There seems to be a consensus among the sources I have read that the Alito so-called "hearings" are not worth spending much time on...vindicating my gut intuition on the matter as noted yesterday. But at least there is some excitement in the blososphere if not on the hearings themselves than on events or persons pertaining to them in some respect...witness Beth's recent outburst which had me chucking as I read it. My first thought when finishing the thread was that she must be a fun person to drink with Which reminds me...

Goin' to California, yes
To resurrect my soul
The sun is always shinin', shinin'
Or at least that's what I'm told...

I will be vacationing in California later this month (Santa Cruz to be precise) and may blog once or twice when I am down there if there is time to. Those who would find it interesting that I would head down to a place like Santa Cruz (which is one of the former Kremlin's west coast branches) it is to visit one of my oldest friends who has (in their time there) definitely become another Ted Nugent if you know what I mean. So it should be a blast and be a good recharge for my mental and physiological batteries. I am going to have to get in some "pre-emptive training" at the gym to prepay in advance for the we will do but that will be fine...I may even get a temporary membership at a gym when I am down there as well (if there is time for it).

So in the tradition started with the late 2003's Puerto Vallarta Special Reports threads, there will probably be a thread or more blogged when I am down there...time-willing of course.

[Update: What is posted below this point was added around 8pm PST (20:00 for you military types) -ISM]

Finally, I found this thread from the weblog called Girl on the Right as a recommended read. Just a little taste though...

Conservatives are scary. Everyone knows it. They're fanatical, radical, evangelical . . . or not. But what do the facts matter in politics.

Just like there are fanatical, radical, evangelical conservatives, there are also fanatical, radical, evangelical socialists. Our country has been run by the latter for the better part of 40 years, so it is not entirely unreasonable that a couple of generations of Canadian children have grown up without ever understanding that there is a middle ground -- and that in many ways, especially recently, it is the Conservative Party of Canada that holds that middle ground.

Just like 2004, Paul Martin is using this election to attack my values and tell me that I don't belong. He's aiming his vitriol at Stephen Harper, but most of what he says applies to me as well and since the shoe fits . . [LINK]

I will readily admit that Canadian politics is something I find confusing; ergo I will email my Canadian friend Pete Vere and ask for his appraisal of the above thread. From what I have read, it looks good but I know better than to attempt an analysis of Canadian politics lest I come across looking like a moron. So Pete, give that thread a read and email me with your comments so I can blog them for the benefit of the readers m'kay???

Some Confirmation Hearing Predictions:
(Courtesy of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Note: This thread has been updated with the additions in purple font - ISM 1/11/06 7:00pm]

I wish I could say that I was paying a lot of attention to the Alito hearing but frankly I am not.{1} Basically, I can predict what will happen with this pretty much already so (donning my Kreskin hat) here goes...

---The Democrats are going to try to get Alito to answer questions about their pet issues as a kind of litmus test.

---They will have abortion on their minds primarily but as a rule will not address it as much as the so-called "right to privacy" or Griswald v. Connecticut in 1965 which fabricated a so-called "right to privacy" which is the lynchpin for Roe v. Wade.

---Alito like Roberts before him will have to answer these questions in a fashion that gives at least the appearance that he would consider sticking with the status quo in order to get confirmed and avoid a major fight on the nomination.

---Certain Catholic commentators will claim without suitable warrant that Alito like Roberts in answering in this fashion would be "selling their faith down the river" ignoring the obvious fact that if ever was there a time to have to approach something with the "cunningness of serpents and the guileness of doves" (cf. Jesus Christ) than it is in these instances.{2}

---Alito will be confirmed by a vote of approximately 57-43.

---President Bush will afterwards figure he has appeased his supporters enough and do something stupid figuring he can get away with it. (Depending on what that is, it is difficult to say whether or not he will succeed at it or not.)

---Both Alito and Roberts will pan as genuine originalists as a rule viz. how they approach the issues brought before the court during their tenures.

---There may well be a third confirmation hearing before the 2006 elections and thus Bush needs to be watched like a hawk to avoid picking another Miers or viewing the Stevens seat (the next to be vacated) as "the seat of Alberto Gonzales" or some equivalent thereof.

As for the rest, the gang at Southern Appeal have written a bit on this subject as one might expect. I for one concur with Patrick Carver (and Captain Ed of Captain's Quarters whom he quotes) that Alito thus far is a much better candidate than Miers...see this example which illustrates the difference well in snapshot form for those who are interested.

Notes:

{1} Apparently I am not missing much according to Beth at VRWC.

{2} Anyone with a normal intact functioning brain realizes that if Alito or Roberts would have been 100% forthright and answered the questions the Democrats asked of them that they never would be confirmed. But certain geopolitically naive sorts seem to think it is better to do that and lose rather than take a more tactical approach in the hearings and win.

