible support for a Lieberman campaign in early 2004 and wondered what would bring that about, the reason is simple folks: he has principles.{3} And on the crucial issue of national security and recognizing the nature of the threat we face, Senator Lieberman has stood firm writing a very good Op-Ed piece for The Wall Street Journal this morning which includes this encapsulation of what we are facing right now in Iraq:
Congress thus faces a choice in the weeks and months ahead. Will we allow our actions to be driven by the changing conditions on the ground in Iraq--or by the unchanging political and ideological positions long ago staked out in Washington? What ultimately matters more to us: the real fight over there, or the political fight over here? [Senator Joseph Lieberman: From The Choice on Iraq (circa February 26, 2007)]
In other words, are those who make a cottage industry out of bitching and moaning about the war interested in the real war or the political one??? More could be said by us but Sen. Lieberman sums it up well in the article above. It really is annoying at times that so many people are obtuse to what we are really facing in the world today threat-wise. There is a serious problem with modern people lacking historical perspective when it comes to matters of war.{4} For all of the Keystone Kops problems that have attended this war, it has still been remarkably successful if you gauge it to other wars in American history.
This writer for one does not write much on the war subject and the everyday flotsam and jetsam that the msm puts together because he took a well-reasoned consistent position on this back in 2003 which remains as valid as it was when it was first written.{5} Your host certainly never took his position based on the case made for war publicly made by the Bush Administration. And it would be pointless to note the areas where things could have been done better as that would cover the lions share of the post-war stability element of the equation.
The approach in the post-war stabilization area has changed in the past month as President Bush noted it would after the election of 2006. It seems appropriate therefore in light of a different approach being taken in Iraq in recent weeks -and judging from what we have seen so far, it is working- to at the very least take a "wait and see" approach. That is all your host plans to say on the matter at the present time.
---There is also a recent attempted Taliban assassination of Vice President Dick Cheney which is is now in the news. On that matter, it is summed up so well by Powerline that I will defer to what they have to say on the matter for now.
Notes:
{1} Briefly on the Karl Rove Situation (circa July 14, 2005)
{2} Your host thought then and thinks today that Kenneth Starr made a serious tactical blunder here when there were two other areas where far stronger cases for impeachment could have been made.
{3} The present writer has some serious issues with not a few of those principles but considering the flim flam nature of the present Administration at times, we were well within our rights to consider other feaasible options if they were presented to us. (Ultimately of course, they were not but that is another subject altogether.)
{4} [O]nly a military blow to the insurgency will allow the necessary window for the government to gain time, trust, and confidence to press ahead with reform and services. And this is as it always has been in wars. [Victor David Hanson: Give Petraeus a Chance (circa February 6, 2007)]
{5} Nothing of a significant nature since that time has happened to warrant a revision of the position as taken at that time -one which it should be noted was arrived at at a fairly slow and deliberative pace.
Friday, November 24, 2006
"Santayana's Dictum" Dept.
(A Synopsis of Our Overall Prescience Viz. the 2006 Elections and A Bit of Analysis As Well)
[Prefatory Note: Your host apologizes for the delay in posting this thread -it was ready to go back on November 22, 2006 but there were too many glitches in the text formatting to be posted at that time and not enough time to fix them. Anyway, the text here is the same as before with only the most minor of adjustments (including the addition of a footnote among them). -ISM]
As it has been customary for the present writer to write an analysis of sorts after each election cycle{1}, it seems appropriate to do so after the recent election; ergo, the post you have before you.
Now readers of this weblog are aware that your humble servant has reiterated numerous times certain principles to account for in making prognoses on future events. We intend with this email to outline some areas where we were remarkable prescient before getting to one area where we must eat some crow. But without further ado, let us get to it.
To start with, there is the historical trackrecord of elections. Often did the present writer speak of these matters in private conversations and sometimes even in public media formats. In perusing the archives, the following bits were found which will be revisited in sequential order so that readers can denote the consistency of my approach to these matters for reasons which will soon be evident:
For those who know their history, political savvy is going to be needed in much greater supply than normal in the next year and a half. I will outline in this post reasons for that seemingly bold assertion.
To start with, I have noted before that a year is an eternity in politics.[...] For that reason alone, what seems like a certain thing now may not be that way a year from now. (Let alone a year and a half from now.) But that does not mean that there are not certain lessons that history can teach us of general tendencies which can give us probabilities of what is more likely than not to happen. And it is utilizing the latter that I intend to do in the rest of this post in discussing the 2006 elections.
By all historical indicators of norms, the 2006 elections should favour the Democrats because historically the party which holds the White House loses ground in the midterm elections of a two-term president as a rule. And while many might scoff at the idea of the current crop of Democrats achieving that kind of feat, it frankly does not matter as a rule how potent or impotent they are politically. And as a brief outline from recent history should help clarify this a bit, that is what we will do at this time. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 21, 2005)]
The above text was the first public utterance we made on the principle of midterms in the second term of a presidency. Readers can review the entire thread to see the historical outline sketched which showed itself to apply again in this election year. The subject was revisited in the months prior to the election both in chat format as well as on this weblog. Here are the salient threads that can be recalled offhand -the first is a chat with Kevin Tierney which is reproduced in substantial integrity{2} at this time:
Kevin: the Machiavellian in me wants the dems to win the house so something like this can be put out and I'm at work, so I can't view it :)
me: well, if nothing else Conyers keeps me from having any of my blog postings be considered the "world's longest blog post" ;-)
Kevin: some of the charges there, let the dems go forward with that. It would give new definition to the concept of "hari-kari"
me: I predict Conyers and company may well use that report as their manifesto of sorts for this November and yes, it would turn off most people enough to marginalize the dems to make their takeover of the House go from possible/probable to snowballs-chance-in-hell ish
Kevin: their chances have declined incredibly from the beginning of the year when everyone was taking it as granted the dems were taking over both houses
me: agreed but I still think they are to be favoured
Kevin: I don't think either side is favored now it's 50-50 the dems have a chance in the senate, not the house I think
me: my reason is the "midterm of a two term president election cycle" pattern historically but the Senate will hold either way methinks the question mark is the House and that is key cause even if they take over and try impeachment schtick the Senate holding guarantees that there will be no removal of Bush prior to January 20, 2009
me: admittedly my Machiavellian side would get joy in seeing such hearings take place...cause it would make the Dems in 2008 less likely to win the presidency because we would see all the rabidness in full media view rather than somewhat sequestered as it is now and most people would be turned off by it to no small degree
Kevin: the only problem is astute democrat congressmen are few and far between
me: in short, we are in agreement here
Kevin: even Hillary Clinton is not that smart. One thing is for sure, she does not have her husband's charisma or the ability to bullshit
me: Lieberman is being challenged by the rabid moronic leftist fringe sorts in his re-election I hope Joe kicks the fringe candidate's keister soundly. I like him and wish there were more Dems like him [Excerpt from a Chat With Kevin Tierney (circa August 7, 2006)]
As readers can see, our hope for Leiberman panned. Readers can say that our comments on Conyers and the strategery we noted not being used means that we missed a prediction but at best it is a half-prediction and the germ of the point remains intact.{3} The present writer also made another reference to the historical pattern in the above thread. And from another chat file with Kevin, we noted these points including some predictions which remain to be fulfilled{4}:
me: well, that is what closed door sessions are for and a complicit media remember only with the 1994 congress did a lot of this stuff get televised prior to that, it was not on TV for viewing on CSpan or whatever and if the Dems win, they will probably make some excuse that the subjects to be treated on are "too delicate a matter to be publicly broadcast" or some other bullshit of that sort
me: if I sound downright nasty in my portrayal, it is because of experience in seeing them when they have a majority and how haughty they act. The Republicans act stupid a lot but the Democratic ancients are downright evil at times...not to mention vindictive...think of the way high school bullies and the "popular class" sorts acted for a good picture of the mentality
Kevin: their flanks have collapsed now, so my worries are less
me: my worries are less too...but a wounded animal is a fiercer fighter and there is enough anger out there at Bush
Kevin: the republicans don't have to win in November they just have to not lose
me: if they can convince enough fools to make the 2006 election a referendum on Bush, it may well work this time...things have changed since 2004...Bush has shown weakness in spots which is from our POV appalling...from their view, it is exploitable if they know what they are doing
Kevin: they won't be able to focus their message though since they call for a referendum on bush, but then state we achieve that by withdrawing from Iraq which nobody outside of the angry left blogosphere actually believes
me: put it this way...if I was the strategist for the Dems in 2006, I guarantee they would win the House cause I know where to hit Bush for maximum effect
someone on their side has to know too...the Q is if they will be listened to
which odds are is no
Kevin: let the dems charge the line, all anyone has to do is just hold the spears forward. Sure one horse breaks through, but they don't take the ground :)
me: lol nice analogy
me: I hope it is apropo...history is not on our side here though midterms of a two term president are rarely not a disaster for the incumbent party particularly if one party holds both houses and the presidency
Kevin: I do not believe history is a God who is infallible and to be worshipped. :) the tides of history are always shifting.
me: even the Republicans after the absolute ass kicking they got in 1932 and a further setback in 1934 and a 1936 electoral absolutely cleaned House literally in 1938 (about 75 House seats and 14 Senate seats were gained that year)
history is not to be worshipped nor is it infallible, but as Newman said it has lessons that we ignore to our own detriment...or as Santayana said "ignore history and you are doomed to repeat it" [Excerpt from a Chat With Kevin Tierney (circa September 6, 2006)]
Again, readers can notice your host's appeal to history on this matter as something to be taken seriously. However, the present writer would be dishonest if he did not admit that the tea leaves were reading differently to him in September as noted in the following blog posting of miscellaneous tidbits:
Some have opined that there will be a tidalwave of anti-Republican sentiment this November aimed as some kind of "referendum" on President Bush. Others have claimed the converse: that the Republicans will consolidate and maybe expand their holdings as the Democrats come apart at the seams. I have noted in the past on various occasions that a year is an eternity in politics. Keeping that factor in mind, it suffices to note that even two months is a long time -maybe an ice age or whatever. My gut intuition on these matters at the moment is the following:
---The Republicans will not lose the Senate. Period. They are vulnerable in the House this is true both by virtue of current circumstances as well as the traditional pattern of parties out of power gaining in the mid term elections of a two term presidency. But the Senate will hold -only 33 are up for re-election and the Democrats would have to hold serve on all their guys and pick up about ten seats or so in the Senate just to tie. (Remember, Cheney is the tiebreaker.) But ultimately I see the Republicans at the moment losing some seats in the House but holding serve. They may lose some in the Senate too but whatever happens, they will retain the Senate no matter what. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 14, 2006)]
While making note of the historical pattern and also that two months is a long time in politics; nonetheless, your host writing on the fly should have double checked the Senate numbers before posting some of what is in the above thread. For some reason, we were thinking it was ten to tie instead of six which may not sound like much of a difference but it is for reasons now to be explained in brief.
In an elected body where only one third are elected in a given cycle, basically assuming an even split roughly between the parties (which is something that is not necessarily a given), we were seeing approximately a third of the senators up for election (ten) being needed to close the senate gap rather than roughly a fifth (six). If we had taken a few minutes to double check the numbers above, the above statement would never have made about the Dems "not winning the Senate period" but instead we would have recognized that it was much more probable than we were presuming.{5}
Basically not much changed between what was noted on September 14, 2006 and what was posted on the weekend leading up to the election. Or to quote a post of miscellaneous tidbits on some subjects:
---As I have told not a few friends and associates in recent weeks, watch for this election cycle's "October Surprise." Well, it took 30 days but on 10/30 we got it in John Kerry's recent public snafu. After this one, I cannot see how the Democrats can win either house of Congress because (i) seven days before an election is too quick to be able to spin this one away and (ii) this will anger Independents like your weblog host as well as Republicans who may have been a bit lax viz. the upcoming election. Anyway, that is what our gut intuition is on the election at the present time. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 1, 2006)]
For the record, it is obvious that our intuition in the above paragraph was wrong. However, while the present writer did note more than once his intuition about the Republicans holding, he also noted a concern that they would not get the message if they did. Or to quote a post from the day of the election when it was too early to tell where the winds were blowing:
It needs to be made clear that any support for the Republicans is done grudgingly and not because people think they are that good a party because they are not...
[W]e must avoid being one-issue focused here. Granted national security is a huge issue and definitely must be at or near the top of the list of anyone who actually is concerned with the survival of not only themselves but also civilization. But we cannot let these guys off the hook in the myriad of areas where they are screwing up. They need to be told in no uncertain terms that they are not being approved of in this election as much as their opponents are being rejected. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa November 7, 2006)]
Obviously our concern there ended up being not founded as the Republicans were rebuked on election day. And the reasons why they were rebuked are ones which your host outlined in advance. In other words, while we outlined what the Dems would need to do to win and also noted the historical trackrecord, we obviously underestimated the Dems being smart enough to know what they needed to do to win and to actually do it. We said they would need to nationalize the election around Bush and they did that. We also said that they would need to shut their traps and not tell people what they really planned to do{6} and they actually did that also. Give them credit for actually learning from past mistakes if nothing else. The question is, will the idiotic Republicans realize why they lost in the election or not. Alas, we cannot say there is much optimism here at Rerum Novarum that they will -at least not in the short term. Maybe it will take handing over the gavels in the chambers on January 20, 2007 for them to realize what happened and start the process of pondering why what happened actually happened.
How does your host feel about the election results??? He noted on the day after the election, that he was not that disturbed by what happened in the election -which is a surprise cause the converse was actually presumed to be how he would take it. And as time goes on, we find that appraisal not changing in the slightest. What happened to the Republicans and why did they lose -history's pattern working against them notwithstanding??? Well, the present writer summarized it in an email just the other day and will quote from it{7} at this time:
[T]he Republicans...saw their congressional power obliterated overnight because they were not true to conservative principles first and foremost.[...] They were in other words hypocrites for preaching about caring for the Constitution while they spent like drunken sailors in the most foul and unconstitutional fashion ala the Democrats in the old days. They also gave every impression of trying to do just enough to placate the base and get re-elected. Frankly, I can respect the people for throwing the Republicans out because if they are going to govern like Democrats, why go with a pale impressionist of the real thing when you can have the real thing...[Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa November 14, 2006)]
There is also the fact that no conservatives lost their seats and if anything, conservatives were either re-elected amongst the Republicans or elected amongst the Democrats. The reason the Dems will have majorities in both houses is because of southern conservative Democrats being elected. This makes the majority the Democrats will have a very fragile one -particularly in the Senate- and if the more rabid Democrat sorts do not show that they can work and play well with others{8}, then they will fail to govern effectively and will be thrown out in 2008.
