Today in History:
(Posted For Future Reference)

Today is the Biden/Harris inauguration. Gas is currently $1.95 per gallon. Interest rates are 2.25% for a 30-year mortgage. The stock market closed at 30829.40 though we have been fighting COVID for 11 months. Our GDP growth for the 3rd Qtr was 33.1%. We had a strong economy until COVID and it is recovering well. We have not had any new wars or conflicts in the last 4 years. North Korea has been under control and has not been testing any missiles. ISIS has not been heard from for over 3 years. The housing market is the strongest it has been in years. Homes have appreciated at an unbelievable rate and sell well. And let us not forget the peace deals with 4 countries in the Middle East that were signed with Israel.

Unemployment sits at 6.7% in spite of COVID. Joe Biden becomes president today at noon. Let us see how the next 4 years go...

Miscellaneous Musings on Defining "Normalcy":

This was posted to social media yesterday and reposted here except for some material that was moved to footnotes. Without further ado...

So Clarence Oveur...err...Joe Biden is going to run on a campaign of "returning to normalcy." It is not an original idea as Warren G. Harding ran a "return to normalcy" campaign in 1920 after eight years of Woodrow Wilson and the drama and fatigue of The Great War. Harding won big that year actually. But what is "normalcy" in the modern environment?

For example, oil prices are falling big, gas prices continue to fall as a result, Trump's policies{1} played a definite role in that, and the US is more energy independent than at any time since the mid twentieth century. Is "normalcy" a return to Obamas policies here and once again due to overregulation, a returning of the US to being under the thumb of OPEC and the other Middle East cartels?

Also, for all the talk about Trump being a dangerous trigger happy and unstable warmonger, he has turned out to be the most anti-interventionist president since Coolidge militarily. Is a "return to normalcy" a return to regular military interventions around the globe?

Consider as well that the economy is overall doing the best it has been in about twenty years and wages on the lower end are rising for the first time since Monica was under Bill's desk. Is a "return to normalcy" a return to a sinking or tepid at best economy which flattens those trying to rise from the bottom?

For a variety of reasons, the problems with unchecked or lax enforcement of immigration laws in this country have declined and we have other countries{2} policing our mutual borders better which has fixed some of the prior problems of recent decades in this area. It would be foolish to pretend that no Trump policies has a role in this. So, is a "return to normalcy" a reversal of Trump's policies here and a return to the Obama/Bush 43/Clinton failures in this area?

Finally, there is as a result of Trump's tremendous originalist judicial appointments a greater judicial restraint at all levels of the legal system than we have seen in decades. Is a "return to normalcy" a return to the days of judicial activism and the appointment of activist justices who invent rather than apply the law?

Joe Biden plans to campaign on "a return to normalcy." It therefore is only appropriate that he be pressed on this point to explain what he means by that and if the supposed "national nightmare" we are supposedly living through right now includes any of the examples noted above.

Notes:

{1} Including reversing a number of Obama's executive actions that hampered exploration, drilling, and development, etc.

{2} Such as Mexico.

Briefly on the Problem With An Emeritus Pope Benedict Statement on "Torture":

[Disclaimer: This is something that was prepped in draft form back on September 9, 2009 but for reasons I cannot recall at the moment was never published. While I do not remember at the moment what the statement made was, the basic criticism made on this subject remains intact and extends to Pope Francis as well. For that reason, I am dusting off this prior blurb from the drafts folder, tweaking it slightly (including revising the title), and publishing it at this time. -SM]

This is a small bit posted in a combox thread a couple weeks some time ago. I will likely may follow it with a more detailed exposition on the problem so noted below at some point in the coming days or weeks.

We are in need of a definition here. Not a definition as in dogma but instead in the meaning of the term and how it is to be applied. I have gone over these matters before and at times at length{1} but that is the bottom line really: definitions are the tools of thought and it bothers me that this pope and his predecessor{2} on some subjects do not bother clarifying their use of words.

