On the Status of This Year's Atomic August:

I do not know how else to say it but I failed this August to accomplish an objective I have long thought about pursuing.{1} I refer here to the composition and publication of a challenge for those who every August involve themselves in the same "masturbatory ritual of anachronistically virtue signalling their ignorance about certain long ago war events as a way of trying to appear More Virtuous Than Thou."{2}

While the idea crystallized firmly in my mind over a two year period, the problem was the motivation to actually frame the material correctly to publish the challenge publicly. This steadily grew until I finally realized August was upon me again and despite my previous thoughts about doing so, I had nonetheless made no prior attempt to do the work to make it feasible to do. So as a small bit of time availed itself and in an effort to motivate myself, I published a public notation of my intention on the matter and begin setting the table for the challenge to be completed and published this August around or slightly after the middle of the month. My reason for the time crunch is a principle I have due to past experience{3} followed for more than a decade now; namely, to limit this subject matter discussion if it is to take place at all to the month of August in a given year.{4} While it is true that I have touched on subjects that indirectly touch on the atomic bomb subject on occasion{5}, I have adhered to the stricture of only discussing this subject directly in the month of August for over twelve years now.

And while I worked on the challenge, the factors of life including outside commitments and personal issues that required tending to made finishing it within the time frame intended improbable for reasons I noted a bit over a week ago. So the challenge thread being about 90% finished as of this writing will now be completed for publication before the start of next August. Considering that it will be summertime of a major election year{6} as well as the 75th anniversary of the matter to be discussed, perhaps in the end, it is prescient that things ended up as they did in this area.

So with that in mind, the challenge will now be issued in August of 2020 -most likely on the first of the month but certainly no later than August 6, 2020.

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Notes:

{1} While past published material points to a long implicit thought pertaining to such things, the first time I recall explicitly coming up with the real germs of this idea was when I wrote about returning to a metaphorical ground zero on the subject in a lengthy expository musing on the matter within a few months of this website being reactivated:

Commemorating A Controversial Anniversary (circa August 17, 2017)

From that process came the idea for the public challenge.

{2} Excerpt from a Rerum Novarum Post (circa July 31, 2018)

{3} I would be more than happy to discuss the subject of atomic bombings at another time -say contemporary to the next anniversary which will be in August of this year. The reason for that is that I have already written a fair amount on this subject already and it has a way of getting under people's skin in a way few other subjects can. For that reason -and because I am tired of discussing the subject[...]- I would ask that if you want to talk about it with me to let me know around August or so when the subject of the anniversaries of those events come around again and the circumstances would be more appropriate. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 15, 2007)]

{4} Prior to 2008, it was not uncommon for this subject to bleed outside of August and become a kind of all consuming force brought about by outside forces and to which I at times unwittingly was drawn. I made a conscious decision in late 2006 to embargo this subject completely and in January of 2007, first opened the door for future discussions on this subject only during the month of August: a principle that with only two explicit exceptions to that rule I have followed ever since.

{5} To note one such example:

On "Consequentialism", "Proportionalism", and a Lesson in General Norms of Interpretation, Theological or Otherwise (circa October 6, 2008)

{6} And is often the case, it will be in the midst of the Dog Days of Summer and thus requiring a change of pace for the sake of one's sanity.

On Sen. McCain's Selection of Governor Sarah Palin as His Running Mate:

Before posting the planned thread on Joe Biden, I want to take this moment to note that my usual prescience in political prognosticating went awry with Senator McCain's choice of vp this morning.{1} Susan Palin is quite unknown overall but she fits the bill of what I went over would have been preferable in a vp pick for McCain despite my view that Romney was basically in the bag as the pick. Or as I noted yesterday when referencing an early morning chat thread on the matter:

McCain has supposedly already decided the vp to be announced Friday. I think it will be Romney...

frankly a conservative vp from a state that is a tossup may be a better pick though particularly if that conservative is a woman...

I am not [saying] Romney would be a bad pick mind you, just selecting a woman from a key battleground state with solid conservative credentials would really make the Biden pick look [worse] than it is cause Biden is not change. a woman vice president has only been tried once and on a [ticket] that had no prayer of winning. and this would be a conservative woman which would be a better vp first anyway. [Excerpt from a Chat (circa August 28, 2008) as recorded in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa August 28, 2008)]

Truthfully, I did not have any particular candidate in mind when writing those words because (i) I was pretty sure the pick would have been Romney and (ii) I could not think of any conservative women who actually fit all those parameters. And Governor Susan Palin of Alaska does not fit all of them either. She is from Alaska which has 3 electoral votes which McCain was going to get anyway.