To wrap up this thread, while more could be noted than just what is in the above snippet and followup paragraph, that will nonetheless have to suffice for now -though your host will probably revisit this subject after the new congress convenes in January of 2007. In summary: conservatism did not lose in 2006 while party loyalty at all cost amongst the Republicans did. Thank God the present writer is an Independent voter of ten years standing is all he will say about that at the present time.
Notes:
{1} Here are the analyses blogged on the elections that have taken place since this weblog debuted:
A Rerum Novarum Post-Election Commentary, Development of Some Key November 2002 Post-Election Observations, Etc. (circa November 24, 2004)
Analysis of the Overall Election Trends (circa November 6, 2002)
{2} The only changes made were some spelling glitches, removing the time stamps to give the thread a better cohesion, and imbedding any url links from the chat log. All of these were done for easier reading of the material.
{3} For while the Democrat leadership did not act as we said they may well act, at the same time (i) if they had acted that way or essentially been honest with the electorate, they would have lost soundly and (ii) their silence in the final weeks from public interaction shows that they knew well that to speak their minds would have meant defeat.
{4} For the record, your host hopes to be disproven on the predictions of upcoming Democrat party media censorship of congressional proceedings.
{5} Gut intuitions do not constitute "predictions" properly-speaking but we note it here nonetheless in the interest of disclosure.
{6} We may post that email in its entirety and not revealing the identity of the person it was sent it to; however, because of the contents of said email and what it says about certain persons and institutions, we want to mull over that for a while longer before deciding one way or the other on what to do with it.
{7} Or in other words, be profoundly disingenuous to the voting public.
{8} Your host predicts that to some extent they will not be as rabid as they may want to for one reason: it would sabotage Hillary Clinton's presidential aspirations in 2008. You gotta know that Bill Clinton will have a talk with the party leadership about that before they are sworn in on January 20, 2007 --if he has not done so already-- and tell this crowd to not impair Hillary's chances by acting out their extremist tendencies on several polarizing issues. (We may discuss some of them later including a couple predictions made in private on this crowd that may shock the readers of this humble weblog.)
(A Synopsis of Our Overall Prescience Viz. the 2006 Elections and A Bit of Analysis As Well)
[Prefatory Note: Your host apologizes for the delay in posting this thread -it was ready to go back on November 22, 2006 but there were too many glitches in the text formatting to be posted at that time and not enough time to fix them. Anyway, the text here is the same as before with only the most minor of adjustments (including the addition of a footnote among them). -ISM]
As it has been customary for the present writer to write an analysis of sorts after each election cycle{1}, it seems appropriate to do so after the recent election; ergo, the post you have before you.
Now readers of this weblog are aware that your humble servant has reiterated numerous times certain principles to account for in making prognoses on future events. We intend with this email to outline some areas where we were remarkable prescient before getting to one area where we must eat some crow. But without further ado, let us get to it.
To start with, there is the historical trackrecord of elections. Often did the present writer speak of these matters in private conversations and sometimes even in public media formats. In perusing the archives, the following bits were found which will be revisited in sequential order so that readers can denote the consistency of my approach to these matters for reasons which will soon be evident:
For those who know their history, political savvy is going to be needed in much greater supply than normal in the next year and a half. I will outline in this post reasons for that seemingly bold assertion.
To start with, I have noted before that a year is an eternity in politics.[...] For that reason alone, what seems like a certain thing now may not be that way a year from now. (Let alone a year and a half from now.) But that does not mean that there are not certain lessons that history can teach us of general tendencies which can give us probabilities of what is more likely than not to happen. And it is utilizing the latter that I intend to do in the rest of this post in discussing the 2006 elections.
By all historical indicators of norms, the 2006 elections should favour the Democrats because historically the party which holds the White House loses ground in the midterm elections of a two-term president as a rule. And while many might scoff at the idea of the current crop of Democrats achieving that kind of feat, it frankly does not matter as a rule how potent or impotent they are politically. And as a brief outline from recent history should help clarify this a bit, that is what we will do at this time. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 21, 2005)]
The above text was the first public utterance we made on the principle of midterms in the second term of a presidency. Readers can review the entire thread to see the historical outline sketched which showed itself to apply again in this election year. The subject was revisited in the months prior to the election both in chat format as well as on this weblog. Here are the salient threads that can be recalled offhand -the first is a chat with Kevin Tierney which is reproduced in substantial integrity{2} at this time:
Kevin: the Machiavellian in me wants the dems to win the house so something like this can be put out and I'm at work, so I can't view it :)
me: well, if nothing else Conyers keeps me from having any of my blog postings be considered the "world's longest blog post" ;-)
Kevin: some of the charges there, let the dems go forward with that. It would give new definition to the concept of "hari-kari"
me: I predict Conyers and company may well use that report as their manifesto of sorts for this November and yes, it would turn off most people enough to marginalize the dems to make their takeover of the House go from possible/probable to snowballs-chance-in-hell ish
Kevin: their chances have declined incredibly from the beginning of the year when everyone was taking it as granted the dems were taking over both houses
me: agreed but I still think they are to be favoured
Kevin: I don't think either side is favored now it's 50-50 the dems have a chance in the senate, not the house I think
me: my reason is the "midterm of a two term president election cycle" pattern historically but the Senate will hold either way methinks the question mark is the House and that is key cause even if they take over and try impeachment schtick the Senate holding guarantees that there will be no removal of Bush prior to January 20, 2009
me: admittedly my Machiavellian side would get joy in seeing such hearings take place...cause it would make the Dems in 2008 less likely to win the presidency because we would see all the rabidness in full media view rather than somewhat sequestered as it is now and most people would be turned off by it to no small degree
Kevin: the only problem is astute democrat congressmen are few and far between
me: in short, we are in agreement here
Kevin: even Hillary Clinton is not that smart. One thing is for sure, she does not have her husband's charisma or the ability to bullshit
me: Lieberman is being challenged by the rabid moronic leftist fringe sorts in his re-election I hope Joe kicks the fringe candidate's keister soundly. I like him and wish there were more Dems like him [Excerpt from a Chat With Kevin Tierney (circa August 7, 2006)]
As readers can see, our hope for Leiberman panned. Readers can say that our comments on Conyers and the strategery we noted not being used means that we missed a prediction but at best it is a half-prediction and the germ of the point remains intact.{3} The present writer also made another reference to the historical pattern in the above thread. And from another chat file with Kevin, we noted these points including some predictions which remain to be fulfilled{4}:
me: well, that is what closed door sessions are for and a complicit media remember only with the 1994 congress did a lot of this stuff get televised prior to that, it was not on TV for viewing on CSpan or whatever and if the Dems win, they will probably make some excuse that the subjects to be treated on are "too delicate a matter to be publicly broadcast" or some other bullshit of that sort
me: if I sound downright nasty in my portrayal, it is because of experience in seeing them when they have a majority and how haughty they act. The Republicans act stupid a lot but the Democratic ancients are downright evil at times...not to mention vindictive...think of the way high school bullies and the "popular class" sorts acted for a good picture of the mentality
Kevin: their flanks have collapsed now, so my worries are less
me: my worries are less too...but a wounded animal is a fiercer fighter and there is enough anger out there at Bush
Kevin: the republicans don't have to win in November they just have to not lose
me: if they can convince enough fools to make the 2006 election a referendum on Bush, it may well work this time...things have changed since 2004...Bush has shown weakness in spots which is from our POV appalling...from their view, it is exploitable if they know what they are doing
Kevin: they won't be able to focus their message though since they call for a referendum on bush, but then state we achieve that by withdrawing from Iraq which nobody outside of the angry left blogosphere actually believes
me: put it this way...if I was the strategist for the Dems in 2006, I guarantee they would win the House cause I know where to hit Bush for maximum effect
someone on their side has to know too...the Q is if they will be listened to
which odds are is no
Kevin: let the dems charge the line, all anyone has to do is just hold the spears forward. Sure one horse breaks through, but they don't take the ground :)
me: lol nice analogy
me: I hope it is apropo...history is not on our side here though midterms of a two term president are rarely not a disaster for the incumbent party particularly if one party holds both houses and the presidency
Kevin: I do not believe history is a God who is infallible and to be worshipped. :) the tides of history are always shifting.
me: even the Republicans after the absolute ass kicking they got in 1932 and a further setback in 1934 and a 1936 electoral absolutely cleaned House literally in 1938 (about 75 House seats and 14 Senate seats were gained that year)
history is not to be worshipped nor is it infallible, but as Newman said it has lessons that we ignore to our own detriment...or as Santayana said "ignore history and you are doomed to repeat it" [Excerpt from a Chat With Kevin Tierney (circa September 6, 2006)]
Again, readers can notice your host's appeal to history on this matter as something to be taken seriously. However, the present writer would be dishonest if he did not admit that the tea leaves were reading differently to him in September as noted in the following blog posting of miscellaneous tidbits:
Some have opined that there will be a tidalwave of anti-Republican sentiment this November aimed as some kind of "referendum" on President Bush. Others have claimed the converse: that the Republicans will consolidate and maybe expand their holdings as the Democrats come apart at the seams. I have noted in the past on various occasions that a year is an eternity in politics. Keeping that factor in mind, it suffices to note that even two months is a long time -maybe an ice age or whatever. My gut intuition on these matters at the moment is the following:
---The Republicans will not lose the Senate. Period. They are vulnerable in the House this is true both by virtue of current circumstances as well as the traditional pattern of parties out of power gaining in the mid term elections of a two term presidency. But the Senate will hold -only 33 are up for re-election and the Democrats would have to hold serve on all their guys and pick up about ten seats or so in the Senate just to tie. (Remember, Cheney is the tiebreaker.) But ultimately I see the Republicans at the moment losing some seats in the House but holding serve. They may lose some in the Senate too but whatever happens, they will retain the Senate no matter what. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 14, 2006)]
While making note of the historical pattern and also that two months is a long time in politics; nonetheless, your host writing on the fly should have double checked the Senate numbers before posting some of what is in the above thread. For some reason, we were thinking it was ten to tie instead of six which may not sound like much of a difference but it is for reasons now to be explained in brief.
In an elected body where only one third are elected in a given cycle, basically assuming an even split roughly between the parties (which is something that is not necessarily a given), we were seeing approximately a third of the senators up for election (ten) being needed to close the senate gap rather than roughly a fifth (six). If we had taken a few minutes to double check the numbers above, the above statement would never have made about the Dems "not winning the Senate period" but instead we would have recognized that it was much more probable than we were presuming.{5}
Basically not much changed between what was noted on September 14, 2006 and what was posted on the weekend leading up to the election. Or to quote a post of miscellaneous tidbits on some subjects:
---As I have told not a few friends and associates in recent weeks, watch for this election cycle's "October Surprise." Well, it took 30 days but on 10/30 we got it in John Kerry's recent public snafu. After this one, I cannot see how the Democrats can win either house of Congress because (i) seven days before an election is too quick to be able to spin this one away and (ii) this will anger Independents like your weblog host as well as Republicans who may have been a bit lax viz. the upcoming election. Anyway, that is what our gut intuition is on the election at the present time. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 1, 2006)]
For the record, it is obvious that our intuition in the above paragraph was wrong. However, while the present writer did note more than once his intuition about the Republicans holding, he also noted a concern that they would not get the message if they did. Or to quote a post from the day of the election when it was too early to tell where the winds were blowing:
It needs to be made clear that any support for the Republicans is done grudgingly and not because people think they are that good a party because they are not...
[W]e must avoid being one-issue focused here. Granted national security is a huge issue and definitely must be at or near the top of the list of anyone who actually is concerned with the survival of not only themselves but also civilization. But we cannot let these guys off the hook in the myriad of areas where they are screwing up. They need to be told in no uncertain terms that they are not being approved of in this election as much as their opponents are being rejected. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa November 7, 2006)]
Obviously our concern there ended up being not founded as the Republicans were rebuked on election day. And the reasons why they were rebuked are ones which your host outlined in advance. In other words, while we outlined what the Dems would need to do to win and also noted the historical trackrecord, we obviously underestimated the Dems being smart enough to know what they needed to do to win and to actually do it. We said they would need to nationalize the election around Bush and they did that. We also said that they would need to shut their traps and not tell people what they really planned to do{6} and they actually did that also. Give them credit for actually learning from past mistakes if nothing else. The question is, will the idiotic Republicans realize why they lost in the election or not. Alas, we cannot say there is much optimism here at Rerum Novarum that they will -at least not in the short term. Maybe it will take handing over the gavels in the chambers on January 20, 2007 for them to realize what happened and start the process of pondering why what happened actually happened.
How does your host feel about the election results??? He noted on the day after the election, that he was not that disturbed by what happened in the election -which is a surprise cause the converse was actually presumed to be how he would take it. And as time goes on, we find that appraisal not changing in the slightest. What happened to the Republicans and why did they lose -history's pattern working against them notwithstanding??? Well, the present writer summarized it in an email just the other day and will quote from it{7} at this time:
[T]he Republicans...saw their congressional power obliterated overnight because they were not true to conservative principles first and foremost.[...] They were in other words hypocrites for preaching about caring for the Constitution while they spent like drunken sailors in the most foul and unconstitutional fashion ala the Democrats in the old days. They also gave every impression of trying to do just enough to placate the base and get re-elected. Frankly, I can respect the people for throwing the Republicans out because if they are going to govern like Democrats, why go with a pale impressionist of the real thing when you can have the real thing...[Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa November 14, 2006)]
There is also the fact that no conservatives lost their seats and if anything, conservatives were either re-elected amongst the Republicans or elected amongst the Democrats. The reason the Dems will have majorities in both houses is because of southern conservative Democrats being elected. This makes the majority the Democrats will have a very fragile one -particularly in the Senate- and if the more rabid Democrat sorts do not show that they can work and play well with others{8}, then they will fail to govern effectively and will be thrown out in 2008.