As far as whom I am with, I do not make the mistake of confusing the role of the church with that of the state. I am with whomever stands up for the three fundamental rights of man and one of those rights is life and thus survival. And I will not align myself with any pundit, politician, philosopher, pope, president, or anyone else whose positions by logical extension endanger my survival or that of my loved ones. And that is the bottom line really.

Notes:

{1} On Torture and General Norms of Interpretation--Parts I-III (circa October 13, 2006)

{2} Who were/are not lacking in the intelligence department.

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.

On the Predictions of "Joestradamus" and Current Geopolitical Realities:

I want to start by reminding those who may have forgotten about this little gem from then-Senator Joe Biden:

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy...

Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy." [Joe Biden: Fundraising Speech in Seattle (circa October 19, 2008)]

Keeping those words in mind, I present to you this article for perusal by Andrea Tantaros circa yesterday:

Obama’s Red Phone Is Ringing and It’s Going Straight to Voicemail?

The only thing worse than President Obama's limp-wristed approach to the chaos in Iran is that this may spill over onto how we are going to handle North Korea who currently has a ship heading towards Singapore which is suspected of proliferating missile material.{1} There is also the possibility according to Japanese intelligence that North Korea may fire a missile at Hawaii on or around July 4th.{2}

I would be remiss if I failed to point out that there was a reason why President Bush classified these nations along with Iraq as an "Axis of Evil" back in early 2003. They were (in the case of Iraq) and are (in the case of Iran and North Korea) headed up by egotistical tyrants who not only have no interest in the liberty of their citizens but who govern their nations in ways that would make the Mafia look like Sunday school. The refusal to stand up when they attempt acts of provocation would result in them constantly trying to push the envelope. President Obama needs to stop his campaigning and start taking these things seriously. Unfortunately, he is proving what Alexander Hamilton so presciently noted in The Federalist about the importance of a strong executive for effective governance{3} by failing to provide that strength which is the hallmark of poor government.{4} Hopefully on national security issues and on dealing with Iran and North Korea, that pattern will not continue by President Obama but I would be lying if I said I was optimistic about that happening.

Notes:

{1} U.S. Military Tracking North Korean Ship Suspected of Proliferating Missiles, Nukes (Fox News)

{2} That is assuming of course that this story from the Daily Mail is an accurate one.

{3} Energy in the Executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks; it is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws; to the protection of property against those irregular and high-handed combinations which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice; to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy. [Alexander Hamilton: Excerpt from The Federalist #70 (circa March 18, 1788)]

{4} A feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government. [Alexander Hamilton: Excerpt from The Federalist #70 (circa March 18, 1788)]

The Gitmo Myth and the Torture Canard

This thread deals somewhat systematically with a lot of the garbage commonly paraded about by those who have for years publicly kvetched on these subjects. Hopefully for those who actually care about factual accuracy and take matters of ethics seriously, this thread will serve to inform them. Even if you do not agree with the manner in which the "war on terror"{1} has been conducted -in part or in whole- at the very least the rationale for what was done and why is well articulated in the thread above.

Note:

{1} Yeah, yeah I know overseas contingency operations. But much as I have never been fond of the term "war on terror", compared to the current nebulous construct I will continue to utilize it. (Though the term "war on terrorism" or "war on terrorists" would be preferable to both in my mind.)

Panetta to CIA employees: We told Pelosi the truth

The whole article has to be read and for those who want to know where I stand on the matter, I will tell you but observe her body language in the clip above.{1} Also, here are some offhand comments I made in another publishing medium in recent days:

[I] wonder if Nancy Pelosi knows what the underside of a bus looks like... [5/14/09 @1:14pm]

That one was amplified by this clarification:

[I]t is amusing to see and hear Pelosi's pathetic ass kissing of the president. Folks, SHE KNOWS she is next to be thrown under the bus and to watch her struggle to try and avoid it brings me no small amount of schadenfraude :) [5/15/09 @9:06am]

One of two things are going to come out of this and one of them is not greater power and prestige for Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Basically, she will either have to resign her position in the Congress or if she survives she will become a major kiss ass rubber-stamp for the president's agenda beyond what she even is now. Either way though, she has lost any remaining pretense of credibility she may have still had{2} in the eyes of anyone with a normal intact functioning brain. Heck folks, when Bob Beckel of all people on the Democratic side says that someone in his party is a liar, you know they are in more than a bit of trouble.{3} To paraphrase the late Gorilla Monsoon: "stick a fork in her, she's done!!!"