However, she is a woman and this gives Sen. McCain the chance to counter the meaningless "change" mantra of Sen. Obama with a genuine change of pace. I refer to nominating a woman as a vp running mate on a ticket that actually has a ghosts of a chance of winning{2} and as a substantive addition rather than merely trying to get attention.{3} By contrast, Governor Palin has been the governor of a state and mayor of a city: both of which are positions of executive governance. And while the msm will predictably pounce on her thin resume for governing, the fact is, she is more qualified to be president than Sen. Barack Obama is. I may supplement this posting with another from the archives which I believe was blogged last year on the issue of executive experience being important in a presidential candidate{4} but for now that is all I will say on that matter.

From a strategery standpoint, Sen. McCain added a strongly conservative woman running mate with executive experience. This will enable him to potentially attract some discouraged women voters who are angry at the way in which the Democrats and Sen. Obama disrespected Sen. Hillary Clinton{5} and will make Sen. Biden look really bad if he tries to employ his usual thuggary on her. Plus, is it wrong of me to like the idea of a conservative woman vice presidential candidate standing on stage wearing a dress instead of a pants-suit???

Excellent selection Sen. McCain: certainly better than that of Sen. Obama's pick about which I will speak of next.

Notes:

{1} And on this occasion I am very gladly be wrong with a prediction.

{2} Sen. Walter Mondale had no prayer whatsoever in 1984 as anyone who was awake at the time realized.

{3} This is basically what it was as Rep. Geraldine Ferraro had no particular standout skills for this position.

{4} I cannot remember at the moment if I blogged that thread or not.

{5} And yes, I am no fan of Sen. Clinton but she was disrespected by the DNC as well as the msm in the mania of both to proclaim the ObaMessiah.

The "points to ponder" installment from yesterday was excerpted back in June for eventual use when I decided the time was right to do so. The problem is, I could not recall whom the "he" was in the original sentence and ascribed it to Senator Barack Obama. Today I stumbled across the source I got the quote from and realized that the criticism was not aimed at something Senator Obama had said but instead something Senator John McCain had said. Despite wanting to do so otherwise, as a matter of ethics, I must note my mistake so consider that notation made with this posting which will be added to yesterday's posting in the form of an update.

A Wednesday Night Analysis of Possible Iowa Caucus Results:
(With Kevin Tierney)

It may seem strange to blog this thread since significant missteps were made in prognosticating both on my part as well as Kevin's. However, some undercurrents of what we discussed are still viable so it seems appropriate to note its contents at this time with a possible follow-up tomorrow or on Monday based on the aftermath of Iowa's results prior to the New Hampshire primary. Without further ado...

me: at least Dean waited until after Iowa to fall apart Huck may not even make it through tomorrow at this rate this stuff coming out at the last minute of a must-win (for him) primary is ominous in its tones of finality for his campaign

Kevin: I think social conservatives need to think long and hard about this. If they go with Huck to the death, they may be heading back into exile politically which will be a tragedy

me: Hucksterbee would be another 1964 except] with no upside whatsoever

Kevin: because who is gonna win a war between the religious right and everyone else in the conservative movement?

me: unlike Goldwater's martyrdom which spawned a movement the same crowd that defeated Bush on immigration and Miers will win (of course)

Kevin: if Huck becomes the nominee, we may be looking to his candidacy which destroyed the GOP coalition

me: I cannot see Huck winning it however I also predict that with every loss he gets in primaries and caucuses and the reason Huck could pull off Iowa no matter what (and someone like Paul could do better there than other places) is the structure of a caucus as opposed to a primary. I have been involved in caucuses they favour candidates with rabid followings over those whose support is a mile wide and an inch deep because they take longer to resolve

Kevin: the damage has already been done, there's a lot of fractures amongst the base now thanks to huckabee's identity politics

me: and time is on the side of those with passionate followings in those things. Ultimately, if Huck loses Iowa and Paul does not crack the top three then that is about as good as I would want in the realm of the feasible. Paul is doomed if he cannot make a splash in a caucus state...I want to see him finished off early along with Huck heck compared to them, I would eagerly support McCain and be willing to deal with Guiliani and I do not want either of them to win as you probably know...

Kevin: The Dems are already set to make gains in the house and senate in 08, i think its logical the presidency will go with it. It's not a foregone conclusion, but a strong chance.

me: just cause they won in 06 does not mean they will in 08 congressionally the war's success is not in their favour nor overall is the economy granted we are a year out and anything can happen a year as I have said for years is an eternity politically. I remind you a year out, Bush 41 looked invincible literally bulletproof [and] we know what happened there. In this election there is also the possible Bloomberg factor which could affect Dems the way Perot did Repubs in 92 and to a lesser extent 96. This current congress is so unpopular that they make Bush 43's 25% approval rating look good granted we are a year out.