To wrap up this thread, while more could be noted than just what is in the above snippet and followup paragraph, that will nonetheless have to suffice for now -though your host will probably revisit this subject after the new congress convenes in January of 2007. In summary: conservatism did not lose in 2006 while party loyalty at all cost amongst the Republicans did. Thank God the present writer is an Independent voter of ten years standing is all he will say about that at the present time.
Notes:
{1} Here are the analyses blogged on the elections that have taken place since this weblog debuted:
A Rerum Novarum Post-Election Commentary, Development of Some Key November 2002 Post-Election Observations, Etc. (circa November 24, 2004)
Analysis of the Overall Election Trends (circa November 6, 2002)
{2} The only changes made were some spelling glitches, removing the time stamps to give the thread a better cohesion, and imbedding any url links from the chat log. All of these were done for easier reading of the material.
{3} For while the Democrat leadership did not act as we said they may well act, at the same time (i) if they had acted that way or essentially been honest with the electorate, they would have lost soundly and (ii) their silence in the final weeks from public interaction shows that they knew well that to speak their minds would have meant defeat.
{4} For the record, your host hopes to be disproven on the predictions of upcoming Democrat party media censorship of congressional proceedings.
{5} Gut intuitions do not constitute "predictions" properly-speaking but we note it here nonetheless in the interest of disclosure.
{6} We may post that email in its entirety and not revealing the identity of the person it was sent it to; however, because of the contents of said email and what it says about certain persons and institutions, we want to mull over that for a while longer before deciding one way or the other on what to do with it.
{7} Or in other words, be profoundly disingenuous to the voting public.
{8} Your host predicts that to some extent they will not be as rabid as they may want to for one reason: it would sabotage Hillary Clinton's presidential aspirations in 2008. You gotta know that Bill Clinton will have a talk with the party leadership about that before they are sworn in on January 20, 2007 --if he has not done so already-- and tell this crowd to not impair Hillary's chances by acting out their extremist tendencies on several polarizing issues. (We may discuss some of them later including a couple predictions made in private on this crowd that may shock the readers of this humble weblog.)
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Miscellaneous Musings:
(On the 9/11 Fifth Anniversary, The Importance of Consistency, and the November Elections)
Just a few quick musings on some subjects in brief...
On the Fifth Anniversary of 9/11
It seems appropriate on anniversary days of major events in history to look back and reflect upon what one was doing on that day or on how that day changed one's life, etc. I remember receiving a phone call where the person on the other line said "how are you doing on this awful, awful morning???" My response was "why is it such an awful morning???" and they said "turn on your TV." I did and thought I was in the midst of a movie or something: it all seemed surreal at the time.
September 11, 2001 was almost three months (eighty-six days to be exact) after my father's passing and a mere seventeen days after his older brother passed on (may they rest in peace). I do not want to go into the whole litany of things I have experienced in this area the past six years but suffice to say, this issue did not resonate with me as firmly as it did with probably most people for some time. It also took time for me to consider all the factors involved in the matrix of sorts and come without contradiction to the views I embodied in early 2003 which are substantially the same as they are now. The invasion of Afghanistan was a slam dunk obviously, the Iraq military involvement took more effort to work through the wrinkles of{1} the problems with memory loss and a degree of cognitive impairment{2} at the time did not help either.{3} But work through them I did fortunately.
On the anniversary, I thought of it a bit on and off while working an extralong day. But I can definitely see some differences in my outlook of sorts from five years ago -one of which I will note here. In looking back now, I recognize to some extent a greater cynicism on my part with a lot of these matters. For a long time it was anger but now it is cynicism -mostly at those who do not bother to take even a moment to rationally consider the factors involved but instead have a knee-jerk reaction one way or the other. This includes not only those who react in the direction of undermining national security and other forms of sedition but also those who blindly accept anything that the Bush Administration says on these matters or otherwise take an overly jingoistic or Manifest Destiny-type outlook on these matters. I cannot say this will change in the immediate future as I value reason and logic too much to not focus on the importance of consistency of principles and the like. Which brings up another subject I want to briefly touch on so here goes...
On the Importance of Consistency
One of the reasons I emphasize the importance of consistency is because my trackrecord properly scrutinized is remarkably consistent.{4} I believe this is a necessary component of truth; ergo it gets frequent mention here and in some form or another always will.
On the November Elections
Some have opined that there will be a tidalwave of anti-Republican sentiment this November aimed as some kind of "referendum" on President Bush. Others have claimed the converse: that the Republicans will consolidate and maybe expand their holdings as the Democrats come apart at the seams. I have noted in the past on various occasions that a year is an eternity in politics. Keeping that factor in mind, it suffices to note that even two months is a long time -maybe an ice age or whatever. My gut intuition on these matters at the moment is the following:
---The Republicans will not lose the Senate. Period. They are vulnerable in the House this is true both by virtue of current circumstances as well as the traditional pattern of parties out of power gaining in the mid term elections of a two term presidency. But the Senate will hold -only 33 are up for re-election and the Democrats would have to hold serve on all their guys and pick up about ten seats or so in the Senate just to tie. (Remember, Cheney is the tiebreaker.) But ultimately I see the Republicans at the moment losing some seats in the House but holding serve. They may lose some in the Senate too but whatever happens, they will retain the Senate no matter what.
Anyway, I will probably say more in the coming days and weeks on this time-willing but what is noted above will have to suffice for now.
Notes:
{1} As your host does not delete his archives unlike certain-parties-whom-shall-remain-nameless do, readers can peruse them from August 2002 through February 2003 and see the degree to which I was uncertain how I viewed what to do on the Iraq war idea. It took a while because I do not take positions on emotional whims or on transient and speculative data but instead do so on principles and information which is not controverted as much as possible. This is why I have not had to do an aboutface on the war as not a few of its initial supporters did. More could be noted but I think this suffices for the time being.
{2} The way my body handled various life traumas from 2000-2002 was a gradual cognitive breakdown of sorts: a process that started probably in late 2000 but I did not notice it until the aftermath of my father's death and funeral in June of 2001. By November of that year, it was so bad I took a four month web sabbatical and when I returned in March 2002, it had not improved much. By October of 2002, things were pretty close to back to normal but I can see not a few quite-noticeable inconsistencies in my archives from August and September of 2002 viz. post quality. (Some in early October and a bit in November too.) Nonetheless, they remain as they were posted because it was what it was and I will not pretend that things were differently out of a respect for both honesty as well as historical accuracy. Would that more people were concerned about those things but I digress.
{3} This would involve somewhat of a long story to go into and I do not want to do that at the present time.
{4} Emphasis on "properly scrutinized" as ripping bits and pieces from context is not how you properly scrutinize or examine matters. (Something I note here briefly because we live in a soundbyte society where this is unfortunately quite prevalent.)
(On the 9/11 Fifth Anniversary, The Importance of Consistency, and the November Elections)
Just a few quick musings on some subjects in brief...
On the Fifth Anniversary of 9/11
It seems appropriate on anniversary days of major events in history to look back and reflect upon what one was doing on that day or on how that day changed one's life, etc. I remember receiving a phone call where the person on the other line said "how are you doing on this awful, awful morning???" My response was "why is it such an awful morning???" and they said "turn on your TV." I did and thought I was in the midst of a movie or something: it all seemed surreal at the time.
September 11, 2001 was almost three months (eighty-six days to be exact) after my father's passing and a mere seventeen days after his older brother passed on (may they rest in peace). I do not want to go into the whole litany of things I have experienced in this area the past six years but suffice to say, this issue did not resonate with me as firmly as it did with probably most people for some time. It also took time for me to consider all the factors involved in the matrix of sorts and come without contradiction to the views I embodied in early 2003 which are substantially the same as they are now. The invasion of Afghanistan was a slam dunk obviously, the Iraq military involvement took more effort to work through the wrinkles of{1} the problems with memory loss and a degree of cognitive impairment{2} at the time did not help either.{3} But work through them I did fortunately.
On the anniversary, I thought of it a bit on and off while working an extralong day. But I can definitely see some differences in my outlook of sorts from five years ago -one of which I will note here. In looking back now, I recognize to some extent a greater cynicism on my part with a lot of these matters. For a long time it was anger but now it is cynicism -mostly at those who do not bother to take even a moment to rationally consider the factors involved but instead have a knee-jerk reaction one way or the other. This includes not only those who react in the direction of undermining national security and other forms of sedition but also those who blindly accept anything that the Bush Administration says on these matters or otherwise take an overly jingoistic or Manifest Destiny-type outlook on these matters. I cannot say this will change in the immediate future as I value reason and logic too much to not focus on the importance of consistency of principles and the like. Which brings up another subject I want to briefly touch on so here goes...
On the Importance of Consistency
One of the reasons I emphasize the importance of consistency is because my trackrecord properly scrutinized is remarkably consistent.{4} I believe this is a necessary component of truth; ergo it gets frequent mention here and in some form or another always will.
On the November Elections
Some have opined that there will be a tidalwave of anti-Republican sentiment this November aimed as some kind of "referendum" on President Bush. Others have claimed the converse: that the Republicans will consolidate and maybe expand their holdings as the Democrats come apart at the seams. I have noted in the past on various occasions that a year is an eternity in politics. Keeping that factor in mind, it suffices to note that even two months is a long time -maybe an ice age or whatever. My gut intuition on these matters at the moment is the following:
---The Republicans will not lose the Senate. Period. They are vulnerable in the House this is true both by virtue of current circumstances as well as the traditional pattern of parties out of power gaining in the mid term elections of a two term presidency. But the Senate will hold -only 33 are up for re-election and the Democrats would have to hold serve on all their guys and pick up about ten seats or so in the Senate just to tie. (Remember, Cheney is the tiebreaker.) But ultimately I see the Republicans at the moment losing some seats in the House but holding serve. They may lose some in the Senate too but whatever happens, they will retain the Senate no matter what.
Anyway, I will probably say more in the coming days and weeks on this time-willing but what is noted above will have to suffice for now.
Notes:
{1} As your host does not delete his archives unlike certain-parties-whom-shall-remain-nameless do, readers can peruse them from August 2002 through February 2003 and see the degree to which I was uncertain how I viewed what to do on the Iraq war idea. It took a while because I do not take positions on emotional whims or on transient and speculative data but instead do so on principles and information which is not controverted as much as possible. This is why I have not had to do an aboutface on the war as not a few of its initial supporters did. More could be noted but I think this suffices for the time being.
{2} The way my body handled various life traumas from 2000-2002 was a gradual cognitive breakdown of sorts: a process that started probably in late 2000 but I did not notice it until the aftermath of my father's death and funeral in June of 2001. By November of that year, it was so bad I took a four month web sabbatical and when I returned in March 2002, it had not improved much. By October of 2002, things were pretty close to back to normal but I can see not a few quite-noticeable inconsistencies in my archives from August and September of 2002 viz. post quality. (Some in early October and a bit in November too.) Nonetheless, they remain as they were posted because it was what it was and I will not pretend that things were differently out of a respect for both honesty as well as historical accuracy. Would that more people were concerned about those things but I digress.
{3} This would involve somewhat of a long story to go into and I do not want to do that at the present time.
{4} Emphasis on "properly scrutinized" as ripping bits and pieces from context is not how you properly scrutinize or examine matters. (Something I note here briefly because we live in a soundbyte society where this is unfortunately quite prevalent.)
Monday, March 06, 2006
"Vreebird" Dept.
(Another Installment in the So-Called "Neo-Con" Tracking Series)
The previous installment of this thread can be read HERE. Though normally names are kept confidential, in this case it seems appropriate to mention the person whose work your host will interact with. Their words will be in yellow font.
[Update: A friend after reading this thread (who knows well my reasons for occasionally using the royal third person capitalizations when writing post material) advised me that this post would be better written in first person stylings. Ergo, I have gone back and changed the post to read much more in that fashion while adding two new sentences to end the post with. - ISM 3/13/06 11am]
Before the September Editorial and especially since then, many people have asked us what a neocon is.
For the record, when your host posited his challenge to define what is and is not a so-called "neo con", he did not have New Oxford Review in mind for a couple of reasons. One is that it simply is not (in my view) the source it once was and appears too often to have an approach to issues which is sometimes called "Anglo-Catholic." Certainly the journal itself admits that this was how it was founded and while they have been ecclesially aligned with the Catholic Church since 1983, it is the opinion of your host that certain pieces of presuppositional baggage from their days as Anglicans were not jettisoned in the process. Part of this was discussed in a weblog posting not long ago and your host does not intend to reiterate at this time was was noted back then. Moving on...
Your Editor has followed the neocons for over 35 years,
The first thirteen or more of which by Mr. Vree's own admission he was an Anglican. It remains to be seen if he got into his mind a certain understanding of this term that he did not bother revising after becoming Catholic. For that reason, it seems important to note the non-Catholic foundation from which he started this supposed "following" of so-called "neo-cons."
and I have had dealings with many of them (but I should not have assumed that everyone knows what a neocon is).
It is good to see Mr. Vree admit to this upfront. Often we all can assume certain things about a reading audience that we should not assume and (in this case) using a term without explaining what is meant by it is something that should be avoided as much as possible.
Given my background, I could have been an authentic neocon if I wanted to. But I didn't want to.
Whether this is or is not a good thing will depend (of course) on how Mr. Vree outlines the term as he understands it.
Here is a thumbnail sketch; I could say more, but this is the essence of it.
Here we go...
Authentic neocons descend from the Communist and socialist movements, with the most prominent leaders being Trotskyites (that is, ultra-Left Communists).
That is by my recollection how the term was first employed.{1} The question of course is why certain sorts refer to people as "neo-cons" who do not descend from this lineage at all.
When Stalin took over the Soviet Union, the Trotskyites were severely persecuted, and ultimately Trotsky himself was assassinated in Mexico. Stalin was a gentile (indeed, an ex-seminarian) and Trotsky was a Jew, and the divide between the Stalinists and Trotskyites pretty much followed the same divide (with significant exceptions, especially in the early years of the Soviet satellite states in Eastern Europe, before many of the Jews in those satellite states were purged from the Party, even executed).