Notes:

{1} While not an expert on body language myself, I am nonetheless reasonably informed on the matter and that Pelosi is lying on this matter is crystal clear when you look at what her face say -to the extent that her heavily Botoxed face can be read of course. (Pay particular attention to her eyes.)

{2} However small it was.

{3} I say this because Beckel defends a lot of stuff that no one who was not a party ideologue would even attempt to defend.

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)

Miscellaneous Musings:

To touch briefly on a few subjects...

--I must admit I am surprised and very pleasantly so that the Seattle Mariners are off to such a splendid start. Principles I have long said this team needs to embrace to work best with the kinds of talent they have are being realized -hats off to the new general manager Jack Zduriencik for the hiring of Don Wakamatsu as the new coach. I look forward to the M's actually being a competitive team this year for the first time since the departure of "Sweet" Lou Piniella.

--I am working at the moment on a text to respond to both the recent release by the Obama Administration of certain so-called "torture memos" and also to address certain predictable parties with regards to their continuing promotion of irrationality and unethical evasions on these matters under the presumed mantle of some "higher morality" or whatever pretenses they attempt to cloak themselves in to confuse not a few people. I anticipate it will be done next week -it is substantially completed in draft form now but needs review and also perhaps a few more tidbits added. I intend with the text to point to some past statements and principles I have set down in greater expository fashion but for this text to be briefer and more concise than other treatments on this matter have been.

--Today is the anniversary of the birth of blues legend Albert King. I originally intended to finish a tribute I was writing last December to commemorate the anniversary of his passing for this occasion but was unable to for various and sundry reasons. I will therefore leave that draft for finishing hopefully by December if I have the time and inclination and will point the readers to a review I wrote for two of his albums on Amazon.com in years past and also what I wrote back in December of 2007 on the man and his music:

Musings on the 40th Anniversary of Born Under a Bad Sign (circa December 21, 2007)

In Session --Rough Draft of Eventual Amazon Book Review (circa January 20, 2006)

Live (written for Amazon in 2001; slightly revised today)

Rest in peace "Velvet Bulldozer"

"War On Terror" Rebranded As "Overseas Contingency Operations" (Telegraph/UK)

Though it is not something I have spoken of very often, I did not like the term "war on terror" coined by President Bush's administration because it was too vague. A better term as I see it would have been a "war on terrorists" or "war on terrorism." But having said that, the term "overseas contingency operations" is even vaguer still and what will happen when{1} your greater blurring of distinctions gets us attacked again by terrorists re-emboldened by evidence that you do not take their thread to national security with the seriousness it deserves??? Will the attacks on our soil still be "overseas contingency operations" or will you attempt to re-euphemize things once again to an even more vague terminology like "non-overseas domestic contingency containment operative protocols" or whatever???

For reasons that should be obvious to the reader, I will despite my not liking the term "war on terror" continue to use it much as I will continue to stand by my assertion that water boarding as the CIA did it -which differed from how the Japanese in WWII and others who have utilized it have done it{2}- is not torture when the term "torture" is properly understood.{3} Pound sand President Obama, words do not change their meanings at your mere whim.

Notes:

{1} Yes I said "when and not if" because within the next four years or however long President Obama occupies the White Hizzouse we will be attacked again.

{2} I commented on this matter most recently in this posting from yesterday:

Points to Ponder on Waterboarding and Distinctions With a Difference (circa March 27, 2009)

My point in the above thread material was not to take a position one way or the other but only to point out that there is a distinction with a difference in various methods of what is called "water boarding" and while some methods would fit the criteria for torture properly defined, others (such as the CIA's method) would not whatever one happens to think about it personally.