Kevin: we shall see...if our predictions about Iowa are correct tomorrow

me: but I am not pessimistic on the R's chances in 08 at all -presidentially or congressionally
what are yours again?

Kevin: Romney, Huck, Fred, then McCain then Iowa is Obama, Edwards Hillary pretty close to Novak's

me: heck, that is my Repub picks 1-3 my Dem pick is yours for 3 but reverse 1 and 2.

As readers will note, Kevin and I both were wrong on Iowa for the Republicans insofar as who would win and place (we both predicted Thompson to show and McCain to place fourth). However Kevin got the Iowa picks for the Democrats correct for win, place, and show whereas I only got the part about Hillary showing correct.

But it is still early and we both have time to improve our prognosticating on these matters.

I would be remiss if I did not finally acknowledge that the 12-4 part of the predictions I made for the Seahawks this season record-wise did not pan. This should not surprise those aware that my sports prognosticating average is as wrong on average as my geopolitical predictions are right. Nonetheless, we cannot point out when we are right and not when we are also wrong so it is only appropriate to make this notation prior to the playoffs.

Miscellaneous Notes:

Three bits briefly before calling it a night...

--Having tired recently of seeing that stupid "cost of the war in Iraq" price ticker, I am curious to know if any readers of this weblog know where there may be a ticker tallying the cost of the war on poverty. I know it is around seven trillion which dwarfs any cost to the war in Iraq and would like to have a copy of it to put in the side margin of this weblog.

--Apparently a previously posted assumption about audioblogger not having access to previously recorded audioposts was quite possibly wrong. I was unable to make them work for some time but the other day, they worked. So I am not sure if I was mistaken or if it was the technology of the computers I tried them on previously as to what the problem was. Either way, I will assume the worst and make a mea culpa here on the matter.

--I have on the drafting table and about seventy percent done a review of the Bush Administration through the first half of 2007. It should be completed and ready for posting if not this weekend than sometime next week.

Miscellaneous Musings:

Five bits to cover briefly so here goes...

--June 3rd will mark a notable anniversary in that it will be the birthday of one of my closest living friends. I refer to Tim Tull who shall turn...well...I do not want to depress him by noting just how old he is getting so I will leave it at that. Tim has had a few appearances on this weblog thus far{1} and there will probably be more if there are any subjects he feels passionate to write about that can hold a reader's attention span for more than a few moments. That basically means basically anything but detailed engineering dissertations.{2}

--Another anniversary tomorrow is one of your host's biggest tactical blunders in retrospect. This was noted about two years ago in a lengthy appended section to the original "tribute" thread which can be read in its original form here.

--The following email from another friend is of interest so without further ado...

....was up late last night, around 3:30 AM. Briefly stopped at ABC News overnight. It was the end of a report on Fred Thompson's assumed entry into the race. Didn't hear enough of the report to get a feel for it, but I found the follow-up anchor chit-chat interesting. They showed a picture in a newspaper of Thompson and his young wife. The one anchor tossed out to the other: "A lot of people are wondering if she would be an appropriate First Lady."

"A lot of people"?

I live near & work in a pretty large city, Chicago, where people certainly don't hesitate to voice their political opinions, more often than not of a pro-Democrat, anti-Republican bent. Yet it's funny how I've somehow managed to miss any conversations about Fred Thompson's wife. But then, I'm sure after enough newspaper & network folk toss out that concern enough times, it's probably going to turn out to be the case.

The above example illustrates well why I distrust the msm as much as I do so for the time being that is all I will say about that matter.

--In doing some weblog restructuring in a few minutes here and there throughout the week, some adjustments were made to categories. Basically, the "personal" category and the "personal musings" categories were abrogated with all their postings moved into the "miscellaneous threads/briefer musings" categories to eliminate primary category overlap. From there a new subcategory was created titled "prayer requests/personal" to cover all subjects pertaining to one or the other of those matters.

Also created was the first category for individuals other than President George W. Bush and President Ronald Reagan. I intend to create others such as one for President Jimmah Carter and one for President Bill Clinton among others but the personal tag added today was a different personage altogether -namely one Bryan Preston.

I have not seen much of his stuff in the past year or so but for the first few years of this weblog's existence, I read his old weblog The JunkYard BLOG with interest. He (and with occasional contributions by Chris Regan) constituted one of my primary geopolitical reads mainly because our views in that area coincided so often. Since early 2006, he turned over his weblog to someone else who while good nonetheless resulted in that weblog falling off of my regular reads. I have not incorporated his new venture Hot Air{3} into my regular read rotation yet, but in time I hope to. Nonetheless, the following secondary blog tag was added today:

JunkYard Blog-The Bryan Preston Years/Bryan Preston

And that is all I plan to blog on at this time except for one more thing.

--This is the 2200th post to Rerum Novarum in its nearly five year existence.