Stalin became increasingly anti-Semitic, and the Jewish Trotskyites had another reason to hate Stalin. After World War II when Israel was established, the Soviet Union sided with the Arabs against Israel, and the Soviet Union basically did not allow Jews to emigrate to Israel. Another reason to hate Stalin and the Soviet Union.
This is an accurate summary of events overall. It bears noting however that there were Jewish roots to not only the Trotskyites but also the earlier Leninists from which Stalin originally came from.
Many Jewish Trotskyites -- and other Jewish Leftists (but not most of them) -- became increasingly and indeed vehemently anti-Communist. Many supported the Vietnam War and were extremely hostile to the détente policies pursued by Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Carter. These ex-Leftist Jews perceived the Left, even liberals (rightly or wrongly), as being pro-Arab and pro-Palestinian. These ex-Leftist Jews evolved into what they themselves called "neoconservatives."
See the first footnote of this response. The expression did not originate from those whom Mr. Vree claims.
As Benjamin Ginsberg said in his book The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (University of Chicago Press), "One major factor that drew them [ex-Leftist Jewish neocons] inexorably to the right was their attachment to Israel...."
To delve into the Israel issue would be to spill a lot of type as it has no shortages of complexities to it. We may discuss it another time but for now, Mr. Vree's quoting of Benjamin Ginsberg's overly-simplistic statement will have to do so this thread does not get offtrack.
The Jewish neocons' primary goal -- though not their exclusive goal -- has been to protect Israel (which, we suppose, is their right), and they see an American Empire as the best way to do that. Yes, we know you're not supposed to say that, but we have a bad habit of telling the naked truth.
Heck, that Mr. Vree is at least giving a description of this term is a welcoming change from what many who blather on about so-called "neo-cons" have done. (And that is to his credit.)
So the neocons want an American Empire, and Jewish neocon Jonah Goldberg put their view at its most blunt when he said: "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business."
Of course when the reader reviews the context of this quote, Goldberg's precise wording is interesting (all emphasis is mine):
So how does all this, or the humble attempt at a history lesson of my last column, justify tearing down the Baghdad regime? Well, I've long been an admirer of, if not a full-fledged subscriber to, what I call the "Ledeen Doctrine." I'm not sure my friend Michael Ledeen will thank me for ascribing authorship to him and he may have only been semi-serious when he crafted it, but here is the bedrock tenet of the Ledeen Doctrine in more or less his own words: "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business." That's at least how I remember Michael phrasing it at a speech at the American Enterprise Institute about a decade ago. [Jonah Goldberg: From the Article Baghdad Delenda Est, Part Two as published in National Review Online (circa April 23, 2002)]
Now Jonah Goldberg notes three things of interest here. First of all, the viewpoint Dale Vree attributes to him is actually one that Goldberg attributes to Michael Ledeen and as a paraphrase at that. Secondly, Goldberg says that he admires Ledeen's theory so paraphraised but does not completely concur with it. Thirdly, Goldberg thinks Ledeen was somewhat sarcastic in noting it in the first place. Something tells this writer that if someone took a sarcastic blurb of Mr. Vree's this badly out of context that Mr. Vree would lay about three or four eggs. But that is neither here nor there.
It seems based on what he notes above that Mr. Vree sees a so-called "neo-con" as someone descending from a Communist/Socialist/Trotskyite or so-called "New Left" lineage who endorses an aggressive constantly-interventionist approach to foreign policy with Manifest Destiny undercurrents. Unless something is being missed in this description, it is the one that will be presumed throughout the rest of this interaction with Dale Vree's work here.
It's interesting that Judge John Roberts was queried by the Senate Judiciary Committee as to his loyalty to his Catholic Faith (he resolutely denied it),
No he did not. This myopic approach to political issues was touched on in a series of predictions about the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito. To quote what I noted back in January on this matter viz. the Alito hearings:
Certain Catholic commentators will claim without suitable warrant that Alito like Roberts in answering in this fashion would be "selling their faith down the river" ignoring the obvious fact that if ever was there a time to have to approach something with the "cunningness of serpents and the guileness of doves" (cf. Jesus Christ) than it is in these instances. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 10, 2006)]
One of those in mind when I wrote the above words was Dale Vree. Moving on...
but one cannot question Jewish neocons about their loyalty to Israel. This is a double standard pure and simple.
If there is anything your host is not it is politically correct. For that reason and provided that proper care and discretion was taken this writer sees nothing wrong about questioning a loyalty to Israel from certain parties referred to (usually in a derisive fashion) as "neo-cons."
If you think this is anti-Semitic, you're wrong. Catholics should be loyal to their Catholic Faith above their loyalty to their country (think of St. Thomas More and so many other martyrs) -- and it is not anti-Catholic to say that.
It is certainly not anti-Catholic to say that. However, (i) it is a significant lacuna in charity{2} to presume that certain Catholics are not loyal to their faith simply because they do not approach it as Mr. Vree does and (ii) a Catholic in public service has a responsibility towards the position he is elected to (or nominated for) and doing what that position entails.
Whether Jewish neocons should be loyal to Israel is not something we're qualified to comment on.
Fair enough.
However, we do wish to note that Murray Polner and Adam Simms, both Jewish, said: "Do the interests of Israel drive U.S. Middle East policy? It's a fair question, though anyone who poses it risks being wrongly accused of being anti-Semitic" (Commonweal, July 18, 2003; italics added). Nonetheless, neocon Richard John Neuhaus does just that.
Was Richard John Neuhaus ever a Trotskyite or so-called "New Left" communist??? Did he descend from any other Communist or Socialist lineage either??? We are aware of Michael Novak once having similar viewpoints so (by Vree's definition) the term could possibly be applied to Novak. However, Mr. Vree is applying it to Fr. Neuhaus whom to my knowledge was never a Trotskyite, a so-called "New Left" communist, or a descendant of any communist/socialist lineage. Nor for that matter was George Weigel, another popular personage to tar and feather with the term "neo-con" by people such as Mr. Vree.
But since Dale Vree wants to play the label-slapping game, let me turn the tables on him for a moment. The problem with socialism is that there are different degrees involved. Would anyone at all who was once socialist or had socialist leanings who became conservative fit the so-called "neo-con" label as Mr. Vree understands it??? Or would this involve possibly someone who did not embrace the reactionary core of the Communist/Trotskyite/Socialist weltanschauung while having socialist tendencies??? Certainly Fr. Neuhaus was of what would be commonly called "leftist sympathies" in his younger days. A biographical sketch of him online from a supposedly "right wing website" had this to say about the man (footnotes removed and all emphasis being mine):
In the 1960s Neuhaus was an activist pastor at St. John the Evangelist Lutheran Church, whose parish extended into the largely black ghetto of Bedford-Stuyvesant in Brooklyn. From the pulpit, Neuhaus preached against the war and for social justice. Neuhaus took his antiwar and other progressive beliefs—which he grounded in Christian theology—out of the church and into the streets. In the late 1960s Neuhaus gained national prominence as the cofounder of the Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam. Peter Berger, a sociology professor at Brooklyn College who like Neuhaus later became a neocon ideologue, joined Neuhass on the national steering committee of the antiwar group. In 1970 Berger and Neuhaus published Movement and Revolution, a collection of essays on the progressive movement. Included in the volume was an essay by Neuhaus titled "The Thorough Revolutionary." "A revolution of consciousness, no doubt," wrote Neuhaus in his defense of the Movement, "A cultural revolution, certainly. A non-violent revolution, perhaps. An armed overthrow of the existing order, it may be necessary. Revolution for the hell of it or revolution for a new world, but revolution, Yes."
Neuhaus' fellow revolutionary enthusiast Berger soon became disillusioned with the "Movement," and by the mid-1970s both Neuhaus and Berger had dropped revolution for the reactionary politics of the ascendant neoconservative camp. Neuhaus, Berger, and Michael Novak (another former proponent of liberation theology) had all undergone a personal revolution of their own, having sharply shifted their ideological fervor, academic endeavors, and political activism to the right. [Excerpts from the Rightweb site article Profile: Richard John Neuhaus]
The questionable political categorizing of "left" and "right" aside for the time being,{3} it seems reasonable to assert that Fr. Neuhaus would not fit the template unless (and this is the clincher) Dale Vree wants to take on the so-called "neo-con" label himself. He cannot have it both ways and certainly he fits the criteria at least as good as Fr. Neuhaus ever did.
It also bears noting that Fr. Neuhaus was opposed to the NATO bombings in Serbia which was certainly a military intervention; ergo the idea that he supports an "aggressive constantly-interventionist approach to foreign policy" has at least one example where he did not express this outlook. Whether there are more or not this writer is not presently certain. Hopefully, Mr. Vree would not try to play the "Fr. Neuhaus only opposed the Serbia bombings because Clinton was president" card because it would only lend more credence to the observations made last month{4} about certain habitual tendencies that seem to permeate Mr. Vree's writing and the overall tenor of New Oxford Review to an ever-increasing degree.
He said: "The 'Jewish lobby' has America in its hip pocket. So says Philip Weiss, a leftist columnist of the New York Observer.... Philip Weiss has a point, however unoriginal, about the influence of Jews in our country and its policy toward the Middle East.... So why is Philip Weiss flirting with...old-fashioned anti-Semites?" (First Things, Dec. 2002, pp. 90-91). Weiss has "a point, however unoriginal," but Neuhaus smears him for flirting with anti-Semitism. If what Weiss says is true, then to blacken his name for flirting with anti-Semitism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Once again your host is seeing imprudent zeal and a lack of charity in Dale Vree's writing. This seems to be an ever-increasing pattern with him and it is disconcerting to put it mildly.
On the other hand, at the risk of sounding philo-Semitic, the Jewish neocons were and are extremely energetic and very bright, and they have made big inroads into the conservative movement, often with willing gentiles. They are enormously influential and powerful in the George W. Bush Administration -- you could call them neocon apparatchiki. No, this is not a Jewish conspiracy, for it is out in the open, and most Jews are not neocons (probably because they believe America's imperialist policies are not good for Israel or the Jews). And there are neocons who are not Jewish -- most of them being Johnny-come-latelies, considering it "cool" to be a neocon. Some gentile neocons don't know they're being used, while others know full well, but don't care, because they see it as a ticket to influence and power. Other gentile conservatives and neocons think they're using the Jewish neocons because they believe protecting Israel is a great way to advance an American Empire and control much of the world's oil supplies.
As I noted earlier in this posting, it would appear that Mr. Vree sees a so-called "neo-con" as someone descending from a Communist/Socialist/Trotskyite or so-called "New Left" lineage who endorses an aggressive constantly-interventionist approach to foreign policy with Manifest Destiny undercurrents.
One of the divides between the Stalinists and the Trotskyites was that Stalinists said you could have "socialism in one country" while Trotskyites demanded "worldwide socialist revolution" (which was true to what Marx thought). But since the Trotskyites soured on socialist revolution, they transferred their allegiance to "worldwide democratic revolution," hence their eagerness to export the democratic revolution everywhere and have the U.S. intervene militarily in the affairs of sovereign nations, which would make America a "rogue" nation (which is how many Europeans already see America).
Considering the sewer that Europe has become as a whole (not to mention their overall spinelessness), your host for one hardly considers their opinions to be ones with much weight to them.
In Bush's Second Inaugural Address, he said: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands." This sounds like it came right out of Trotsky's bottle: The survival of socialism in the Soviet Union increasingly depends on the success of socialism in other lands.
Once again Mr. Vree is jumping to conclusions as similarity does not ipso facto denote identity. Let us reason together now: the difference between promoting liberty and promoting socialism is night and day as one puts you in chains and the other seeks to remove the chains. Whatever the merits or demerits of the Bush Administration's foreign policy in the Middle East after 9/11, to attempt to compare it to Trotsky's movement is disingenuous at best.
Neocon Stephen Schwartz said that "those who are fighting for global democracy should view Leon Trotsky as a worthy forerunner." Schwartz, who unabashedly proclaims his Trotskyite roots, would prefer that "neocons" be called "Trotskycons."
Your host does not know much about Stephen Schwartz; however if he does have roots in the so-called "New Left" then by Vree's definition he would be a so-called "neo-con." But to this writer's knowledge he has no such roots at all so under what criteria does Mr. Vree label him as a so-called "neo-con"???
Neocon Christopher Hitchens, also a disciple of Trotsky, wants the U.S. to be "a revolutionary force" to fight fascism and religion, especially Islamofascism. "Religion," he says, is "that most toxic of foes.... the most base and contemptible of the forms assumed by human egotism and stupidity. Cold, steady hatred for this, especially in its loathsome jihad shape, has been as sustaining to me as any love." He says: "George Bush may subjectively be a Christian, but he -- and the US armed forces -- have objectively done more for secularism than the whole of the American agnostic community combined and doubled."
Christopher Hitchens was a former disciple of Trotsky so by Vree's definition would be a so-called "neo-con."
Smashing Islam paves the way for democracy, abortion, homosexuality, pornography, etc.
More like "smashing the Islamic extremists paves the way for freedom." Obviously freedom can be abused of this no one would dispute. But abortion, homosexuality, and pornography predate modern democracy. Apparently Mr. Vree does not realize this though or (if he does) he prefers to ignore it in the interest of his ideology.
Jewish neocon Michael Ledeen said: "We tear down the old order.... Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be [and that would include Catholic tradition]).... We must destroy them to advance our historic mission," adding that "It is time once again to export the democratic revolution."
Notice Dale Vree attempting to read into the statements of Michael Ledeen. This gets to the core of a lacuna of charity which some have noted is a discernable pattern in his work and the work of not a few others at New Oxford Review.
"Our historic mission"? Trotsky's god was History. In 1921 Trotsky wrote a book called The Defense of Terrorism. In 2002 (before the invasion of Iraq), Ledeen called for the "creative destruction" of Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. What exactly is the difference between terrorism and "creative destruction"?
Someone will have to ask Michael Ledeen. But even so, just because Michael Ledeen takes this viewpoint does not mean that others with a similar weltanschauung as his do.
"In a just war, killing soldiers, and killing civilians who get in the way of military targets (collateral damage), is not murder, whereas killing civilians on purpose is murder.
Correct.
"In an unjust war -- which is what the Catholic Church said the war on Iraq is -- killing soldiers, killing civilians who get in the way of military targets, and killing civilians on purpose are all murder.