{3} On Torture and General Norms of Theological Interpretation --Parts I-III (circa October 13, 2006)

Points to Ponder:
(On Waterboarding and Distinctions With a Difference)

[Prefatory Note: I decided for the sake of not making the original posting today overlong to run it in a day or two and preface it with this material. -ISM]

It is rather disingenuous to not note that there are a variety of ways of doing water boarding and that the method the US government has used is in certain respects markedly different than what the Japanese and others have done. The failure of this article to note the differences (and also to claim that the method is torture) is profoundly disappointing for a source which is supposed to present a neutral point of view. As someone else correctly noted "[t]his article... is taking sides in a controversial issue while simplifying the nuances of that issue."...

Now while you could claim that source is taken second hand, I can respond to that by noting that I took the quote and the link being quoted from a site that does not support my view on this -to the extent that I have even made my view known here which I have not. My underlying point all along is that this article is not demonstrating neutral point of view in treating on the issue fairly which means (by definition) not taking sides or appearing to take sides.

Now then, you claimed "XXXXXXX" that there are "no sources" which posit a difference in the methods that I claimed there was. But as noted above, the Japanese were pouring water into noses and throats of those so subjected to their method and according to the CIA's instruction manual, the CIA method did not do this. And whatever trick the CIA method plays on the body there is nonetheless no actual suffocation that takes place with the CIA method; ergo no "torture" takes place even by your own definition of that word. The same cannot be said for the method utilized by the Japanese during the war where water was poured into the nose and throat. Or other methods of water boarding where the person's head is dunked in water. In other words, arguments can be made that some uses of this method could constitute torture and others may well not. [Excerpts from an Email Correspondence (circa March 8-10, 2008)]

Clarification of a Previous Posting In Lieu of a Recent Posting: 

Though I posted a finalized version of a long talked about posting recently{1}, a previous posting which was written around when the former was being sufficiently completed for posting{2} served as an "appetizer" of sorts and dealt specifically with the constitutional question pertaining to declaring war.{3} And of course many who have claimed that the Iraq was illegal on constitutional grounds have asserted that it was required for Congress to actually declare war to enable President George W. Bush to actually go to war. I dealt with that constitutional misunderstanding{4} in a preceding post to avoid making the post in footnote one any longer than it already was. But since that time, I have been made privy to some information from Findlaw on this matter of which I was not completely aware. So without further ado... 

An early controversy revolved about the issue of the President's powers and the necessity of congressional action when hostilities are initiated against us rather than the Nation instituting armed conflict. The Bey of Tripoli, in the course of attempting to extort payment for not molesting United States shipping, declared war upon the United States, and a debate began whether Congress had to enact a formal declaration of war to create a legal status of war. President Jefferson sent a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean to protect our ships but limited its mission to defense in the narrowest sense of the term. Attacked by a Tripolitan cruiser, one of the frigates subdued it, disarmed it, and, pursuant to instructions, released it. Jefferson in a message to Congress announced his actions as in compliance with constitutional limitations on his authority in the absence of a declaration of war. Hamilton espoused a different interpretation, contending that the Constitution vested in Congress the power to initiate war but that when another nation made war upon the United States we were already in a state of war and no declaration by Congress was needed.Congress thereafter enacted a statute authorizing the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Bey of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify . . ." But no formal declaration of war was passed, Congress apparently accepting Hamilton's view. [LINK] 

Let this additional evidence suffice to illustrate further the absurdity of those who would claim that the constitutionality of the war in Iraq required a formal declaration of war as some well meaning but unfortunately unrealistic individuals have claimed. And furthermore, let this posting be considered an amendment in perpetuity to the posting from December 26, 2007 on the constitutionality of wars fought without a formal declaration. 

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Notes: 

{1} Between Unconstitutional and Unworkable (circa February 6, 2009) 

{2} As for the posting in footnote one, that post had been "in the can" for more than a year with only a few adjustments made (mostly of a minor nature) to the form that was finally blogged on February 6, 2009. 

{3} On the Constitutional Standing of Wars Undertaken Without a Formal "Declaration of War" (circa December 26, 2007) 

{4} See footnote one.