Notes:

{1} His contributions to this weblog thus far are as follows:

Guest Editorial on Colleges and Their Lack of Faculty Diversity--Written by Tim Tull; Prefatory Comments by I. Shawn McElhinney (circa July 13, 2005)

More Feedback From Tim Tull (circa August 19, 2005)

On the Intensity/Duration Equation, Physics, and Trying to Understand Engineering Majors--With Tim Tull (circa December 17, 2006)

{2} Sorry Tim but our goal here is to enlighten not confuse the readers.

{3} Michelle Malkin is perhaps the most well-known contributor to the Hot Air staff as well as being the founder of the site.

Correcting a Post Number Numerical Miscalculation:

The counter on this humble weblog as of today registered a supposed "post number" of 2432. Though I have used the counter to note post approximations from time to time -almost always in passing- it was not until the new beta software was installed on the weblog where I have been able to verify the actual number with precision.{1} I knew that up to October 1, 2005 I had posted 1700 threads but it did not seem that I had actually published over 700 threads since that time -though I used the counter figure because I did not have another point of reference. Well, as I can now go back more than 300 posts with the new platform, I did a quick check and my assumption was correct: the actual post number is significantly less.

By official tallying, we hit the 2100 post mark with the publishing of the brief biographical bits on some Founding Fathers back on January 23, 2007. The official tally including this post and the one that will follow it will be 2110. The discrepency in numbers between the stated total at that time (2434) and what will be the actual number (2110) is that the software was adding to the published post total the various draft texts which number 324.{2} Anyway, I apologize for the misrepresentation of the post tallies at Rerum Novarum which have on occasion occured in the past year plus. And though it was an unintentional mistake, it was one nonetheless and therefore the present posting notes the required correction to the same extent that the previous numerical miscalculations were made.

Notes:

{1} Stricly speaking, I could have figured it out if I had lots of time and nothing better to do with it but I presumed blogger's number was accurate.

{2} While about two thirds of the drafts are posts in various stages of completion for future posting to this humble weblog -some of which go back as far as March of 2005 incidentally- about a third of them are versions of posts already completed and published. (I have not had time to weed those duplicates out of the system yet and do not know when I will find the time to do this frankly.)

"Empty Spaces" Dept.
(Posted on October 28, 2006)

Whaaat shaaall we uuuse...
To filllll...the emp-ty...
spa-ces...where...we used to taaaalk?
Howwww...shall I fillll...the fin-alll...spa-ces...
Howwww shall I.......com-pleeeete the wall?

Originally what was posted here was a single thread titled On Historical Revisionism Surrounding the New Deal, History Since the New Deal, the 1984 Election, Etc. but the length of the thread as well as the many elements treated within it gave your host reason for reconsideration viz. its presentation when some minor glitches were fixed in the text today.{1} It was decided to repost the entire thread into three parts on October 28, 2006 and replace the original thread with this space saver to direct people to the new threads; ergo this installment of the "Empty Spaces Dept." -the third in the history of this weblog according to the archives. The new thread can be read HERE. Having noted that, the purpose of this thread is satisfied so we conclude it now.

Note:

{1} Including writing a segue for a footnote that curiously cut off in the middle: an occasional casualty of the sort of revising and editing that we do with posts of greater length and/or with more than the average number of subjects contained within them.

The previously noted first draft of an album review (Albert King and Stevie Ray Vaughan In Session) was posted to Amazon a couple days ago with significant redacting of material due to word limits at the latter site. (One minor adjustment was made to the posted review which was also incorporated into the original draft: basically your host confused something a reviewer said at another site with the Amazon reviewers so that part was adjusted accordingly.) But beyond that, the review in draft form is better than the one posted to Amazon so I recommend giving it a read if you have the time and want a detailed review of a very excellent CD.

"Mea Culpa" Dept.

In light of the high degree of accuracy of many of your host's analyses and predictions over the years, it is important to balance the scales and be just as forthright in pointing out the misses as the hits. Or, for those who would prefer a musical analogy, in light of mentioning the strophes it is also important to make note of the antistrophes. And while this has always been a policy at this weblog to admit to a mistake to the extent it is made, two months ago, We posted a thread on the economics behind the gas price increases in which your host made an errant prediction. To quote what was said then:

[T]here has been a push for alternative fuel sources for decades by people who are utterly ignorant of how markets actually work.[...] These same people have sought to use the federal government to raise taxes on gasoline to try and shape the buying decisions of the public. Furthermore, the same people have sought to avoid the building of any additional oil refineries in the United States for about three decades making the refineries the weakness in the entire oil-into-petrol-into-your-local-gaspump chain if you will.