Since the Catholic Church never claimed the war in Iraq was an unjust war, Vree's entire argument collapses like a cheap tent in a big wind. It is difficult after reading this tidbit to take Dale Vree seriously when he makes these kinds of ignorant statements. To revisit this subject yet again will require quoting something written last year at this weblog; nonetheless (and since Dale Vree takes the same approach to this matter that Stephen Hand does) my criticisms of Mr. Hand on this matter can be seen as applicable to Dale Vree as well:
Eminence, a topical question that in a certain sense is inherent to the Catechism: Does the Anglo-American war against Iraq fit the canons of a "just war"?
Cardinal Ratzinger: The Pope expressed his thought with great clarity, not only as his individual thought but as the thought of a man who is knowledgeable in the highest functions of the Catholic Church. Of course, he did not impose this position as doctrine of the Church but as the appeal of a conscience enlightened by faith.
The Holy Father's judgment is also convincing from the rational point of view: There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a "just war." [Excerpt from Cardinal Ratzinger on the Abridged Version of Catechism Compendium Expected Out in 2 Years via Zenit (circa May 2, 2003)]
Mr. Hand obviously presumes that the position articulated by the pope is the only one that can be arrived at by "a conscience enlightened by faith". Cardinal Ratzinger certainly did not say this nor was it even implied. Therefore, to read into his words what he did not say is manifestly uncharitable to say the least. Mr. Hand needs to explain why he reads into the words of Cardinal Ratzinger sentiments not expressed by him since to do this with an eye towards marginalizing others violates the traditional canons of Catholic charity to no small degree.
As far as the idea that the Holy Father's view is convincing from the rational point of view I happen to strongly disagree for reasons I have outlined in no small degree of detail as have some others. Indeed, the rational point of view on this is quite weak when all the relevant factors are accounted for...and I not only see no evidence that Cardinal Ratzinger did this but indeed see clues that he did not do this. That is not a problem of course for those of us who recognize (as the cardinal himself did) that geopolitical issues are not within his competence. But (of course) for those who hang on Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) these expectations are going to find their presumptions crushed under a weight it cannot be expected to bear.
This is why unless Pope Benedict XVI takes this matter beyond where Pope John Paul II and makes this a part of his magisterium[...] my position on this is not going to change an iota. I have seen nothing resembling an intelligent and well-reasoned argument in opposition to what I have written. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 6, 2005)]
Your host challenged Mr. Hand to put up or shut up on this matter and the result thus far has been silence as was predictable. Likewise, either Mr. Vree should demonstrate his assertion using general norms of theological interpretation or he should admit that he cannot and cease making such uninformed (and polarizing) statements. While more could be noted on this matter{5} the above material suffices for the present time.
(And just what is the difference between terrorism and murder in warfare?)
The difference is the means whereby the intended end is pursued; however, since Mr. Vree's assertion of the Catholic Church condemning the Iraq war as unjust is as fictional as Pope Joan, no more needs to be said about it at this time.
But even if one considers the war on Iraq to be just, one's heart should be troubled.
War should never make one at ease...whatever their view of the appropriateness or inappropriateness of a particular war happens to be.
After one-and-a-half years of war in Iraq, The Lancet (the British medical journal) estimated the Iraqi civilian death toll at 100,000.
Now Mr. Vree is parroting discredited statistics. Your host dealt with this back in October of 2005 via the work of Christopher Blosser whose findings have yet to be interacted with by the way.
However, a more recent count after two years of war, produced by the London-based Iraqi Body Count -- which did not count civilian deaths that go unreported in the news media -- put the civilian death toll at 24,865 (with about 42,500 wounded). This sounds like a more reliable figure. Of those 24,865 dead civilians, 37.3 percent were due to the U.S. military, 35.9 percent were due to the crime wave that swept Iraq after the fall of Saddam, and 20.5 percent were due to insurgents or terrorists. Even if one considers the war on Iraq to be just, one must be alarmed that the U.S. military has killed almost twice the number of civilians as have the insurgents and terrorists.
Mr. Vree needs to demonstrate proper journalistic disclosure{6} and point his readers to the fact that these figures have been disputed as has the integrity of the Iraqi Body Count group and their calculating of numbers.
Whether one considers the civilian deaths caused by the U.S. military -- 9,270 (disproportionately children) -- to be murder or not murder, Trotsky would be proud, for he famously said: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."
Once the foundation from which rhetoric such as the above is imploded, the rhetoric itself can be brushed away as irrelevant except for noting that Mr. Vree appears to be engaging in the argumentation fallacy of provincialism with the above assertions. It is hardly the first time in this thread that he has done that but it seems appropriate to point it out at the present time.
The neocons, mainly through the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), planned for a war against Iraq well before 9/11 (one big reason being because Saddam was a supporter of terrorism against Israel).
This is a nice simplistic interpretation of a very complex subject matter. But of course a failure to appreciate the nuances germane to complex geopolitical circumstances and situations has hardly stopped Mr. Vree from pontificating on these kinds of matters before. Ergo, it should not surprise that he does so here as well.
The Bush Administration is peppered with people from PNAC, such as Dick Cheney, Lewis "Scooter" Libby (indicted on five counts, including obstruction of justice and perjury), Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, and Richard Perle. These people tutored -- let's be honest -- an ignorant President Bush, who had no experience in foreign affairs, to launch it.
This is classic conspiracy theorist drivel. First of all, whatever one thinks of President Bush, he is certainly smarter than it is commonly portrayed by people such as Mr. Vree. President Bush comes from a family with two prior generations in foreign affairs experience. Considering this factor in the equation, it is hardly a stretch to opine that the apple generally does not fall far from the tree in these matters.
More could be noted than this but based on what Mr. Vree has claimed a so-called "neo-con" is, your humble servant at Rerum Novarum is unaware of anyone in the above paragraph fitting the description given by Mr. Vree. Apparently it is just easy to tar people with a derisive label in classic cultic deadagenting fashion rather than do the hard work of actually thinking about these matters beyond facile caricatures. Considering Mr. Vree's capabilities, this is a regrettable tendency that he has but it is what it is.
As we said in our September Editorial: "BeforeCrisis and First Things were even founded, the NOR was contacted by a neocon foundation -- right out of the blue.
If that foundation (whomever they are) are not a foundation of ex-Trotskyite or so-called "New Left" communist/socialists{7} then Mr. Vree is going against his own description of what a so-called "neo-con" is supposed to be in calling that organization "neo cons."
The foundation wanted to give us money -- 'free' money. A fellow flew out from the East Coast and asked me (the Editor) to meet him for drinks in a San Francisco restaurant -- on him. Sure! (We were desperate for money.) He told me he would fund us regularly -- if we would support corporate capitalism and if we would support a militaristic U.S. foreign policy." What I didn't say was that the fellow was a Jewish neocon with no interest in Christianity or Catholicism, and I suspected he was interested in getting us to promote Jewish neocon interests (which he had every right to do). As we said in the September Editorial, I said "no," and that was the end of that.
Ok.
But the neocon foundations didn't give up. Michael Novak (very pro-Israel) founded Crisis -- then called Catholicism in Crisis -- and Fr. Neuhaus (also very pro-Israel) founded First Things, both with huge financial support from neocon foundations.
Of course does Mr. Vree tell anyone whom these so-called "neo-con foundations" are??? Of course not as blanket assertions are easy to make whereas substantiating assertions is much harder.
So the neocons found a way to get Catholic and Christian magazines to front for their largely Jewish neocon interests (which, again, is their right). Do we exaggerate? No we don't.
Let us consider what Mr. Vree says next and see if his assertion is accurate or not.
When the Catholic Church denounced the war on Iraq -- calling it an unjust war, a war of aggression --
Since the Catholic Church never did this (a point I touched on above), Mr. Vree has just in the span of a sentence violated the Law of Non-Contradiction.
both Crisis and First Things supported it. A clear case of supporting Jewish neocon interests over Catholic Just War doctrine.
See this writer's previous comments.
For a synopsis of Fr. Neuhaus's support for the war on Iraq, based on his support for Israel, see our New Oxford Note, "What Does the Pope Know About World Affairs?" (Nov., pp. 13-14, 16-17).
Frankly, I am not about to buy an article from Mr. Vree's site to read it. Having noted that, it suffices to point out Mr. Vree's (i) misrepresentation of the Iraq war in the eyes of the Church as well as (ii) his moronic and myopic assertion that Justice John Roberts resolutely denied his Catholic faith and also (iii) his recourse to faulty statistics as well as questionable statistical sources. These factors alone give me significantly ample reason to question whether or not what he notes about Fr. Neuhaus above is accurate. And for the record, the present writer does not believe it is a priori in light of the examples above.
If you persist in seeing this as anti-Semitism, you're wrong again.
This must be a case of Vreeus locuta est, causa finita est. Sorry but this writer is hardly going to uncritically accept anything Mr. Vree says. However, Mr. Vree does make a good point in the above statement so it seems appropriate to touch on it here before moving onto the next part of this thread.
On the subject of antisemitism and opposition of support to Israel, there is nothing intrinsically antisemitic about opposing support for Israel. However, at the same time all antisemites oppose support for Israel. As far as whether or not Dale Vree is the latter, your host does not at the present time believe he is: preferring to give Mr. Vree a charitable benefit of the doubt which he so often{8} refuses to give to others.
In an editorial in The Forward, the oldest Jewish newspaper in the U.S., it was stated that: "Recently...reasonable people still could dismiss, as antisemitic conspiracy mongering, the claim that Israel's security was the real motive behind the invasion of Iraq. No longer.... Its advocates can no longer simply be shushed or dismissed as bigots. Those who disagree must now argue the case on the merits."
Ok. But in all honesty, a lot of hostility towards support of Israel is rooted in at least an implicit antisemitism. Obviously this is not the case all the time but to so blithely dismiss this as a not-that-significant factor is to show no small degree of naivety about this subject.
Aside from foreign policy, can orthodox Catholics find common cause with neocons in the culture wars? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
Of course Mr. Vree defines these so-called "neo-cons" one way and then attaches the label to those who do not fit his description. Either his description is to be taken as the identifying template or it is not. He cannot have it both ways if the formal contradiction I noted above is to be avoided.
As Irving Kristol, a Jewish ex-Trotskyite and the godfather of neoconservatism, wrote in the Wall Street Journal: "Those [culture] wars are over and the Left has won."
And why should this writer (or anyone else) uncritically accept anything that Irving Kristol says??? I do not (and never have) read stuff from Irving Kristol and then felt any need to uncritically tip the biretta, bow three times, and incense (metaphorically speaking of course). Furthermore, if you look at what Irving Kristol actually said, again we see misrepresentation from Vree. Presenting, Mr. Kristol's actual words:
America is and always has been different. Our federal system, for instance, is still in force. Because the states still have considerable authority in such matters as education and religion, the "culture wars" have ended differently here. In both Europe and America the left has won these wars, yet the victory in America has been far less complete.
There are more than 1m youngsters being "home schooled" in the US today because their parents dislike the progressive curriculum, codes of conduct and general ethos of the public schools. Similarly, in higher education there are more than 100 Christian colleges serving over 250,000 students. Many of these were formed in recent decades after the mainline colleges reshaped the curriculum and campus culture into a version of the 1960s counterculture.
It is easy to start a college in the US. State legislatures are obliging with their charters because most Americans--the educational establishment always excepted--respect this exercise in entrepreneurial freedom. The same thing is true of religion for the same reason.
So although the left has won the culture wars here, as in Britain, in America it is a partial victory vulnerable to popular denial. Football and baseball games from high school up to the professional level almost always begin with the singing of the national anthem. Patriotism is still a vital force.
So much for the differences between the US and the UK. [Irving Kristol: From His Commentary A Tory Revival Starts with a 10 Percent Tax Cut (circa May 31, 2005)]
Frankly, your humble servant does not see how what Mr. Kristol says in the above paragraphs is even deniable to those with a normal intact functioning brain who are paying attention to things. But this is noted by me with a caveat: just because the left{9} won the cultural turf decades ago does not mean they cannot lose it in the future as a result of actions taken in the present. But enough on that matter for now, it suffices to note that once again Dale Vree has misappropriated a source in his writing for whatever reason.{10}
Yes, it can be quite lucrative to get on the neocon gravy train, but it's not something we wish to do. "Freedom Is Not Free." You pay a price for your freedom, and the NOR is truly free, even if relatively poor.
Including (it seems) free from subscribing to the mens ecclesiae when the latter is inconvenient for them to do. To say nothing about freedom from the advice of the spiritual masters of the Catholic tradition.{11}
Thought-leader periodicals such as the NOR, First Things, and Crisis never break even. Either you rely on neocon foundations (and we're not denying that First Things and Crisis often help the orthodox cause), or you go it alone, relying on subscribers for sustenance. We prefer not to have any strings attached.
As if there are not enough "lone-ranger" sorts in the Church today...
As you know, we're trying to raise $176,000 (so far we have reached $67,587). In its last reported year, First Things got $425,000 from neocon foundations, so what we are asking for is peanuts. Much of what we're asking for is going to our website (where you can subscribe or renew a subscription by credit card), which is at present a huge financial drain. On our reconstructed website, you will find our Archives, the Ad Gallery, selected Dossiers, an "En Español" section, the NOR Gear Shoppe, and our New Oxford News Link.
Sounds a lot like Bill O'Reilly. Will Mr. Vree be selling "no spin doormats" soon too???
This is a big risk for us, but it simply must be done. Young people spend enormous amounts of time on the Internet, and it goes without saying that young people are the future of orthodox Catholicism and of the NOR.
Certainly of the former, of the latter that is debatable. Young people have a hard enough time properly cultivating the virtues of authentic obedience, charity, and zeal without receiving assistance to the contrary from sources such as NOR.
We are not owned by any diocese or religious order (which have a vested interest in not telling the full truth) and we are not bought and paid for by the neocon agenda (which has its own grandiose interests to pursue). We simply must keep a free press in the Church alive.
And of course only the NOR is a truely "free press" is standard grandiose peanut gallery strutting if you ask me. As far as telling the full truth where is the evidence that New Oxford Review has an interest in this at all??? Judging by some of the half-truths and downright errors propagated by Mr. Vree in the text just examined, pardon your host if he has his doubts about the veracity of Mr. Vree's above assertions about being interested in the "the full truth" or of not being beholden to (in Vree's words) "its own grandiose agenda" whatever that happens to be. Certainly "the full truth" is not part of it as what is noted above gives at least a cursory indication of.