Points to Ponder:
(On Fighting Wars in a Timely or Appropriate Manner)

[Prefatory Note: The below statement by Fr. James V. Schall SJ coheres quite well with something your host posted to this weblog almost seven months ago in another "points to ponder" thread taken from his own private musings - ISM]

"I could make an historical argument, I think, to the effect that failure to fight wars in time or appropriately has caused as much chaos, degradation of the human spirit, and slaughter as wars that were in fact fought. Wars are a question of justice. When justice is an obvious and paramount question, it is not a virtue to avoid them. It is the mistake of always framing the issue in terms of peace and not in terms of justice. Logically, the former cannot be had without the latter. Peace without justice is the definition of extreme tyranny. And it is not just a question of justice, but of generosity and self-sacrifice. If there are no causes worth fighting and dying for, we might as well give up pretending that we are civilized." [Fr. James V. Schall SJ]

First Draft of An Album Review:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Update: I made a few minor tweaks to this review dividing the larger paragraphs into smaller ones, adding some segues, and also some new stuff to two of the songs discussed -ISM]

[This is the rough draft of an album review which I plan to revise and abridge for posting at Amazon before the end of the month. -ISM]

*****

The Band’s Magnum Opus

Perhaps no musical group exemplified an anti-counter cultural approach to music better than The Band did in various ways. They influenced many people who were influential in their own right either at the time (Eric Clapton and George Harrison’s approach to music) or would be in years to come (i.e. Roger Waters’ approach to concept album writing with Pink Floyd) not to mention being one of the begetters of 1970’s style "folk country." And while more could be said about them than that, there is plenty to say about this album and that is where the review will be focused. But the mark of a memorable musician/group/thinker/writer, etc. is not only their influence on subsequent generations but also on their contemporaries. And in this area The Band definitely succeeded…a few examples of which were given above to illustrate this assertion in brief. But that is enough ado…let us get onto the songs themselves now.

The album opens with "Across the Great Divide" and it sets the tone for the very down home Americana feel of this album full of uniformly excellent songs. The latter song contains the story of a man who tries to explain himself to his woman and recounts to some extent the recklessness of his “younger days” as he tries to persuade her to not kill herself. It is not as grim as it sounds in words I assure you.

The second song is “Rag Mama Rag” which is a fun quirky song with fiddles, an offbeat drum pattern (played by Richard Manuel who usually plays piano: the multitalented Garth Hudson played piano on this one), Levon Helm eschewing his drums for mandolin, Rick Danko playing fiddle instead of bass, and John Simon (the co-producer) playing the bass parts on tuba. The lyrics of the song were about a woman who only wants to play ragtime music…there may be a sly message in that but whatever. That brings us to one of the best songs on the album.

“The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down” is musically and lyrically a masterpiece. It is ironic a Canadian songwriter (Jaime Robbie Robertson) could write such an empathetic tune about the old South but it the power of the song cannot be denied. It was delivered with conviction by the only American in the group (the southerner Levon Helm) who was back on drums for this tune. (Levon also apparently persuaded Robbie not to mention Lincoln in the tune: Robbie more fittingly substituted in the narrative a story about Robert E. Lee instead and saved the song from being an affront to southerners unintentionally.) Garth Hudson gets some very textural sounds with a melodica overdubbed via his Lowrey organ, which sounds like a harmonica starting with the second verse of the song. It is an example of the multifaceted talents of the Band’s members –all of whom except Robbie Robertson played multiple instruments. I never get tired of hearing this song, singing it, or playing it on guitar. At this point, it seems fitting to touch on the genius of Robbie Robertson as a songwriter.

While the latter wrote only a few songs on the group’s very solid “Music From Big Pink” debut album (with band mate Richard Manuel and Bob Dylan contributing more in that area) on this album, that changed dramatically. Robertson solidified himself on this album as the chief songwriter of the group to the extent that he wrote eight of the songs by himself and has co-writing credit on the other four. One of the co-writing credits is “When You Awake” with Richard Manuel (who also sings the song) who was back behind the drum kit on this song with his frantic drumming style. Garth Hudson’s organ gives a nice backing to the song while Robertson’s lyrics are about family and remembering with grandfatherly advice being given.

From there the album moves to “Up on Cripple Creek” which is a song with a very “back porch” feel which is (I must say it) deliciously sleazy in a way. Garth Hudson is playing a clavinet through a wah wah pedal to create the sound of a jew’s harp. When mixed with Danko’s bass playing, it gives a significantly low range to the tune about a narrative of a man who wants to lookup an old girlfriend for “assistance” if you will and how in many areas she completes him. “Whispering Pines” follows, which Robertson co-wrote with Richard Manuel. The song has a completely different tempo than the one preceding it and Manuel delivers a very wrenching vocal performance vocally and on piano.

Following “Whispering Pines” is “Jemima Surrender” which has a heavier tempo with boogie-woogie piano (played not by Manuel but by Hudson), Manuel on drums, Levon Helm not on drums but rhythm guitar, and Robertson on lead guitar. (The alternate take –-half the songs on the album have an alternative take on this CD- has the members on their usual instruments for a completely different approach to the song.) The song is about the singer wanting a girl named Jemima to give in and...well...that is all I will tell you about it.