And of course if you add to the above concoction a massive storm devastating a key urban center with some of the very limited numbers of refineries in close proximity; inexorably you have a recipe for increased gasoline prices and why they will go up further as a result of the storm fallout over the coming months. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 10, 2005)]

In the above example, the prediction was based on the presupposition that there was major damage to refineries and other infrastructure in the vicinity of New Orleans: a presumption that proved to be false. And while not the only reason the prices of gasoline have come down, that there was less damage to some of the few refineries we have certainly contributed to that to some extent.

That of course explains the genesis of the error but does not excuse it, it was posted on A1 so the correction is made on A1 -not Q14, X7, or Z2 as is common for the MSM or other entities to admit to their frontpage mistakes.{1}

We would be remiss in not noting that the rest of the article where the discredited prediction was made is still very much worth reading.{2} And to say that such persons are legion in their numbers would not be an exaggeration in the least. But it was important to note this publicly and prominently; ergo your host has done just that. And (for the record) this is a prediction We are quite happy to be wrong about in case anyone was wondering.

Notes:

{1} If they admit to them at all of course.

{2} Since it provides a kind of basic economics lesson for those who are ignorant of basic economics viz. these kinds of issues.

"Empty Spaces" Dept.
(Posted 10/07/05)

Whaaat shaaall we uuuse...
To filllll...the emp-ty...
spa-ces...where...we used to taaaalk?
Howwww...shall I fillll...the fin-alll...spa-ces...
Howwww shall I.......com-pleeeete the wall?

This post originally comprised an advertisement for a site with Gregorian Chant music which I later discovered was to a wacko fringe site. For that reason, I have deleted the text of a weblog post for only the second time in this weblog's history (and first in over two years).

Thus, there is an empty space here now to fill. I will do so as I did over two years ago with an advertisement for my good friend Dave Armstrong's books. Click HERE for details. If you mentally replace the references to Christmas with "early-fall" or some other equivalent, everything else falls into place nicely.

"TCR" Dept.

Part of the reason it is customary to celebrate anniversaries is because they are a good time to look back on what has transpired over the course of a given period of time. Having noted that, it has come to the attention of Us at Rerum Novarum that TCR is on the verge of their fifth anniversary as a faithful contributor to the New Evangelization. At this time it seems appropriate therefore to reiterate anew Our appreciation for what they do and wish them many continued years of faithful service to the Church. Much as We do, they strive for loyalty at all times to the Magisterium of the Church. For that reason above all else, they are to be commended.

Lest there is any question on the matter, it is noted here that there is no hesitation on Our part to exhort the readers of this humble weblog to check out their site -situated as it has long been amongst the recommended websites at Rerum Novarum. We recommend TCR very highly and have for a long time.

In closing, thank you Stephen (and the other contributors to TCR) for all that you have done.{2} May you and TCR have many successful years ahead. Also know that despite disagreements that we may have (even some significant ones at times) that you have Our support here at Rerum Novarum for the work that you do -which in some areas{3} is better than anyone else out there. You have our prayers, our support, and also our thanks. Hopefully, this entry is adequate enough to declare where Rerum Novarum and your weblog host stand viz. Our view of TCR.

Notes:

{1} There is (We believe) a healthy respect between TCR and Rerum Novarum despite some (occasionally) significant theological differences in viewpoint or emphasis. (In areas where such differentiation in views is viewed as acceptable by the Magisterium.)

{2} Readers of this weblog are not unaware of the admiration that We have for TCR -particularly in the area of social justice where they are arguably the most eloquent expounders of Catholic doctrine and principles in cyberspace.

{3} See footnote two.

[Update: Unfortunately, some disturbing trends that We detected at the time the above tribute was written became more pronounced in the months subsequent to the above posted material. We observed them with discomfort for a long time -even confuting some of the subject matter indirectly at this weblog on occasion to try and avoid having to confront our straying friend publicly on certain subjects where he was not showing proper discernment on. It finally reached the point to where We felt an intervention was needed so a friend of Rerum Novarum (Greg Mockeridge) wrote a guest editorial at Our invitation on these matters which was posted on April 29, 2005 and which covered in reasonable detail the primary problems that TCR had succumbed to under the leadership of their webmaster Mr. Hand.

Originally We suggested to Greg (around January of 2005) the idea of writing a guest editorial in order to find a way of avoiding the airing of the problems with Mr. Hand's imbalanced opinions in a public fashion. (We honestly did not think Greg would do it.) But Greg did and We were therefore in the position of having to honour Our previous promises.