Points to Ponder:
(For Preserving the Historical Record on Iraq)

I don't normally include action items in posts, but in this case I'm going to. Here's the thing--the persistent lie that Bush lied about Iraq's WMDs in order to get the American people to support the war has reached the status of Established Truth. It is, however, a lie. And there is a simple and effective way to counter it.

So, in order to counter it, I'm going to ask you to do two things, neither of which will take up much time. The first assignment is to bring up a Google search window and type in three words: Clinton Iraq 1998. Once you run that search, you will find a treasure trove of quotes from the ancien regime regarding Iraq and the reasons Saddam should be pushed off a cliff.

Poke around in the stories you will find, and you will find yourself illuminated on the subject of Iraq's WMD programs like never before. You will read Madeline Albright arguing that the United States should attack Iraq, and you will read Sandy Berger and William Cohen--Clinton administration figures all--agreeing with her.

You will read a tantalizing quote from Berger arguing that pre-emption is a proper doctrine in a world in which stateless terrorism has become the number one national security threat.

I want you to remember that search string--Clinton Iraq 1998. For good measure, you can add Ohio State to it and you'll zero in on an episode you've probably forgotten. [Bryan Preston as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa June 17, 2004)]

Heaven help us! PM panic over country's defences (in 1978)

Of course Britain got Margaret Thatcher as PM not long after that. Let us hope that we will not be saying something similar after four years of the incoming Obama administration.

Camille Paglia on various issues (Salon Magazine)

Though she and I often disagree, I have often found Camille Paglia to be an interesting and provocative read. On the above thread, she covers:

--The subject of President Obama's pledge of federal money for infrastructure repairs which she applauds as well as the approach to using computers in classrooms.{1}

--The comportment of President Obama{2} thus far with his appointments -something she is pleased with.{3}

--Her question with regards to the appointment of Sen. Hillary Clinton to the position of Secretary of State.{4}

--Her views on the massacre in Mumbai and on (by implication) national security issues.{5}

--Her assessment of Gov. Sarah Palin's preparation of sorts for 2012{6} and she really lets Dick Cavett have it not to mention the ivory tower elitist mentality that permeates how so many of the msm sorts act.{7}

--Her assessment of the antics of the gay lobby on the subject of homosexual so-called "marriage"{8}

--Some musings on Christmas carols which are...interesting to say the least.{9}

What are the views of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum on these issues??? Check the footnotes of this posting for details on that and be sure to give Camille's thread above a review.

Notes:

{1} I am not sure I agree with her on this unless it involves contracting the work out to private companies to do. I cannot stand the idea of the federal government running anything of a business nature because they will inexorably screw it up as always. But if she favours the use of private contractors for this infrastructure work to be done, then we could be simpatico with her on this one. Certainly improvements on this score are needed, the question is more of the how they are to be done sort than the do they need to be done ones because that they are needed is in my mind pretty self-evident.

On the computers issue, we are in agreement most definitely and I speak as someone who went through the whole public school system and got the lions share of my knowledge through my own outside the classroom efforts.

{2} Yes he is the President-elect but barring extraordinary circumstances occurring, he will be president next month so we at Rerum Novarum will refer to him as such now.

{3} She is right that so far President Obama has conducted himself well.

{4} I was wondering much the same thing myself.

{5} Of which I completely concur.

{6} On this she and I are in agreement. I should note in the interest of disclosure that Paglia was one of the few feminists who stood up for Gov. Palin during the election and gave her a lot more credit than the msm as a rule was willing to do. This is to her credit and it illustrates why even in disagreeing with her at times (sometimes diametrically so) that I read her work with interest.

{7} I am one hundred percent in agreement with her on her disdain for this mentality of which we saw in spades during this election in how Gov. Palin was treated (whatever one thinks of Gov. Palin or her politics this treatment was disgusting).

{8} For those readers who wonder why I refer to "so-called 'marriage'", I remind them of a principle I have always adhered to which was outlined again recently:

Revisiting the Subject of the Underlying Weltanschauung of "Language Control" (circa November 25, 2008)

Suffice to say, on this issue Paglia and I have some differences of view and I will leave it at that.