“Rocking Chair” is possibly my favourite song on the album. It is unconventional musically for the group in that there is no drums (Helm is on mandolin on this tune), Hudson plays accordion, Robertson is on acoustic guitar, and the timekeeping is done solely by Danko’s bass and that is adequate. The lyrics (Manuel on lead, Danko joining on the bridge) are about two old time sailors –one telling his first mate (and best friend) “don’t raise the sails anymore” because he has been at sea his whole life, he believes they have used up all the time they have in that endeavour and should spend the sunset years of their lives together “back in old Virginny” in rocking chairs. Having lost my oldest friend recently, this song really has an effect on me now…musically the song is quite excellent and the lyrics I find to be quite haunting for reasons already expressed and others not to be mentioned here.

“Look Out Cleveland” is a up tempo rocker sung by Danko with some aggressive lead fills by Robertson backed by Danko’s equally aggressive bass picking and is about “a storm coming through” which ends up devastating everything. (Compared to everything else on the album, this song stands out in its strident phrasing.)

From there the next song is “Jawbone” and it opens with a very slow start and alternates time signatures from verses to the pre-chorus to the chorus and back again with lyrics about a thief who is unrepentant. The album next moves into “Unfaithful Servant” which is sung by Danko and is a slow creeper about…well…exactly what the title says and the narrator tries to examine the reason for the faithlessness involved.

The album ends officially with “King Harvest” which is a frantic tune sung by Manuel. The song has an unusual sound even for an album of songs many of which are distinctive in that sense. The shifting tempos from verse to verse (a feature common to many of my favourite songwriters) gives a distinctive sound as does Robertson’s stinging lead playing which shows a pleasing restraint to it (another feature I like in lead guitar players). The lyrics show the tensions of paradoxical attachments (city and country, past and present, etc) and is a tale about a union man who is feeling the pinch ala Steinbeck's “Grapes of Wrath” and wraps up the album quite strongly. (It is also one of my favourites on the album.)

There are also alternate takes of six of the songs on the CD release as well as an outtake of a song that would appear on future albums (referring to “Get Up Jake"). They are all interesting for different approaches taken to songs in different takes…from instruments used to who played what, who sang the songs, some false starts, instructions given, etc. But the twelve songs on the album as originally released are the focus of this review and they all cohere well making this album a must have for anyone who likes good music.

"If You Want Something Done Right, Do It Yourself" Dept.
(On Arguments Opposed to Military Involvement in the Middle East)

Due to the bankrupt nature of the "arguments" propounded by the lions share of who are opposed to the utilization of the military option in the Middle East (with regards to Iraq or otherwise), many ideas for approaching this have been pondered over by those of Us at Rerum Novarum. One of those that has seemed increasingly necessary is to insure that if critics will kvetch that at least they will use solid argumentation in the process and not the brainless ideological twaddle of the antiwar.com crowd and various and sundry idiotarians (read: moonbats) of that sort. For such things grate on your host who is and always has been generally speaking quite anti-idiotarian in his geopolitical approaches and not only because there is not enough time in the day to fact check those sorry specimens and post the biblical scroll of errors, distortions, and logical/argumentation fallacies that the screeds of such ideologues inexorably contain.

However, it is not often recognized that there are those who could be classified as anti-idiotarian who take a different view on the war situation. Such people are rare and deserve to be recognized. And as they are intellectually capable of making rational arguments, your host has thought about providing adversaries of this sort with some actual arguments with which they can use to construct a viable argument with which he and others can interact with. Or as this writer noted in a recent emailing to a friend on this subject matter (modified slightly in spots):

[T]o show what a standup guy I am, I [may] actually...post sometime [soon] some probable arguments against the war in Iraq which I will give to the antiwar crowd to develop free of charge. Basically I am tired of confuting stupid arguments on that score and am thus [contemplating giving] them some bonafide arguments which they can use...though I may offer them to [a good friend] to use against me first...[someone who] can be brutal at times in [their] argumentation. [Excerpt from Email Correspondence (circa September 9, 2005)]

Exactly when or if this is done remains to be seen but it is leaning more and more in that direction simply because your host wants there to be in the public square solid arguments on both sides rather than the common shrieking and irrational opposition by various assortments of moonbats countered by various fiskings or mistings by those of Our general outlook where only our side uses actual arguments. Anyway, that is what We are considering doing at some point in the future but it seemed appropriate to publicly note it at this time so that certain parties We have in mind for a possible future dialogue on the subject can be alerted to this free gift from your humble servant at Rerum Novarum and can ready their brickbats accordingly (if they are so inclined to).