To avoid giving any impression that what was noted in Greg's editorial was solely his own view of the matter (since We need not agree with the contents of a guest editorial to post it here at Rerum Novarum), it seemed appropriate to Us to compose an accompanying commentary on the material covered in the aforesaid editorial which was then posted on the same day as the editorial itself. (To show Our solidarity with Greg with regards to certain trenchant criticisms of Mr. Hand and TCR which he had made in the editorial.) We had hoped that this would serve to recall Our erring friend to recognize the excesses of his rhetoric and to return to a proper sense of balance and discernment on the issues noted in those writings. Unfortunately, this did not happen and a very ugly side of Mr. Hand was revealed. And though We withdrew from public confrontation after saying all that needed to be said -and after Mr. Hand gave no evidence whatsoever that he was actually listening to what We said, it was judged by Us that the time had come to affix a notation to Our previously written tribute...something that for various reasons We were deficient in doing for about a month.

Though We may make the occasional adjustment to previously written material (in virtually all cases to correct spelling and grammar glitches, transfer some post material to footnotes for easier separation of texts, etc.) we never erase anything from Our archives. The reason for that is so that Our generally very accurate statements, trenchant social commentary, and predictions remain tempered a bit by the occasional blemishes...be they missed predictions or certain moments which (We judge in retrospect) could have been handled better. It helps Us retain a proper sense of balance and also give the readers a true sense of Us and not the fabricated one whereby We seek to purge Ourselves of past materials as certain parties (such as Mr. Hand) seem to want to do.

Our refusal to remove positional blemishes from the archives is why you will see this tribute remain as it was written with no corrections in the original text. It is Our hope that someday We will be able to remove this notation and allow the original text to remain as it was once written. Until then this note will remain affixed to the previously written text in perpetuity all things to the contrary notwithstanding. -ISM 6/17/05 11:33 am]

An Outline of Circumstances and a Public Apology to David Palm:

Originally I intended to make this a detailed public apology but I am running behind in a project I want to finish before leaving the country -as well as updating my weblogs. (I also intend to post some final weblog entries before leaving.) For these reasons, the lengthy post will be a short one but what is important here is the principle.

My readers are not unaware that a lot of subjects are covered in the musings of Rerum Novarum and I try to provide a broad buffet of sorts for my readers to partake in. Among those areas is the occasional dissection of political, theological, philosophical, or social positions of others. The sources these can come from vary{1} and the tone or length of such posts can also vary of course. I try nonetheless to be both thorough as well as balanced in such responses.

The trackrecord of this weblog speaks for itself and I need not draw attention to it. However, it is possible to confute an argument and have all your ducks in a row except for the person you are addressing. This happened back in June of this year and I was made aware of it only this month. A brief digression to explain the circumstances is needed because I am sure some readers are asking themselves "how can he not know whom he was talking to." Well my friends, that can happen when you are on a discussion list controlled completely by the moderator.

Some time ago, after I accidentally mixed the email addresses of two separate circulars, the result was the forming of a couple of discussion lists. One of those who formed a list was my good friend Albert Cipriani. Before he formed the list there was an informal circular emailing of sorts that had about forty email addresses on it. Two of the email addresses were mine and David Palm's. (David was also on another list I was on at that time as well.) Eventually Albert set up a discussion list of his own and sent out invites to various people. After he had a list of twenty five or so, Albert set it up so that all emails went to him for posting to the list. My view of course was "hey its his list so he can do what he wants."

A few months later, there was a discussion on Vatican II and a certain "David" on the list who sent some emails on the matter -one of which I decided to respond to in detail. So I did this back in June and posted it to the weblog and sent the link to the list. The post was titled "Palm Desert" and I also posted it to the Lidless Eye weblog. Obviously I was responding to David Palm because he was the only "David" that I could think of among any of the various emails on the circulars that went into Albert's list.

The problem is that the David on that list was a certain "David Smith" -another very cordial Tridentine minded Catholic convert and (like David Palm) a very pleasant person to dialogue with. I have conversed with him over the years at message boards, message boxes at weblogs, and the like. But I had no idea he was on Albert's list. Nonetheless, as time went on, David Palm inquired many times in private about responding to an article he wrote for The Remnant. Generally I would not give The Remnant the time of day but I like David so I thought about it and decided against it for one key reason: David had not retracted the errors I outlined in the "Palm Desert" series. So I told David this and he reviewed the thread and asked to see the full text of what was being responded to. So readers to this weblog know that in November or so, I posted the full text to this weblog. A while later David emailed me saying that it was not his text. Being up to my eyebrows in various pieces for the weblog and some other projects, I put dealing with this on the back burner.

But David persisted in private sending a couple more emails. I sent an email to Albert asking for the names of everyone on his list with the first name "David." He told me there was only one and it was David Smith. So I went back and fixed that thread by removing David's name from the title and the reference in the post to him. That was done over a week ago. The next step was to post a public apology in the same medium in which the error was made.{2} Having explained how the error was made, all that is left now is to apologize so here goes.