{9} On this subject let it suffice to say that when it comes to an atheist's musings on Christmas carols I am somewhat agnostic but intrigued ;-)

Qaeda wants Republicans, Bush "humiliated": Web video

This is an interesting tidbit to pop up here courtesy of the ever-resourceful Matt Drudge. Pay particular attention to this bit:

"O God, humiliate Bush and his party, O Lord of the Worlds, degrade and defy him,"

I wonder how many are so happy to be rid of the outgoing president that they will do their part to help answer this prayer in favour of the Al Qaeda petitioner as noted above.

Points to Ponder:
(On Logic and Political Priorities)

Let me see if I got this straight. Obama/Biden need preconditions to talk to US news anchors, but no preconditions are needed to talk to our enemies. Yeah, that’s the ticket. ["Gutwrench" (circa October 27, 2008)]

"Down on the Corner" Dept.
(A Rerum Novarum Four Thread NRO Commentary)

A few musings on these threads from recent days...

Did W Backfire? (NRO)

Interesting hypothesis by Tom Hoopes -here is the gist of what the article is about in its own words:

Reviewers keep remarking on the strange phenomenon. They hated Bush going in — and kind of liked the guy when they came out.

If that is the case, it may not bode well for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama in the election next week. Moving on we get to an article on the msm:

An Instructive Candidacy (Victor Davis Hanson)

The unethical double standards of the msm with regards to Sen. Obama and Gov. Palin could not be more educational as we wind down in this election season. As Hanson notes so well in the article there turns out to be no standard of objectivity in contemporary journalism. Gee folks, who has been saying that for years??? The first footnote of this posting will give you a hint{1} and that is all we will say on the matter for now. And finally...

Point of No Return (Mark Steyn)

No, this is not a reference to the 1977 concept album by Kansas{2} however preferable such a reference may be. No, this is to how potentially transformative for the worse this upcoming election could be if Sen. Obama wins and there is not at least a super majority-proof Republican minority in the Senate. Or as Steyn succinctly puts it:

[T]he only reason why Belgium has gotten away with being Belgium and Sweden Sweden and Germany Germany this long is because America’s America. The soft comfortable cocoon in which western Europe has dozed this last half-century is girded by cold hard American power. What happens when the last serious western nation votes for the same soothing beguiling siren song as its enervated allies?

I explained the problem last year in the context of the subject of the Crusades as the enemy we are facing now is in many ways not much different and I stand by that assessment now which will be linked to in a footnote on this posting for those who may not remember it.{3}

Right now we are demonstrating a willingness to take stands unpopular to the Euroweenie contingent but it is because of those stands that they have been able to get away with being Euroweenies. Peace cannot be achieved with enemies such as those we are facing except through either a profound spiritual metanoia on their part (which is alien to the genesis and expansion of Islam historically) or the west showing resolve to not be pushed around by these kinds of thugs.

For it is easy to take stands like "why can't we be friends???"{4} and make grandiose advocacy of "unconditional dialogue" when there is someone there willing to do the heavy lifting of the sort that you are not willing to do. But what happens in this geopolitical world of "recess" when you cannot run to the adult on duty for protection from those who would seek to do you harm??? You do one of two things, you either run scared and goad those sorts to continue to try and inflict harm on you or you take it upon yourself to build yourself up, develop a mean streak, and knock their blocks off so they will leave you alone.{5}

It may sound simple to many readers but workable solutions are rarely complicated when the dynamics of what prompts people to act a certain way are known. And those who prey on weaker people{6} regardless of the context in which it is done{7} do so usually as a result of two factors; namely (i) their own insecurities about things they have no control over and (ii) their seeing in the perceived weaker person or group a source with which they can exercise control over as a way of masking the aforementioned insecurities. This is why bullies often back down when confronted by someone who refuses to be bullied and will oppose them with force to prevent it. Usually it is in their best interests for such bullies to either cease such things or to find other targets who will roll over for them.