[Last minute update: Your host has literally just been notified as of posting the above thread by one of the anti-war anti-idiotarians he had in mind that the proposed dialogue noted above is of interest to them. For that reason, it is now a question of when and not if it will take place. Stay tuned for the arguments your host will offer the opposition to develop in opposition to his own position...they need to be finetuned and sent to Our adversary first so they can start developing them. (Once they are in at least draft form, We will post the arguments in bullet form to this weblog for your perusal.)]

[Update: A continuation of this thread can be read HERE. - ISM 1/29/06 2:27pm]

On Miscellaneous Matters:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

They call it stormy Monday...aah but Tuesday's just as bad...
Ohhhhh they call it stormy Monday...but Tuesday's just as bad...
You know Wednesday's worse...
Aaaand Thursday's oh so sad...

It should not surprise me that it is raining in Seattle on a Monday but today I could have used better weather for my mood...normally the latter is not affected much by external environment but today it certainly is. It also does not help that it is a holiday today either but what can one do with the uncontrollable elements such as that??? The answer is nothing of course and while I am optimistic about this being a better year than last year (and even better than 2004 which was the best overall year of the new millennium for me thus far); nonetheless, it seems appropriate to jot down some notes of various subjects that I have had in mind for a while. The first is the subject of resolutions.

It has been a long time since I bought into the idea of "resolutions" for the new year...part of the reason I suppose is that they are treated as such a joke by the culture at large. I am not opposed to resolving to do better of course but there is too much making of resolutions by people which are constructed in a way that almost guarantees them failure. For example, someone who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day and has for years is not about to be likely to go cold turkey on the new year and expect to succeed. But at the same time, that does not mean that they cannot succeed at their goal within the year. Likewise with those trying to lose weight...you cannot go from eating lots of food a day to no food without some form of phased in program as well as certain kinds of supplement support. And the idea of giving anything up completely if it is something you are accustomed to needs to be dealt with carefully.

I would not hold it against someone who (for example) resolved to quit smoking on the new year who has already failed in the "cold turkey" approach. Likewise, someone who sought to give up refined sugar products completely, lose a certain amount of excess body weight, or something else of that sort. However, I do find it interesting how people if they fail once in a resolution often take an "oh well, I tried" and act as if since they failed once, they need not try again. This is akin to someone who gets a flat on the highway choosing instead of fixing the flat and moving on again towards their destination to shoot out the other three tires too. Habits of mind or of a person's general disposition take time to form and they are thus not going to change as quickly as we might like them too. But if the right approach is set down in advance and a proper strategery undertaken, the odds of success will be much greater in whatever the area of intended improvement happens to be. Just keep in mind the determination that you will succeed at whatever your goals are and do not let setbacks be anything but temporary delays.

Occasionally the subject of writing is one I ponder particularly when I see a website or weblog writer who start such an endeavour and then cease it under the pretext that they have nothing to write about. But then again, that is what happens when you start a weblog or a website with a very limited scope as your primary means of expression. That is not to say that certain projects may not at times call for their own individual site of course. But there should be a general or primary source which is not so limited if you want to insure against anything more than a temporary (at most) writers block.

I suppose some would view it as a good thing that I have more things to blog on than I have time for...but the reason for that is my refusal to limit myself for the sake of fitting a particular "niche" or whatever. As I see it, most of what we do in life has some form of stratification to it and thus one's space for musing should not be so "specialized." Obviously if you involve yourself in projects of other people which have certain limits set down then those limits should be respected. But beyond that, only limit yourself in weblog or website writing if you want to build in your own obsolescence device of sorts.{1} There are a number of different sources for insuring against permanent "writers block" for anyone who cares to search them out. But to save on time, consider what the present writer has discovered in his time blogging viz. sources you can utilize to assist in coming up with material.

The truth is, writing is like anything really and when you have a system or methodology in place to assist you in generating material, you can mitigate the problems that develop in the absence of having such a system in place. And while I did not always recognize the approaches I utilize as encompassing a "system" of sorts; nonetheless, I do not mind sharing many of the means from which I have come up with nearly 1800 posts (thus far) since this weblog debuted nearly three and a half years ago. Admittedly it is not the complete list of sources I have used (and continue to use). But what I publicly wrote on this matter nearly two and a half years ago{2} was reprised in a different context{3} and can be considered good points of reference for anyone who wants to cultivate the writing discipline to some extent either in weblog format or some other form of media communication.

Anyway, that is all I have time to muse on at the moment..."the time is gone...this post is over....thought I'd something more to say???"

Notes:

{1} Speaking only for myself, I do not feel a sense of guilt if I go for a day or two (or three or whatever length) without blogging. Initially I did but then it dawned on me (and fortunately this happened very early in the life of this blog) that the moment I worry about that is the moment any edge I have (if I even have one) is blunted...