From there it is the standard begging letter so it need not be taken into account by us in this examination.
Then it will not be taken into account at all. Suffice to say, while Dale Vree does (to his credit) give a description of what he views a so-called "neo con" to be, he then turns around and applies the term to those who do not fit the description he gives. Ergo, in the interest of consistency, Mr. Vree either needs to refine his description or retain it and cease imputing the term "neo con" to various personages above who do not fit the description he sets out. And that is the bottom line really other than Dale Vree needing to be FAR more careful in how he appropriates the statements of others. (More in line with the traditional canons of Christian charity in how he interprets them and not the disgraceful approaches taken by the journalistic hacks of the mainstream media.)
[Update: The "tracking the elusive so-called 'neo-con'" series -of which the above thread was a part- was eventually resumed. See this thread for details. -ISM 11/03/06]
Notes:
{1} From my recollection, the term "neo-con" was coined by a socialist named Michael Harrington who lapsed from a Catholic Worker style of Catholic interpretation into full blown socialism and (ultimately) atheism. Though it is of the opinion of your host that the trajectory taken by Harrington was logical in lieu of where he started (and yes, this theory can be defended by me if need be), at the same time, I are left wondering why so many Catholics would utilize such an expression considering the source from which it derives.
{2} Always be ready and willing to excuse the faults of your neighbour, and never put an unfavourable interpretation upon his actions. The same action, says St. Francis de Sales, may be looked upon under many different aspects: a charitable person will ever suppose the best, an uncharitable person will just as certainly choose the worst. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 24, 2004)]
{3} I reject these political categorizations almost as much as the fallacious "communist/fascist" political spectrum theory: a subject covered by the present writer HERE.
{4} "Blosser vs. Blosser" Dept. (circa February 12, 2006)
{5} It seems appropriate to remind Mr. Vree of the teaching of one of Pope Benedict XVI's predecessors...in this case Pope Benedict XV. Though the matter of the war is not one where the magisterium has made a pronouncement on, part of section 22 seems appropriate to note here to remind Mr. Vree of what he is to avoid doing if he wants to be thought of as one who is in communion with the mens ecclesiae:
[W]henever legitimate authority has once given a clear command, let no one transgress that command, because it does not happen to commend itself to him; but let each one subject his own opinion to the authority of him who is his superior, and obey him as a matter of conscience. Again, let no private individual, whether in books or in the press, or in public speeches, take upon himself the position of an authoritative teacher in the Church. All know to whom the teaching authority of the Church has been given by God: he, then, possesses a perfect right to speak as he wishes and when he thinks it opportune. The duty of others is to hearken to him reverently when he speaks and to carry out what he says.
As regards matters in which without harm to faith or discipline-in the absence of any authoritative intervention of the Apostolic See- there is room for divergent opinions, it is clearly the right of everyone to express and defend his own opinion. But in such discussions no expressions should be used which might constitute serious breaches of charity; let each one freely defend his own opinion, but let it be done with due moderation, so that no one should consider himself entitled to affix on those who merely do not agree with his ideas the stigma of disloyalty to faith or to discipline. [Pope Benedict XV: Encyclical Letter Ad Beatissimi §22-23 (circa 1914)]
Pay close attention now those who use either descriptive terms like "traditionalist", "progressivist", etc. or derisive epithets like "neo-cons" and the like...
It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself. [Pope Benedict XV: Encyclical Letter Ad Beatissimi §24 (circa 1914)]
As Roma locuta est on this matters, hopefully Mr. Vree will recognize the second half of the ancient maxim (causa finita est) and adjust his tactics and dispositions accordingly.
{6} Or as your host noted in another weblog posting on the subject of utilization of sources in argumentation (among other things):
---In utilizing any source with a degree of controversion pertaining to it, factors which may bias that source should be disclosed to the readers if they either are known or can be reasonably ascertained.
For example, consider if this writer was to quote the Institute of Historical Review as a source critical of the Holocaust and the number of Jewish deaths and not reveal that the IHR was comprised of no small number of former Nazis and other unsavoury characters with an obvious agenda. If that were to happen, then this writer would be failing to practice proper disclosure of the source viz. certain key factors biasing the source's view. As a result, he would be deserving of a rebuke of no small degree by his contemporaries in no uncertain terms. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 9, 2006)]
{7} Or to quote myself anew from the above posting viz. Dale Vree's stated position of what is and is not a so-called "neo-con" (when you piece together the various elements he mentions):
[I]t would appear that Mr. Vree sees a so-called "neo-con" as someone descending from a Communist/Socialist/Trotskyite or so-called "New Left" lineage who endorses an aggressive constantly-interventionist approach to foreign policy with Manifest Destiny undercurrents.
{8} See footnote four.
{9} The present writer really hates this French revolution political jardon of "left" and "right" btw.
{10} ---In citing sources, concern for proper context should be viewed to be of importance.
Once again, this should be self-evident but it is not. One of the reasons your host so often links to his sources in essay writings or on this weblog is so that it can be verified that he is quoting those sources correctly and not absent proper context. Obviously this cannot always be done since sometimes one must quote a source that cannot be found on the web. However, by disclosing web sources when they are utilized as a rule, the reader can recognize that the present writer quotes sources correctly and thus implicitly trust him when he quotes from a source they may not have access to.
The converse principle is also true in that those who demonstrate that they cannot be trusted in quoting sources which can be verified should not be trusted to quote accurately sources which they cite and the reader cannot verify. But enough on that point for now. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 9, 2006)]
{11} See the quotes on zeal and charity from the post in footnote four.
(Another Installment in the So-Called "Neo-Con" Tracking Series)
The previous installment of this thread can be read HERE. Though normally names are kept confidential, in this case it seems appropriate to mention the person whose work your host will interact with. Their words will be in yellow font.
[Update: A friend after reading this thread (who knows well my reasons for occasionally using the royal third person capitalizations when writing post material) advised me that this post would be better written in first person stylings. Ergo, I have gone back and changed the post to read much more in that fashion while adding two new sentences to end the post with. - ISM 3/13/06 11am]
Before the September Editorial and especially since then, many people have asked us what a neocon is.
For the record, when your host posited his challenge to define what is and is not a so-called "neo con", he did not have New Oxford Review in mind for a couple of reasons. One is that it simply is not (in my view) the source it once was and appears too often to have an approach to issues which is sometimes called "Anglo-Catholic." Certainly the journal itself admits that this was how it was founded and while they have been ecclesially aligned with the Catholic Church since 1983, it is the opinion of your host that certain pieces of presuppositional baggage from their days as Anglicans were not jettisoned in the process. Part of this was discussed in a weblog posting not long ago and your host does not intend to reiterate at this time was was noted back then. Moving on...
Your Editor has followed the neocons for over 35 years,
The first thirteen or more of which by Mr. Vree's own admission he was an Anglican. It remains to be seen if he got into his mind a certain understanding of this term that he did not bother revising after becoming Catholic. For that reason, it seems important to note the non-Catholic foundation from which he started this supposed "following" of so-called "neo-cons."
and I have had dealings with many of them (but I should not have assumed that everyone knows what a neocon is).
It is good to see Mr. Vree admit to this upfront. Often we all can assume certain things about a reading audience that we should not assume and (in this case) using a term without explaining what is meant by it is something that should be avoided as much as possible.
Given my background, I could have been an authentic neocon if I wanted to. But I didn't want to.
Whether this is or is not a good thing will depend (of course) on how Mr. Vree outlines the term as he understands it.
Here is a thumbnail sketch; I could say more, but this is the essence of it.
Here we go...
Authentic neocons descend from the Communist and socialist movements, with the most prominent leaders being Trotskyites (that is, ultra-Left Communists).
That is by my recollection how the term was first employed.{1} The question of course is why certain sorts refer to people as "neo-cons" who do not descend from this lineage at all.
When Stalin took over the Soviet Union, the Trotskyites were severely persecuted, and ultimately Trotsky himself was assassinated in Mexico. Stalin was a gentile (indeed, an ex-seminarian) and Trotsky was a Jew, and the divide between the Stalinists and Trotskyites pretty much followed the same divide (with significant exceptions, especially in the early years of the Soviet satellite states in Eastern Europe, before many of the Jews in those satellite states were purged from the Party, even executed).
Stalin became increasingly anti-Semitic, and the Jewish Trotskyites had another reason to hate Stalin. After World War II when Israel was established, the Soviet Union sided with the Arabs against Israel, and the Soviet Union basically did not allow Jews to emigrate to Israel. Another reason to hate Stalin and the Soviet Union.
This is an accurate summary of events overall. It bears noting however that there were Jewish roots to not only the Trotskyites but also the earlier Leninists from which Stalin originally came from.
Many Jewish Trotskyites -- and other Jewish Leftists (but not most of them) -- became increasingly and indeed vehemently anti-Communist. Many supported the Vietnam War and were extremely hostile to the détente policies pursued by Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Carter. These ex-Leftist Jews perceived the Left, even liberals (rightly or wrongly), as being pro-Arab and pro-Palestinian. These ex-Leftist Jews evolved into what they themselves called "neoconservatives."
See the first footnote of this response. The expression did not originate from those whom Mr. Vree claims.
As Benjamin Ginsberg said in his book The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (University of Chicago Press), "One major factor that drew them [ex-Leftist Jewish neocons] inexorably to the right was their attachment to Israel...."
To delve into the Israel issue would be to spill a lot of type as it has no shortages of complexities to it. We may discuss it another time but for now, Mr. Vree's quoting of Benjamin Ginsberg's overly-simplistic statement will have to do so this thread does not get offtrack.
The Jewish neocons' primary goal -- though not their exclusive goal -- has been to protect Israel (which, we suppose, is their right), and they see an American Empire as the best way to do that. Yes, we know you're not supposed to say that, but we have a bad habit of telling the naked truth.
Heck, that Mr. Vree is at least giving a description of this term is a welcoming change from what many who blather on about so-called "neo-cons" have done. (And that is to his credit.)
So the neocons want an American Empire, and Jewish neocon Jonah Goldberg put their view at its most blunt when he said: "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business."
Of course when the reader reviews the context of this quote, Goldberg's precise wording is interesting (all emphasis is mine):
So how does all this, or the humble attempt at a history lesson of my last column, justify tearing down the Baghdad regime? Well, I've long been an admirer of, if not a full-fledged subscriber to, what I call the "Ledeen Doctrine." I'm not sure my friend Michael Ledeen will thank me for ascribing authorship to him and he may have only been semi-serious when he crafted it, but here is the bedrock tenet of the Ledeen Doctrine in more or less his own words: "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business." That's at least how I remember Michael phrasing it at a speech at the American Enterprise Institute about a decade ago. [Jonah Goldberg: From the Article Baghdad Delenda Est, Part Two as published in National Review Online (circa April 23, 2002)]
Now Jonah Goldberg notes three things of interest here. First of all, the viewpoint Dale Vree attributes to him is actually one that Goldberg attributes to Michael Ledeen and as a paraphrase at that. Secondly, Goldberg says that he admires Ledeen's theory so paraphraised but does not completely concur with it. Thirdly, Goldberg thinks Ledeen was somewhat sarcastic in noting it in the first place. Something tells this writer that if someone took a sarcastic blurb of Mr. Vree's this badly out of context that Mr. Vree would lay about three or four eggs. But that is neither here nor there.
It seems based on what he notes above that Mr. Vree sees a so-called "neo-con" as someone descending from a Communist/Socialist/Trotskyite or so-called "New Left" lineage who endorses an aggressive constantly-interventionist approach to foreign policy with Manifest Destiny undercurrents. Unless something is being missed in this description, it is the one that will be presumed throughout the rest of this interaction with Dale Vree's work here.
It's interesting that Judge John Roberts was queried by the Senate Judiciary Committee as to his loyalty to his Catholic Faith (he resolutely denied it),
No he did not. This myopic approach to political issues was touched on in a series of predictions about the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito. To quote what I noted back in January on this matter viz. the Alito hearings:
Certain Catholic commentators will claim without suitable warrant that Alito like Roberts in answering in this fashion would be "selling their faith down the river" ignoring the obvious fact that if ever was there a time to have to approach something with the "cunningness of serpents and the guileness of doves" (cf. Jesus Christ) than it is in these instances. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 10, 2006)]
One of those in mind when I wrote the above words was Dale Vree. Moving on...
but one cannot question Jewish neocons about their loyalty to Israel. This is a double standard pure and simple.
If there is anything your host is not it is politically correct. For that reason and provided that proper care and discretion was taken this writer sees nothing wrong about questioning a loyalty to Israel from certain parties referred to (usually in a derisive fashion) as "neo-cons."
If you think this is anti-Semitic, you're wrong. Catholics should be loyal to their Catholic Faith above their loyalty to their country (think of St. Thomas More and so many other martyrs) -- and it is not anti-Catholic to say that.
It is certainly not anti-Catholic to say that. However, (i) it is a significant lacuna in charity{2} to presume that certain Catholics are not loyal to their faith simply because they do not approach it as Mr. Vree does and (ii) a Catholic in public service has a responsibility towards the position he is elected to (or nominated for) and doing what that position entails.
Whether Jewish neocons should be loyal to Israel is not something we're qualified to comment on.
Fair enough.
However, we do wish to note that Murray Polner and Adam Simms, both Jewish, said: "Do the interests of Israel drive U.S. Middle East policy? It's a fair question, though anyone who poses it risks being wrongly accused of being anti-Semitic" (Commonweal, July 18, 2003; italics added). Nonetheless, neocon Richard John Neuhaus does just that.
Was Richard John Neuhaus ever a Trotskyite or so-called "New Left" communist??? Did he descend from any other Communist or Socialist lineage either??? We are aware of Michael Novak once having similar viewpoints so (by Vree's definition) the term could possibly be applied to Novak. However, Mr. Vree is applying it to Fr. Neuhaus whom to my knowledge was never a Trotskyite, a so-called "New Left" communist, or a descendant of any communist/socialist lineage. Nor for that matter was George Weigel, another popular personage to tar and feather with the term "neo-con" by people such as Mr. Vree.