David Palm, I Shawn McElhinney hereby apologize to you for the sin of inadvertently bearing false witness against you. I did not in any way intend to do this but nonetheless it happened. I am truly sorry if any anguish was felt by you as a result of this situation. The post has been corrected, reclassified in both weblog post lists, and all connection of your name to that material was removed.

Notes:

{1} In relative order of priority they tend to be via (i) emails from readers (ii) other weblogs which I read (iii) topics on discussion lists (iv) material from media sources (v) message box posts.

Very rarely will I deal with anything on message boards anymore for a variety of reasons -primarily because I like being in control and in those mediums that is impossible unless you own the board or are a moderator.

{2} Unlike certain persons of an anti-Catholic nature who never apologize for their errors, your weblog host has always done this whenever it is reasonably shown to be a mistake made.

In one of the first parts of the thread on obedience, I made an error that I originally addressed with a correction in the post but decided to move to a fresh entry. So without further ado...

Correction of an Error:
(Aka "We Do Not Correct Page A1 Errors on Page Q14" Dept.)

Originally I had noted that Cardinal Rampolla was actually elected pope - though not seated. In having this point challenged by a reader of the weblog, I doublechecked my facts on this and was mistaken. (My guess is that I picked this up in some apocryphal literature. I read it some time ago and cannot recall exactly where.) The post was written on the fly and relied on my memory alone for the details. And though very reliable on major subject matters, my memory is admittedly not always as reliable on minutiae as it used to be. Nonetheless, it seemed good to point this out here. The other points noted about Cardinal Rampolla{1} in that post were accurate.

Note:

{1} Those points included (i) that he was Secretary of State under Pope Leo XIII (ii) that he was a major contributor to the encyclical Rerum Novarum, and (iii) he was appointed as Cardinal Prefect of the Holy Office by Pope St. Pius X.

"Minor Mea Culpas" Dept.
(aka "Tales from the Mailbag")

The principle held by this writer for many years has been that an error which is made should be corrected to the extent that it was made. In that light, as the error I am about to correct was made at Rerum Novarum it will be corrected on this here weblog at this time. First though a brief summary for the benefit of the readers.

In a May 10th blog entry Responsum ad Barrister, I had asserted the following with regards to Fr. Ramon Angles of the Society of St. Pius X:

Brief Note: the Archbishop himself said that the Superior General of the SSPX should never be a bishop. This was admitted to by Rev. Fr. Ramon Angles of St. Mary's Academy in Kansas when he responded rather tersely to an article from a 1992 issue of the old Fidelity magazine. (An article which happens to comprise Appendix A of my treatise as it deals with my former pastor Fr. John Rizzo.)

On the approbation of the quote to Fr. Angles, I received an email the other day about this from Fr. Angles himself. In a magisterial exercise of the Welborn Protocol, I reproduce the text of that email in full with the email address deleted:

Dear Sir,

I am puzzled.

"The Archbishop himself said that the Superior General of the SSPX should never be a bishop. This was admitted to by Rev. Fr. Ramon Angles of St.Mary's Academy in Kansas when he responded rather tersely to an article from a 1992 issue of the old Fidelity magazine."

Can you please explain? I have no recollection of having made this admission.

Thank you and God bless.

Father Angles

Father Angles:

It is an honour to count you among the readers of this humble weblog. Upon receiving your email, I went back and checked my files and you are correct that I made an error. I greatly apologize (mea culpa) for ascribing the statement to you. This is posted to my weblog so that the audience which read the original post may also read of my corrections.

For in checking my archives, there is not one but indeed two errors in the above statement. The first was equating the statement to editorials surrounding the Fidelity article in my treatise on my former pastor Fr. John Rizzo. That article titled In the Line of Fire ran in Fidelity in May of 1995. The article I should have referred to that ran in the October 1992 edition of Fidelity was a different article titled The Society of St. Pius X Gets Sick.

When writing the first drafts of my treatise in late 1999-early 2000, I was given permission from E. Michael Jones (the publisher of Fidelity) to use them in my project. The interest of brevity to the extent this was possible made me omit several drafts I initially planned to include including the 1992 article posted above. Only one could be added so I chose the May 1995 article over the October 1992 article because of my familiarity with the subject of the 1995 article personally and also because it to some extent reiterates some of the same criticisms of the 1992 article. (Fr. John Rizzo was my pastor from 1987-1992.)

But that is one mistake on my part. The other mistake (mea culpa) was in misappropriating the reference. The statement I had in mind was actually one from Father Peter R. Scott, the SSPX's US District Superior. It was written in response to the aforementioned 1992 Fidelity article. Essentially Fr. Scott was responding to twenth-five points of the article. You had also weighed in with a letter to the editor on some of the subjects of Thomas Case's article so I trust you understand how easily this error on my part could be made. More on that in a moment.