I do not know what subjects elicit the most readership and which do not and frankly, I have no interest in finding out. For the moment I do that is the moment my impulse to blog my mind becomes to some extent compromised. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 3, 2003)]

{2} What originally got me sketching these ideas down as I discovered them was a test that made the rounds in mid 2003 which was a "personality quiz" of sorts seeking to identify the personalities behind various blogging collectives. My setting forth of many of the sources I have used (and continue to use to the present day) was to counter the assessment that weblogging was a "soliloquy" of sorts and that there was no feedback of sorts from other people in what was or was not blogged. In light of the conspicuous lack of comments boxes at Rerum Novarum, it seemed appropriate to note that We were not hurting for outside input in many other ways which more than compensated for not having comments boxes.

{3} The differing context of the post reprising that subject matter was a revisiting of the comments box subject earlier this year. My position on comments boxes has not wavered on this weblog since its founding yet whenever I mention this, there are inevitable people who accuse me of not wanting to interact with other people, not receiving feedback on post material, or other kinds of what can be summarized as "soliloquizing." I doubt what I wrote then will silence the comments box "true believers" but at the very least it showed (hopefully) that one can receive ideas for writing and no shortage of feedback from others in a variety of ways other than comments boxes.

"Auld Lang Syne" Dept.
(Aka "The Last Post of the Year")

I have tended for the past couple of years on this weblog to open the year (or close it) with the traditional song for ringing in the new year. As I did ringing in 2004, I will forward-post the present thread now (as I will not being in front of a computer when the new year rings in) yet want it to be time stamped in a contemporary way; thus it will be the last post of 2005. Here 'tis:

Should auld acquaintance be forgot
And never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot
And days of auld lang syne?

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne
We'll tak a cup o' kindness yet
For auld lang syne.

And surely ye'll be your pint stoop
And surely I'll be mine
And we'll tak a cup o' kindness yet
For auld lang syne.

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak' a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.

We twa hae run about the braes
And pou'd the gowans fine
But we've wander'd mony a weary foot
Sin' auld lang syne.

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak' a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.

We twa hae paidl'd i' the burn
Frae mornin' sun till dine
But seas between us braid hae roared
Sin' auld lang syne.

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak' a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.

And here's a hand, my trusty fiere
And gi'e's a hand o' thine
And we'll tak a right good willy waught
For auld lang syne. [Attr. Robert Burns]

May you all have a blessed and prosperous new year and I hope to see y'all next year...same Bat time...same Bat blog ;-)

On the Subjects of National Security, the Patriot Act, Etc.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

I have said very little about The Patriot Act {1} except that I agree with it in principle if not in certain specifics. However, there is more to it than just that and as certain personages with soundbyte mentalities tend to misunderstand my view all too often, it seems appropriate to discuss this subject at the present time because...well...because I want to and that is a good enough reason for me.

One of the things I have not explictly said about the whole idea of The Patriot Act is that I see the approach as contradictory when you have a president and legislative branch of the government who are not concerned with securing the borders. This is one of the key issues on which I wavered a bit in my support of President Bush about two years ago and my view on the issue has not changed. Our borders are overrun by illegals everyday and the lack of security of them gives a good route of passage for potential terrorists. A key problem with The Patriot Act is that it is yet another case of creating more laws while ones already on the books are not properly enforced. There is also the issue to any piece of legislation not having a sunset provision in it as I noted back in August of this year.

The Patriot Act was extended six months as a kind of congressional compromise. But six months from now, we will be in the middle of June 2006 about five months from the midterm elections. I hate to say it but if I was a Democrat, I would hammer the Republicans and the president for their insistence on the "necessity" of The Patriot Act while they basically let the borders go unsecured. This is a pretty basic violation of the law of non contradiction...not that most committed Democrats and other quasi-socialists concern themselves with non-contradiction most of the time of course. But this will be an election year and if President Bush and the Republicans want to bring up the whole "national security" issue when The Patriot Act is up for extension in the middle of 2006, they can (and should be) hammered for their obvious inconsistency here.{2}

And (of course) if President Bush and the Republicans start talking about securing the borders in 2006 --and I predict that they will-- ideological enemies who want to publicly opine as to why this was not a concern for President Bush and many of the Republicans for the last five years will not in doing so find any criticism from this writer, that is for sure.

Notes:

{1} Briefly on the Patriot Act, Some Problems I Have With It, Etc. (circa August 2, 2005)

Miscellaneous Musings on the Patriot Act and Legislative Reform--An Audio Post (circa November 23, 2004)

{2} Granted, the claims of "inconsistency" or "crimes" by Bush's political opponents are usually able to be exposed as ideologically driven and lacking a basis in fact as well as in logic. However, what is noted above is a clear example of contradiction which cannot exist in a position if the latter is to be sound.

You Should Get a JD (Juris Doctor)

You're logical, driven, and ruthless. You'd make a mighty fine lawyer.

What Advanced Degree Should You Get?

As my father used to sardonically say in a Dirty Harry kinda way (squinted eyes and all): Marvelous!!!