But since Dale Vree wants to play the label-slapping game, let me turn the tables on him for a moment. The problem with socialism is that there are different degrees involved. Would anyone at all who was once socialist or had socialist leanings who became conservative fit the so-called "neo-con" label as Mr. Vree understands it??? Or would this involve possibly someone who did not embrace the reactionary core of the Communist/Trotskyite/Socialist weltanschauung while having socialist tendencies??? Certainly Fr. Neuhaus was of what would be commonly called "leftist sympathies" in his younger days. A biographical sketch of him online from a supposedly "right wing website" had this to say about the man (footnotes removed and all emphasis being mine):
In the 1960s Neuhaus was an activist pastor at St. John the Evangelist Lutheran Church, whose parish extended into the largely black ghetto of Bedford-Stuyvesant in Brooklyn. From the pulpit, Neuhaus preached against the war and for social justice. Neuhaus took his antiwar and other progressive beliefs—which he grounded in Christian theology—out of the church and into the streets. In the late 1960s Neuhaus gained national prominence as the cofounder of the Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam. Peter Berger, a sociology professor at Brooklyn College who like Neuhaus later became a neocon ideologue, joined Neuhass on the national steering committee of the antiwar group. In 1970 Berger and Neuhaus published Movement and Revolution, a collection of essays on the progressive movement. Included in the volume was an essay by Neuhaus titled "The Thorough Revolutionary." "A revolution of consciousness, no doubt," wrote Neuhaus in his defense of the Movement, "A cultural revolution, certainly. A non-violent revolution, perhaps. An armed overthrow of the existing order, it may be necessary. Revolution for the hell of it or revolution for a new world, but revolution, Yes."
Neuhaus' fellow revolutionary enthusiast Berger soon became disillusioned with the "Movement," and by the mid-1970s both Neuhaus and Berger had dropped revolution for the reactionary politics of the ascendant neoconservative camp. Neuhaus, Berger, and Michael Novak (another former proponent of liberation theology) had all undergone a personal revolution of their own, having sharply shifted their ideological fervor, academic endeavors, and political activism to the right. [Excerpts from the Rightweb site article Profile: Richard John Neuhaus]
The questionable political categorizing of "left" and "right" aside for the time being,{3} it seems reasonable to assert that Fr. Neuhaus would not fit the template unless (and this is the clincher) Dale Vree wants to take on the so-called "neo-con" label himself. He cannot have it both ways and certainly he fits the criteria at least as good as Fr. Neuhaus ever did.
It also bears noting that Fr. Neuhaus was opposed to the NATO bombings in Serbia which was certainly a military intervention; ergo the idea that he supports an "aggressive constantly-interventionist approach to foreign policy" has at least one example where he did not express this outlook. Whether there are more or not this writer is not presently certain. Hopefully, Mr. Vree would not try to play the "Fr. Neuhaus only opposed the Serbia bombings because Clinton was president" card because it would only lend more credence to the observations made last month{4} about certain habitual tendencies that seem to permeate Mr. Vree's writing and the overall tenor of New Oxford Review to an ever-increasing degree.
He said: "The 'Jewish lobby' has America in its hip pocket. So says Philip Weiss, a leftist columnist of the New York Observer.... Philip Weiss has a point, however unoriginal, about the influence of Jews in our country and its policy toward the Middle East.... So why is Philip Weiss flirting with...old-fashioned anti-Semites?" (First Things, Dec. 2002, pp. 90-91). Weiss has "a point, however unoriginal," but Neuhaus smears him for flirting with anti-Semitism. If what Weiss says is true, then to blacken his name for flirting with anti-Semitism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Once again your host is seeing imprudent zeal and a lack of charity in Dale Vree's writing. This seems to be an ever-increasing pattern with him and it is disconcerting to put it mildly.
On the other hand, at the risk of sounding philo-Semitic, the Jewish neocons were and are extremely energetic and very bright, and they have made big inroads into the conservative movement, often with willing gentiles. They are enormously influential and powerful in the George W. Bush Administration -- you could call them neocon apparatchiki. No, this is not a Jewish conspiracy, for it is out in the open, and most Jews are not neocons (probably because they believe America's imperialist policies are not good for Israel or the Jews). And there are neocons who are not Jewish -- most of them being Johnny-come-latelies, considering it "cool" to be a neocon. Some gentile neocons don't know they're being used, while others know full well, but don't care, because they see it as a ticket to influence and power. Other gentile conservatives and neocons think they're using the Jewish neocons because they believe protecting Israel is a great way to advance an American Empire and control much of the world's oil supplies.
As I noted earlier in this posting, it would appear that Mr. Vree sees a so-called "neo-con" as someone descending from a Communist/Socialist/Trotskyite or so-called "New Left" lineage who endorses an aggressive constantly-interventionist approach to foreign policy with Manifest Destiny undercurrents.
One of the divides between the Stalinists and the Trotskyites was that Stalinists said you could have "socialism in one country" while Trotskyites demanded "worldwide socialist revolution" (which was true to what Marx thought). But since the Trotskyites soured on socialist revolution, they transferred their allegiance to "worldwide democratic revolution," hence their eagerness to export the democratic revolution everywhere and have the U.S. intervene militarily in the affairs of sovereign nations, which would make America a "rogue" nation (which is how many Europeans already see America).
Considering the sewer that Europe has become as a whole (not to mention their overall spinelessness), your host for one hardly considers their opinions to be ones with much weight to them.
In Bush's Second Inaugural Address, he said: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands." This sounds like it came right out of Trotsky's bottle: The survival of socialism in the Soviet Union increasingly depends on the success of socialism in other lands.
Once again Mr. Vree is jumping to conclusions as similarity does not ipso facto denote identity. Let us reason together now: the difference between promoting liberty and promoting socialism is night and day as one puts you in chains and the other seeks to remove the chains. Whatever the merits or demerits of the Bush Administration's foreign policy in the Middle East after 9/11, to attempt to compare it to Trotsky's movement is disingenuous at best.
Neocon Stephen Schwartz said that "those who are fighting for global democracy should view Leon Trotsky as a worthy forerunner." Schwartz, who unabashedly proclaims his Trotskyite roots, would prefer that "neocons" be called "Trotskycons."
Your host does not know much about Stephen Schwartz; however if he does have roots in the so-called "New Left" then by Vree's definition he would be a so-called "neo-con." But to this writer's knowledge he has no such roots at all so under what criteria does Mr. Vree label him as a so-called "neo-con"???
Neocon Christopher Hitchens, also a disciple of Trotsky, wants the U.S. to be "a revolutionary force" to fight fascism and religion, especially Islamofascism. "Religion," he says, is "that most toxic of foes.... the most base and contemptible of the forms assumed by human egotism and stupidity. Cold, steady hatred for this, especially in its loathsome jihad shape, has been as sustaining to me as any love." He says: "George Bush may subjectively be a Christian, but he -- and the US armed forces -- have objectively done more for secularism than the whole of the American agnostic community combined and doubled."
Christopher Hitchens was a former disciple of Trotsky so by Vree's definition would be a so-called "neo-con."
Smashing Islam paves the way for democracy, abortion, homosexuality, pornography, etc.
More like "smashing the Islamic extremists paves the way for freedom." Obviously freedom can be abused of this no one would dispute. But abortion, homosexuality, and pornography predate modern democracy. Apparently Mr. Vree does not realize this though or (if he does) he prefers to ignore it in the interest of his ideology.
Jewish neocon Michael Ledeen said: "We tear down the old order.... Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be [and that would include Catholic tradition]).... We must destroy them to advance our historic mission," adding that "It is time once again to export the democratic revolution."
Notice Dale Vree attempting to read into the statements of Michael Ledeen. This gets to the core of a lacuna of charity which some have noted is a discernable pattern in his work and the work of not a few others at New Oxford Review.
"Our historic mission"? Trotsky's god was History. In 1921 Trotsky wrote a book called The Defense of Terrorism. In 2002 (before the invasion of Iraq), Ledeen called for the "creative destruction" of Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. What exactly is the difference between terrorism and "creative destruction"?
Someone will have to ask Michael Ledeen. But even so, just because Michael Ledeen takes this viewpoint does not mean that others with a similar weltanschauung as his do.
"In a just war, killing soldiers, and killing civilians who get in the way of military targets (collateral damage), is not murder, whereas killing civilians on purpose is murder.
Correct.
"In an unjust war -- which is what the Catholic Church said the war on Iraq is -- killing soldiers, killing civilians who get in the way of military targets, and killing civilians on purpose are all murder.
Since the Catholic Church never claimed the war in Iraq was an unjust war, Vree's entire argument collapses like a cheap tent in a big wind. It is difficult after reading this tidbit to take Dale Vree seriously when he makes these kinds of ignorant statements. To revisit this subject yet again will require quoting something written last year at this weblog; nonetheless (and since Dale Vree takes the same approach to this matter that Stephen Hand does) my criticisms of Mr. Hand on this matter can be seen as applicable to Dale Vree as well:
Eminence, a topical question that in a certain sense is inherent to the Catechism: Does the Anglo-American war against Iraq fit the canons of a "just war"?
Cardinal Ratzinger: The Pope expressed his thought with great clarity, not only as his individual thought but as the thought of a man who is knowledgeable in the highest functions of the Catholic Church. Of course, he did not impose this position as doctrine of the Church but as the appeal of a conscience enlightened by faith.
The Holy Father's judgment is also convincing from the rational point of view: There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a "just war." [Excerpt from Cardinal Ratzinger on the Abridged Version of Catechism Compendium Expected Out in 2 Years via Zenit (circa May 2, 2003)]
Mr. Hand obviously presumes that the position articulated by the pope is the only one that can be arrived at by "a conscience enlightened by faith". Cardinal Ratzinger certainly did not say this nor was it even implied. Therefore, to read into his words what he did not say is manifestly uncharitable to say the least. Mr. Hand needs to explain why he reads into the words of Cardinal Ratzinger sentiments not expressed by him since to do this with an eye towards marginalizing others violates the traditional canons of Catholic charity to no small degree.
As far as the idea that the Holy Father's view is convincing from the rational point of view I happen to strongly disagree for reasons I have outlined in no small degree of detail as have some others. Indeed, the rational point of view on this is quite weak when all the relevant factors are accounted for...and I not only see no evidence that Cardinal Ratzinger did this but indeed see clues that he did not do this. That is not a problem of course for those of us who recognize (as the cardinal himself did) that geopolitical issues are not within his competence. But (of course) for those who hang on Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) these expectations are going to find their presumptions crushed under a weight it cannot be expected to bear.
This is why unless Pope Benedict XVI takes this matter beyond where Pope John Paul II and makes this a part of his magisterium[...] my position on this is not going to change an iota. I have seen nothing resembling an intelligent and well-reasoned argument in opposition to what I have written. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 6, 2005)]
Your host challenged Mr. Hand to put up or shut up on this matter and the result thus far has been silence as was predictable. Likewise, either Mr. Vree should demonstrate his assertion using general norms of theological interpretation or he should admit that he cannot and cease making such uninformed (and polarizing) statements. While more could be noted on this matter{5} the above material suffices for the present time.
(And just what is the difference between terrorism and murder in warfare?)
The difference is the means whereby the intended end is pursued; however, since Mr. Vree's assertion of the Catholic Church condemning the Iraq war as unjust is as fictional as Pope Joan, no more needs to be said about it at this time.
But even if one considers the war on Iraq to be just, one's heart should be troubled.
War should never make one at ease...whatever their view of the appropriateness or inappropriateness of a particular war happens to be.
After one-and-a-half years of war in Iraq, The Lancet (the British medical journal) estimated the Iraqi civilian death toll at 100,000.
Now Mr. Vree is parroting discredited statistics. Your host dealt with this back in October of 2005 via the work of Christopher Blosser whose findings have yet to be interacted with by the way.
However, a more recent count after two years of war, produced by the London-based Iraqi Body Count -- which did not count civilian deaths that go unreported in the news media -- put the civilian death toll at 24,865 (with about 42,500 wounded). This sounds like a more reliable figure. Of those 24,865 dead civilians, 37.3 percent were due to the U.S. military, 35.9 percent were due to the crime wave that swept Iraq after the fall of Saddam, and 20.5 percent were due to insurgents or terrorists. Even if one considers the war on Iraq to be just, one must be alarmed that the U.S. military has killed almost twice the number of civilians as have the insurgents and terrorists.
Mr. Vree needs to demonstrate proper journalistic disclosure{6} and point his readers to the fact that these figures have been disputed as has the integrity of the Iraqi Body Count group and their calculating of numbers.
Whether one considers the civilian deaths caused by the U.S. military -- 9,270 (disproportionately children) -- to be murder or not murder, Trotsky would be proud, for he famously said: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."
Once the foundation from which rhetoric such as the above is imploded, the rhetoric itself can be brushed away as irrelevant except for noting that Mr. Vree appears to be engaging in the argumentation fallacy of provincialism with the above assertions. It is hardly the first time in this thread that he has done that but it seems appropriate to point it out at the present time.
The neocons, mainly through the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), planned for a war against Iraq well before 9/11 (one big reason being because Saddam was a supporter of terrorism against Israel).
This is a nice simplistic interpretation of a very complex subject matter. But of course a failure to appreciate the nuances germane to complex geopolitical circumstances and situations has hardly stopped Mr. Vree from pontificating on these kinds of matters before. Ergo, it should not surprise that he does so here as well.
The Bush Administration is peppered with people from PNAC, such as Dick Cheney, Lewis "Scooter" Libby (indicted on five counts, including obstruction of justice and perjury), Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, and Richard Perle. These people tutored -- let's be honest -- an ignorant President Bush, who had no experience in foreign affairs, to launch it.
This is classic conspiracy theorist drivel. First of all, whatever one thinks of President Bush, he is certainly smarter than it is commonly portrayed by people such as Mr. Vree. President Bush comes from a family with two prior generations in foreign affairs experience. Considering this factor in the equation, it is hardly a stretch to opine that the apple generally does not fall far from the tree in these matters.