As I noted, there were twenty-five points responded to by Fr. Scott in the December 1992 issue of Fidelity. The twenty-fifth point was the following one. I will note it and also Fr. Scott's response to it. The source is my copy of an October 15, 1992 letter sent out by Fr. Scott which was printed a couple months later in Fidelity.

(Fidelity as quoted by Fr. Scott) "Bishop Williamson is strenuously lobbying for position as Superior General, and will try to have himself elected as an anti-pope."

(Fr. Scott) "Another totally false assertion. Archbishop Lefebvre made it perfectly clear that the Superior General was not to be one of the Bishops, so as not to give the impression that the Bishops he consecrated had any jurisdiction." [Fr. Peter R. Scott: Comments on The Society of St. Pius X Gets Sick Article from the October 1992 issue of Fidelity Magazine (c. October 15, 1992)]

The address on the letter read as follows:

Society of St. Pius X
Regina Coeli House
2918 Tracy Ave
Kansas City, MO 64109

Considering the manner whereby the preceding copy of this letter I received is prefaced, it would seem interesting to see it explained why Bishop Fellay two years later became Superior General despite what Fr. Scott noted above. Indeed I quote my letter draft from October of 1992 so that I can refer to Fr. Scott's own introduction to his response sent out to SSPX churches.{1}

Now I will not in this response explain why this admission by Fr. Scott damages the stance of the SSPX as per their legitimacy.{2} I already deal in detail with this in not a few of my writings - all of which are copiously referenced. But in closing, I apologize again that I ascribed to you what was actually asserted by Fr. Scott.

God bless,

Shawn

Notes:

{1} I should explain this as I have two copies of this letter. One of them was dated October 15, 1992 and sent by Fr. Scott to the churches in his "district." (That is the source I am quoting from above.) The preface of the October response from Fr. Scott reads as follows:

The October issue of Fidelity magazine presented a scandalous article on the Society of St. Pius X. This sensational mixture of lies, gossip, and personal attackes merits no reply. However, to overcome the scandal of the innocent, and to show the falsehoods of its statements, the following remarks are offered.

I also have a copy of the same letter as printed in the "Letters to the Editor" section of the December 1992 Fidelity issue. The only deletions to the Fidelity version were to points sixteen through twenty-three from Fr. Scott's October article. The reason this was done was for space constraints because as Fidelity noted in an editors interjection "points sixteen through twenty-three are identical to points in Fr. Angles' letter (see above)."

For earlier in the Letters section indeed there is a response to the Thomas Case article from "Fr. Ramon Angles" listed as "Rector and Headmaster [of] St. Mary's College and Academy." I double checked both letters and the points between the two are worded identically. (Your letter in Fidelity even refers to yourself in the third person in the process.) So a third time, I apologize for my mixup of names mea maxima culpa.

{2} The fact that Fr. Scott's declaration was made nineteen months after the death of the Archbishop Levebvre is not a small problem for the SSPX's current position. (In light of what was to happen not even two years later when Bishop Bernard Fellay became the new Superior General of the SSPX.)

"Mea Culpa" Dept.

I plan to do some thorough cleaning tomorrow so hopefully my book of spiritual instructions will turn up so I can do part II of the series on prayer. I apologize for the fact that the book got misplaced and thus the prayer series was derailed.

"Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa" Dept.

Speaking of the Curmudgeon, for those who are shills for worldwide conspiracies, he has discovered the truth about that as well and those of us who have mocked you need to wear the Dunce cap of shame.

For the true Anti-Christ has been found and we all owe the "trads" a HUGE apology for not taking them seriously all these years with their apocalyptic shrieking!!! Let me be the first to eat crow on this one my friends...I humbly apologize to the "trads" I have mocked for years on end now. Here is the incontrovertible proof that the "trads", Christian Identity crowd, and the John Birchers were right all of these years:

The Curmudgeon's Expose on the Vatican's Secret Plot to Take Over the World!!!

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa: I knew not what I was doing...

"Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa" Dept.

As I am critical of certain individuals for being bereft of the mea culpa, I will note here that Albert made a good point about me addressing his entire email in the post below. As a result I edited the piece and inserted the parts I did not address previously. In short, I apologize (mea culpa) for doing a Readers Digest Condensed Version of a response to your post Albert.

I did not think doing so would in any way do injustice to your position but since you think it did, I have revised the piece accordingly. I only ask in the future that you remember that blogging is an exercise in economical expression for me so as a general rule condensed versions are par for the course. But exceptions can be made of course - heck as Sovereign Thane and Lord High Executioner of Rerum Novarum, I can do that at my own whim. So this time I have done that and apologize if the previous version's brevity was problematical. (In light of how I have been criticized for vast extrapolations in the past, being criticized for brevity now is rather ironic. But I digress...)