Points to Ponder:
(On Inconsistent Approaches to Nature)

Nature is raw material, worthless without the mixture of human labor; yet nature is also the highest and most sacred thing. The same people who struggle to save the snail darter bless the pill, worry about hunting deer and defend abortion. Reverence for nature, mastery of nature—whichever is convenient. The principle of contradiction has been repealed. [Allan Bloom: From The Closing of the American Mind pg. 172 (c. 1987)]

Please remember in your prayers Larry Gonczy and his grieving family...Larry passed away a few days before Christmas and his funeral was today yesterday.

[Lord] remember Larry Gonczy. In baptism he died with Christ: may he also share his resurrection, when Christ will raise our mortal bodies and make them like his own in glory. [Eucharistic Prayer III: From The Roman Missal under Masses for the Dead]

Also commended to your prayers is the mother of a good friend of mine (one of my oldest friends actually) who will be going into hospice soon. For those who do not know that means that her death is all but imminent so please keep Kathy Hanks and her family in your prayers.

Points to Ponder:

It is now fashionable to deny that there ever was a state of nature. We are like aristocrats who do not care to know that our ancestors were once savages who, motivated only by fear of death and scarcity, killed one another in quarrels over acorns. But we continue to live off of the capital passed on to us by these rejected predecessors. Everyone believes in freedom and equality and the rights consequent to them. These were, however, brought to civil society from the state of nature; in the absence of any other ground for them, they must be just as mythical as the tale of the state of nature told by the unreliable travelers. [Allan Bloom: From The Closing of the American Mind pg. 162 (c. 1987)]

Briefly on Claude Frederic Bastiat, the US Constitution, and Socialism:

My interlocuter's words will be in shale font.

To paraphrase XX XXXXXXXX's argument, I hope I can be forgiven for a Frederic Bastiat quote:

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all."

Indeed. Claude Frederic Bastiat's work should be required reading in schools. Any liberal arts degree or economics degree without reasonable familiarity in Bastiat's magnum opus The Law is worthless.

A SCOTUS that will invalidate the laws creating Social Security, workplace safety regulations, the minimum wage, medicare, medicaid, and uunemployment insurance is their real aim.

Social Security is unconstitutional as is the minimum wage, medicare, medicaid, etc. Obviously if states wanted to put in place workplace safety regulations and minimum wage legislation, that would be fine and the same is the case with the other programs noted above. But socialism is nothing more than communism in a lessor-developed state of growth: something else that Bastiat correctly pointed out over 150 years ago.

Furthermore, there is no Constitutional authority for federal intervention in so-called "social welfare" programs. PERIOD. The Constitution does have a commerce clause which indicates that Congress has the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." But that does not mean that the federal government has power to govern commerce within individual states. Indeed as Alexander Hamilton wrote in 1789, the proposed Constitution made certain distinctions which so-called "social democrats" are either ignorant of or are interested in subverting. Here is the distinction on the commerce clause that our so-called "enlightened justices" have ignored for about seventy years or so:

The proper division between federal and state authorities Commerce, finance, negotiation, and war seem to comprehend all the objects which have charms for minds governed by that passion; and all the powers necessary to those objects ought, in the first instance, to be lodged in the national depository. The administration of private justice between the citizens of the same State, the supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a similar nature, all those things, in short, which are proper to be provided for by local legislation, can never be desirable cares of a general jurisdiction. (Federalist #17)]

In other words, the federal government can licitly regulate commerce between nations, states, and other extra-state configurations (such as the Indian tribes) but not inner-state commerce. Thus, all attempts at the latter are blatantly unconstitutional and make a mockery of the Constitution whether you like it or not.

However, (as I noted) states have the authority to enact the kinds of legislation you speak of. Furthermore, if a company governs across state lines, one could argue that it is subject to the federal commerce clause. However, small inner-state companies, franchises, etc. are another matter altogether: the state has the authority to regulate them but not the federal government.

Meanwhile regarding NNNN's defense of Social Security and such. Would remind him that in the real world, the current Social Security structure would send its managers to the hoosegow. Ponzi scheme- with increasingly shrinking number of paying employees to support those who need its services. Would strongly urge Mr. N. and all y'all to hook up with national best-seller The FairTax Book by Neal Boortz and Cong. John Linder. Arguing for 22% Federal flat tax on all goods and services, eliminating FICA, IRS, other impediments to our economic growth and development. Prof. Drs. Boortz and Linder developed a sixth sense for any and all objections to their proposal in clear and easy terminology. More necessary for our future than who sits in snazzy robes and makes rulings to be misinterpreted down the line.

Precisely. I have always found it ironic that those who are the most adamantly opposed to multi level marketing arrangements tend to be very loyal to the panzi scheme of Social Security. As far as the flat tax goes, I am more in favour of a consumption tax with food and medicine exempted as well as (perhaps) a certain portion of home purchase price as well. However, if the choices left are what we have now and a flat tax, obviously the latter is preferable with certain income exemptions of course...say the first $30,000 to $40,000 of income.