Whatever one wants to say about Sen. John McCain as president, I do not have anxiety about him in the area of national security and presenting the required projection of America as a bulwark against these kinds of threats. I cannot say the same thing about someone like Sen. Barack Obama who has taken no positions of principle that went against the grain -either in the Illinois State Senate or in the United States Senate where he constantly voted present in the former and nearly 100% on the side of liberal Democrats in the latter. In fact, that is the subject of this article by Rich Lowry:

Barack Obama, False Moderate

The article is worth a read but here is the summary which is worth reflecting upon:

When has Obama stood up to liberals and fought for a principled centrism? Never. This is why part of McCain’s closing argument must be that he’d be a better check on Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid than the moderate poseur.

Indeed, I do not see someone with such a track record of placating political machines as being sufficiently independent minded to truly give pause to our enemies. And that is why I cannot in conscience vote for him -his quasi-marxist economy destroying tax and income redistribution policies{8} notwithstanding. Like Charles Krauthammer{9} I take a stand not popular but one that on principle I must take even if it means going down with the ship figuratively speaking.

Notes:

{1} A Dialogue on the State of Journalism With Joseph D'Hippolito (circa October 17, 2008)

{2} Which I have on vinyl by the way.

{3} On the Crusades and Learning From History (circa April 13, 2007)

{4} This is not a reference to the song by War of that name.

{5} This is an area of which I was not unfamiliar in school and thus I speak from experience on both fronts. (Being bullied and later after preparation and getting stronger smacking around many of those same bullies who were still around who then left me alone.)

{6} And these terrorist sorts see in the west a people weakened by decadence: make no mistake about that.

{7} Either individually or collectively, physically, psychologically, economically, or in other ways. (Bullying can take many forms after all.)

{8} Another significant reason for opposing Sen. Obama but that is subject I am not going to touch on now but instead mention only in passing due to lack of time and desire to talk about it now.

{9} McCain Gets My Vote (Charles Krauthammer)

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Another Thread on the Upcoming Election:

This is a continuation of sorts from a series of previous threads viewable in a footnote below.{1} It constitutes an email I sent to some friends privately. My words from the note will be in dark blue font.

Obama leads from 0-6 points now depending on which poll you look at...

...probably because of the week's economic news for the most part. I do not expect that to hold. (Would be curious to know how Mason-Dixon Polling has the race but I digress.) Here are the numbers as of yesterday via Real Clear Politics:

RCP Average	09/09 - 09/19	--	47.6	45.3	Obama +2.3
Gallup Tracking	09/17 - 09/19	2756 RV	50	44	Obama +6
Rasmussen Tracking	09/17 - 09/19	3000 LV	48	47	Obama +1
Hotline/FD Tracking	09/17 - 09/19	922 RV	45	44	Obama +1
Battleground Tracking	09/11 - 09/18	800 LV	47	47	Tie
CBS News/NY Times	09/12 - 09/16	LV	49	44	Obama +5
Quinnipiac	09/11 - 09/16	987 LV	49	45	Obama +4
Pew Research	09/09 - 09/14	2307 LV	46	46	Tie
Reuters/Zogby	09/11 - 09/13	1008 LV	47	45	Obama +2

See All General Election: McCain vs. Obama Polling Data

The average of the above polls is Obama by 2.3 points which is not much. It is certainly not boding well for The One if McCain somehow pulls into a tie or slightly leads going into the first debate.

Meanwhile, the McCain camp is starting to focus on foreign policy stuff such as this ad about someone Obama would agree to "meet with no conditions." My Chavez loving [relative] would find that reassuring but I cannot imagine most Americans who are on the fence would.

But it all does not matter because if Obama loses, it is not cause of his quasi-marxism but instead we are racists guys, that has already been decreed. If that proclamation from the msm does not tell you that they are panicking in moonbatville, nothing else will.

Note:

{1} Namely, these threads:

Dialogue on Sen. Obama, Sen. McCain, Basic Economics, and the Upcoming Election With Kevin Tierney (circa September 15, 2008)

On Sen. Hillary Clinton and Her Being "On Board" for Sen. Obama (circa September 14, 2008)