More could be noted than this but based on what Mr. Vree has claimed a so-called "neo-con" is, your humble servant at Rerum Novarum is unaware of anyone in the above paragraph fitting the description given by Mr. Vree. Apparently it is just easy to tar people with a derisive label in classic cultic deadagenting fashion rather than do the hard work of actually thinking about these matters beyond facile caricatures. Considering Mr. Vree's capabilities, this is a regrettable tendency that he has but it is what it is.
As we said in our September Editorial: "BeforeCrisis and First Things were even founded, the NOR was contacted by a neocon foundation -- right out of the blue.
If that foundation (whomever they are) are not a foundation of ex-Trotskyite or so-called "New Left" communist/socialists{7} then Mr. Vree is going against his own description of what a so-called "neo-con" is supposed to be in calling that organization "neo cons."
The foundation wanted to give us money -- 'free' money. A fellow flew out from the East Coast and asked me (the Editor) to meet him for drinks in a San Francisco restaurant -- on him. Sure! (We were desperate for money.) He told me he would fund us regularly -- if we would support corporate capitalism and if we would support a militaristic U.S. foreign policy." What I didn't say was that the fellow was a Jewish neocon with no interest in Christianity or Catholicism, and I suspected he was interested in getting us to promote Jewish neocon interests (which he had every right to do). As we said in the September Editorial, I said "no," and that was the end of that.
Ok.
But the neocon foundations didn't give up. Michael Novak (very pro-Israel) founded Crisis -- then called Catholicism in Crisis -- and Fr. Neuhaus (also very pro-Israel) founded First Things, both with huge financial support from neocon foundations.
Of course does Mr. Vree tell anyone whom these so-called "neo-con foundations" are??? Of course not as blanket assertions are easy to make whereas substantiating assertions is much harder.
So the neocons found a way to get Catholic and Christian magazines to front for their largely Jewish neocon interests (which, again, is their right). Do we exaggerate? No we don't.
Let us consider what Mr. Vree says next and see if his assertion is accurate or not.
When the Catholic Church denounced the war on Iraq -- calling it an unjust war, a war of aggression --
Since the Catholic Church never did this (a point I touched on above), Mr. Vree has just in the span of a sentence violated the Law of Non-Contradiction.
both Crisis and First Things supported it. A clear case of supporting Jewish neocon interests over Catholic Just War doctrine.
See this writer's previous comments.
For a synopsis of Fr. Neuhaus's support for the war on Iraq, based on his support for Israel, see our New Oxford Note, "What Does the Pope Know About World Affairs?" (Nov., pp. 13-14, 16-17).
Frankly, I am not about to buy an article from Mr. Vree's site to read it. Having noted that, it suffices to point out Mr. Vree's (i) misrepresentation of the Iraq war in the eyes of the Church as well as (ii) his moronic and myopic assertion that Justice John Roberts resolutely denied his Catholic faith and also (iii) his recourse to faulty statistics as well as questionable statistical sources. These factors alone give me significantly ample reason to question whether or not what he notes about Fr. Neuhaus above is accurate. And for the record, the present writer does not believe it is a priori in light of the examples above.
If you persist in seeing this as anti-Semitism, you're wrong again.
This must be a case of Vreeus locuta est, causa finita est. Sorry but this writer is hardly going to uncritically accept anything Mr. Vree says. However, Mr. Vree does make a good point in the above statement so it seems appropriate to touch on it here before moving onto the next part of this thread.
On the subject of antisemitism and opposition of support to Israel, there is nothing intrinsically antisemitic about opposing support for Israel. However, at the same time all antisemites oppose support for Israel. As far as whether or not Dale Vree is the latter, your host does not at the present time believe he is: preferring to give Mr. Vree a charitable benefit of the doubt which he so often{8} refuses to give to others.
In an editorial in The Forward, the oldest Jewish newspaper in the U.S., it was stated that: "Recently...reasonable people still could dismiss, as antisemitic conspiracy mongering, the claim that Israel's security was the real motive behind the invasion of Iraq. No longer.... Its advocates can no longer simply be shushed or dismissed as bigots. Those who disagree must now argue the case on the merits."
Ok. But in all honesty, a lot of hostility towards support of Israel is rooted in at least an implicit antisemitism. Obviously this is not the case all the time but to so blithely dismiss this as a not-that-significant factor is to show no small degree of naivety about this subject.
Aside from foreign policy, can orthodox Catholics find common cause with neocons in the culture wars? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
Of course Mr. Vree defines these so-called "neo-cons" one way and then attaches the label to those who do not fit his description. Either his description is to be taken as the identifying template or it is not. He cannot have it both ways if the formal contradiction I noted above is to be avoided.
As Irving Kristol, a Jewish ex-Trotskyite and the godfather of neoconservatism, wrote in the Wall Street Journal: "Those [culture] wars are over and the Left has won."
And why should this writer (or anyone else) uncritically accept anything that Irving Kristol says??? I do not (and never have) read stuff from Irving Kristol and then felt any need to uncritically tip the biretta, bow three times, and incense (metaphorically speaking of course). Furthermore, if you look at what Irving Kristol actually said, again we see misrepresentation from Vree. Presenting, Mr. Kristol's actual words:
America is and always has been different. Our federal system, for instance, is still in force. Because the states still have considerable authority in such matters as education and religion, the "culture wars" have ended differently here. In both Europe and America the left has won these wars, yet the victory in America has been far less complete.
There are more than 1m youngsters being "home schooled" in the US today because their parents dislike the progressive curriculum, codes of conduct and general ethos of the public schools. Similarly, in higher education there are more than 100 Christian colleges serving over 250,000 students. Many of these were formed in recent decades after the mainline colleges reshaped the curriculum and campus culture into a version of the 1960s counterculture.
It is easy to start a college in the US. State legislatures are obliging with their charters because most Americans--the educational establishment always excepted--respect this exercise in entrepreneurial freedom. The same thing is true of religion for the same reason.
So although the left has won the culture wars here, as in Britain, in America it is a partial victory vulnerable to popular denial. Football and baseball games from high school up to the professional level almost always begin with the singing of the national anthem. Patriotism is still a vital force.
So much for the differences between the US and the UK. [Irving Kristol: From His Commentary A Tory Revival Starts with a 10 Percent Tax Cut (circa May 31, 2005)]
Frankly, your humble servant does not see how what Mr. Kristol says in the above paragraphs is even deniable to those with a normal intact functioning brain who are paying attention to things. But this is noted by me with a caveat: just because the left{9} won the cultural turf decades ago does not mean they cannot lose it in the future as a result of actions taken in the present. But enough on that matter for now, it suffices to note that once again Dale Vree has misappropriated a source in his writing for whatever reason.{10}
Yes, it can be quite lucrative to get on the neocon gravy train, but it's not something we wish to do. "Freedom Is Not Free." You pay a price for your freedom, and the NOR is truly free, even if relatively poor.
Including (it seems) free from subscribing to the mens ecclesiae when the latter is inconvenient for them to do. To say nothing about freedom from the advice of the spiritual masters of the Catholic tradition.{11}
Thought-leader periodicals such as the NOR, First Things, and Crisis never break even. Either you rely on neocon foundations (and we're not denying that First Things and Crisis often help the orthodox cause), or you go it alone, relying on subscribers for sustenance. We prefer not to have any strings attached.
As if there are not enough "lone-ranger" sorts in the Church today...
As you know, we're trying to raise $176,000 (so far we have reached $67,587). In its last reported year, First Things got $425,000 from neocon foundations, so what we are asking for is peanuts. Much of what we're asking for is going to our website (where you can subscribe or renew a subscription by credit card), which is at present a huge financial drain. On our reconstructed website, you will find our Archives, the Ad Gallery, selected Dossiers, an "En Español" section, the NOR Gear Shoppe, and our New Oxford News Link.
Sounds a lot like Bill O'Reilly. Will Mr. Vree be selling "no spin doormats" soon too???
This is a big risk for us, but it simply must be done. Young people spend enormous amounts of time on the Internet, and it goes without saying that young people are the future of orthodox Catholicism and of the NOR.
Certainly of the former, of the latter that is debatable. Young people have a hard enough time properly cultivating the virtues of authentic obedience, charity, and zeal without receiving assistance to the contrary from sources such as NOR.
We are not owned by any diocese or religious order (which have a vested interest in not telling the full truth) and we are not bought and paid for by the neocon agenda (which has its own grandiose interests to pursue). We simply must keep a free press in the Church alive.
And of course only the NOR is a truely "free press" is standard grandiose peanut gallery strutting if you ask me. As far as telling the full truth where is the evidence that New Oxford Review has an interest in this at all??? Judging by some of the half-truths and downright errors propagated by Mr. Vree in the text just examined, pardon your host if he has his doubts about the veracity of Mr. Vree's above assertions about being interested in the "the full truth" or of not being beholden to (in Vree's words) "its own grandiose agenda" whatever that happens to be. Certainly "the full truth" is not part of it as what is noted above gives at least a cursory indication of.
From there it is the standard begging letter so it need not be taken into account by us in this examination.
Then it will not be taken into account at all. Suffice to say, while Dale Vree does (to his credit) give a description of what he views a so-called "neo con" to be, he then turns around and applies the term to those who do not fit the description he gives. Ergo, in the interest of consistency, Mr. Vree either needs to refine his description or retain it and cease imputing the term "neo con" to various personages above who do not fit the description he sets out. And that is the bottom line really other than Dale Vree needing to be FAR more careful in how he appropriates the statements of others. (More in line with the traditional canons of Christian charity in how he interprets them and not the disgraceful approaches taken by the journalistic hacks of the mainstream media.)
[Update: The "tracking the elusive so-called 'neo-con'" series -of which the above thread was a part- was eventually resumed. See this thread for details. -ISM 11/03/06]
Notes:
{1} From my recollection, the term "neo-con" was coined by a socialist named Michael Harrington who lapsed from a Catholic Worker style of Catholic interpretation into full blown socialism and (ultimately) atheism. Though it is of the opinion of your host that the trajectory taken by Harrington was logical in lieu of where he started (and yes, this theory can be defended by me if need be), at the same time, I are left wondering why so many Catholics would utilize such an expression considering the source from which it derives.
{2} Always be ready and willing to excuse the faults of your neighbour, and never put an unfavourable interpretation upon his actions. The same action, says St. Francis de Sales, may be looked upon under many different aspects: a charitable person will ever suppose the best, an uncharitable person will just as certainly choose the worst. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 24, 2004)]
{3} I reject these political categorizations almost as much as the fallacious "communist/fascist" political spectrum theory: a subject covered by the present writer HERE.
{4} "Blosser vs. Blosser" Dept. (circa February 12, 2006)
{5} It seems appropriate to remind Mr. Vree of the teaching of one of Pope Benedict XVI's predecessors...in this case Pope Benedict XV. Though the matter of the war is not one where the magisterium has made a pronouncement on, part of section 22 seems appropriate to note here to remind Mr. Vree of what he is to avoid doing if he wants to be thought of as one who is in communion with the mens ecclesiae:
[W]henever legitimate authority has once given a clear command, let no one transgress that command, because it does not happen to commend itself to him; but let each one subject his own opinion to the authority of him who is his superior, and obey him as a matter of conscience. Again, let no private individual, whether in books or in the press, or in public speeches, take upon himself the position of an authoritative teacher in the Church. All know to whom the teaching authority of the Church has been given by God: he, then, possesses a perfect right to speak as he wishes and when he thinks it opportune. The duty of others is to hearken to him reverently when he speaks and to carry out what he says.
As regards matters in which without harm to faith or discipline-in the absence of any authoritative intervention of the Apostolic See- there is room for divergent opinions, it is clearly the right of everyone to express and defend his own opinion. But in such discussions no expressions should be used which might constitute serious breaches of charity; let each one freely defend his own opinion, but let it be done with due moderation, so that no one should consider himself entitled to affix on those who merely do not agree with his ideas the stigma of disloyalty to faith or to discipline. [Pope Benedict XV: Encyclical Letter Ad Beatissimi §22-23 (circa 1914)]
Pay close attention now those who use either descriptive terms like "traditionalist", "progressivist", etc. or derisive epithets like "neo-cons" and the like...
It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself. [Pope Benedict XV: Encyclical Letter Ad Beatissimi §24 (circa 1914)]
As Roma locuta est on this matters, hopefully Mr. Vree will recognize the second half of the ancient maxim (causa finita est) and adjust his tactics and dispositions accordingly.
{6} Or as your host noted in another weblog posting on the subject of utilization of sources in argumentation (among other things):
---In utilizing any source with a degree of controversion pertaining to it, factors which may bias that source should be disclosed to the readers if they either are known or can be reasonably ascertained.
For example, consider if this writer was to quote the Institute of Historical Review as a source critical of the Holocaust and the number of Jewish deaths and not reveal that the IHR was comprised of no small number of former Nazis and other unsavoury characters with an obvious agenda. If that were to happen, then this writer would be failing to practice proper disclosure of the source viz. certain key factors biasing the source's view. As a result, he would be deserving of a rebuke of no small degree by his contemporaries in no uncertain terms. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 9, 2006)]
{7} Or to quote myself anew from the above posting viz. Dale Vree's stated position of what is and is not a so-called "neo-con" (when you piece together the various elements he mentions):
[I]t would appear that Mr. Vree sees a so-called "neo-con" as someone descending from a Communist/Socialist/Trotskyite or so-called "New Left" lineage who endorses an aggressive constantly-interventionist approach to foreign policy with Manifest Destiny undercurrents.
{8} See footnote four.
{9} The present writer really hates this French revolution political jardon of "left" and "right" btw.
{10} ---In citing sources, concern for proper context should be viewed to be of importance.
Once again, this should be self-evident but it is not. One of the reasons your host so often links to his sources in essay writings or on this weblog is so that it can be verified that he is quoting those sources correctly and not absent proper context. Obviously this cannot always be done since sometimes one must quote a source that cannot be found on the web. However, by disclosing web sources when they are utilized as a rule, the reader can recognize that the present writer quotes sources correctly and thus implicitly trust him when he quotes from a source they may not have access to.
The converse principle is also true in that those who demonstrate that they cannot be trusted in quoting sources which can be verified should not be trusted to quote accurately sources which they cite and the reader cannot verify. But enough on that point for now. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 9, 2006)]
{11} See the quotes on zeal and charity from the post in footnote four.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)