Percentage wise, I think 22% is too high...the federal leviathan does not need that much of our money to govern according to constitutional boundaries. However, if we were talking a phased in flat tax starting at 22% and then graduating downward over time (to allow us to gradually prune back the federal tree) to say 10% or less, that is something I would definitely like to see.

The previously noted first draft of an album review (Roger Waters's Amused to Death) was posted to Amazon earlier today with minimal adjustments made. I have a few more items in mind for reviewing...though I am not sure any of them will be done before the end of the year.

Miscellaneous Threads for Reviewing:

Briefly on some threads that have been accumulating for a while...

Great Care Should Be Taken in Interpreting Messages From God (Doug Bandow)

The above article is a good one for those who like to interpret natural disasters as messages from God for ideological purposes. It is posted because I remember reading some articles from well-meaning people who opined that Katrina was a "punishment from God" for various crimes of our society. Personally, I find the argument of Katrina being punishment a rather curious interpretation since many of the areas which would seem to be logical targets for chastisement by those who make that argument were left relatively untouched. But that is a subject perhaps for another time.

Who Are You Calling Angry? (Michelle Malkin)

The hypocrisy of Janeane Garofalo ("talk radio host" on Air UnAmerican) is briefly touched on by Ms. Malkin in the above thread. Particularly of interest to your host is her reference to liberal projection: a subject I have spoken of before and may write on in the future if I feel inclined to.

Hillary vs. Moonbats (Michelle Malkin)

I would be lying if I did not admit to feeling a fair amount of schadenfraude after reading the above article :)

Right To Digital? (George Will)

In a word: no, there is no "right" to digital TV. But watch 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.

It’s Time To Investigate Able Danger and the 9/11 Commission (Andrew McCarthy)

As one who has not been quiet on the Able Danger subject myself,{1} I concur with Mr. McCarthy's assessments on the matter in question.

Baseball: The Sublime Game (The Thoughtful Crab)

Many of the reasons your host has long loved baseball are summed up well in the above thread.

And now for some economics threads for consideration...

What's Inflation? (Dr. Walter Williams)

Hopefully more people will know after reading the above thread...

Basic Economics (Dr. Walter Williams)

This time, Dr. Williams discusses basic economics as they pertain to the cost of gasoline...a subject your host discussed back in September in a more technical fashion.{2} But the lessons to be learned in both threads are important ones...particularly since a lot of economically ignorant people vote and tend to vote for socialist candidates based to a large extent on their ignorance of how things work in the real world. And (of course) the above article has two really good one-liners that I may have to use in upcoming "points to ponder" segments :)

Random Thoughts (Thomas Sowell)

My favourite columns from Thomas Sowell are his "random thoughts" columns. I am not sure if there is a connection or not but I believe the whole idea of "miscellaneous musings" on this weblog was indirectly influenced by this feature of Sowell's writing. But give it a read and ponder over the various bits he notes so that your host can forego a "points to ponder" installment for a few more days...

Between Venus and Mars, the Church of Rome Chooses Both (Sandro Magister)

The reality of Catholic Church geopolitics and why they are not as simplistic as certain pseudo "peacemakers" would seek to deceive people into believing

The Genius of Karl Rove, Cont. (Noemie Emery)

I am no fan of Karl Rove's but if any of the above article is correct...well...let us just say I will not complain :)

Bush Gives the Iraq P.R. Machine a Much Needed Tune Up (Greg Mockeridge)

And the president paralleled many of the suggestions set down by Greg in a post he wrote back on December 3rd:

The Bush Iraq P.R. Machine Is Running Better, But Still Needs Work (Greg Mockeridge)

Evidently, the president or one of his advisors got the above memo ;-)

[Update: I decided to extend this thread a little after doing a bit more reading today...and what is noted from this point on is what has been added to the post since this morning. -ISM 12/26/05 8:45pm]

It seems appropriate to close on the war on terror subject and include these two threads...

Huge Weapons Cache Found (Ryan Lenz)

Your host was made aware of the above thread by Bryan Preston of The JunkYard BLOG. And of course remember dear reader that your host mentioned some time ago that it would take time to find any weapons in Iraq if there were any to be found at all.{3} Little by little things have been found but the MSM tends to not want to report them for obvious reasons. If the intention is to be fair and to tell the whole story, then these findings have to be reported on or else the media is engaging in distortion. Thankfully, there is the alternative media (and the much-sneered-at blogosphere) to do the MSM's job for them yet again.

Iraq Stubbornly Continues to Not Be Quagmire (Mac Stansbury)

While not the shill for the Bush Administration that Mac admits to being; nonetheless, your host does concur with the overall position which Mac notes in the posting above.

Notes:

{1} On Able Danger and A Potential Defense Department Coverup (circa September 21, 2005)

Briefly Revisiting Able Danger (circa October 20, 2005)

"Focus on Able Danger Stupid" Dept. (circa November 3, 2005)

{2} On the High Gas Prices and the Economics Involved Therein (circa September 10, 2005)

And while the above thread contains a lot of valuable information on the economics of gasoline production, distribution, and pricing, it does nonetheless also contain a blown prediction by your host viz. gasoline costs. I explained the reason for this missed prediction HERE but to summarize it briefly: I went against one of my rational principles by placing too much trust in the accuracy of the MSM on the matter at hand. The end result of course vindicated the McElhinney Media Dictum yet again even if on this occasion it was because I myself was not faithful to it.

{3} Among the postings that come to mind offhand are this one:

Because so many of the antiwar partisans are ignorant of Santayana's dictum about history, I want to return to it briefly to remind the readers of this weblog that it took longer to find weapons of this sort in countries where there has been greater cooperation than the time thus far spent in Iraq. Until those who parrot the "no WMD's in Iraq" line take these facts of reality seriously -not to mention certain other factors that they also conveniently overlook,[...] I fail to see why anyone should give their statements on this subject (whomever they happen to be)[...] the time of day. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 18, 2004)]

And this one:

Finding and getting rid of such weapons in Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan and South Africa took 18 to 30 months, even though those governments all actively cooperated with the U.N. It is fanciful that similar results could be achieved in Iraq in a few weeks.

Not finding the weapons in a fixed timeframe does not mean they never existed. British and Spanish governments have been looking for weapons caches of Basque and Irish terrorist groups for 35 years and have found little. But everyone knows those groups have arms.

On the other hand, the Philippine government still finds weapons caches left by the Japanese over half a century ago. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 16, 2003)]

Points to Ponder:
(On Value Relativism)

When President Reagan called the Soviet Union “the evil empire,” right-thinking persons joined in an angry chorus of protest against such provocative rhetoric. At other times, Mr. Reagan has said that the United States and the Soviet Union “have different values” (italics added), an assertion that those same persons greet at worst with silence and at frequently with approval. I believe he thought he was saying the same thing in both instances, and the different reaction to his different words introduces us to the most important and most astonishing phenomenon of our time, all the more astonishing in being almost unnoticed: there is now an entirely new language of good and evil, originating in an attempt to get “beyond good and evil” and prevented us from talking with any conviction about good and evil anymore. Even those who deplore our current moral condition do so in the very language that exemplifies that condition.

The new language is that of value relativism and it constitutes a change in our view of things moral and political as great as the one that took place when Christianity replaced Greek and Roman paganism…

What was offensive to contemporary ears in President Reagan’s use of the word “evil” was its cultural arrogance, the presumption that he, and America, know what is good; its closedness to the dignity of other ways of life; its implicit contempt for those who do not share our ways. The political corollary is that he is not open to negotiation. The opposition between good and evil is not negotiable and is a cause of war. Those who are interested in “conflict resolution” find it much easier to reduce the tension between values than the tension between good and evil. [Allan Bloom: From The Closing of the American Mind pg. 141-142 (c. 1987)]

"Tracking the Ever-Elusive So-Called 'Neo Con'" Dept.

This is a continuation of the thread posted HERE. To start from the beginning of this thread, please go HERE. For the sake of exactness, it should be noted that this email was received prior to the posting of the second thread of this series.

[P]erhaps before you post your response on-line, you should probaby recognize that there is historical precedent for my argument. I never heard about it, as a Catholic kid, of course; maybe you haven't either? To save you the trouble, I've included a chunk of this history, below, as taken from [this] web site.

I made a minor adjustment to your text to activate the link you sent.

The historic precedent in question? England's Magna Charta.

I know a bit about that subject actually.

No offense, insofar as your beliefs, Shawn.

But, since there is historical precedence, I thought it should be mentioned.

I appreciate your concern for irenic discussion S. And I will note what you are saying here but with a caveat: I scanned the text and it is evident that the source you are quoting is one that promotes the Baptist successionist theory. This theory is one I have dealt with in the past but do not have time to do again presently. I will therefore direct you first to a Baptist historian who has critically engaged that theory in a book from about ten years ago. I will also point you to a small essay I wrote yearly five years ago which touches on the ante-Nicene period and the development of the papal primacy.

These kinds of appeals in my experience tend to involve pitting a caricatured understanding of the papacy against certain historical situations or events that are in contrast to the previously posited caricature. I say this to be blunt, not to presume ill-will on your part S but because history is a very complex mosaic, this must be noted.

As far as the Church and State issues you raised earlier on the threads, this is a subject I have written on at this weblog in the past. See the threads in the footnote below{1} for some materials on that if you are interested. Oh and thanks again for seeking to posit a theory on what does or does not constitute a so-called "neo con." If only those who utilize that term with a degree of regularity would have the common decency to act likewise{2} but I digress.

To be Continued...

Notes:

{1} Here are some of the threads that come to mind offhand from the archives of this humble weblog:

On Church/State Conflicts of the Present in Light of the Past, Political Ideologies, Etc.--Dialogue With Kevin Tierney (circa January 22, 2004)

More on Political Theories, Etc.--Dialogue With Kevin Tierney (circa January 23, 2004)

On Workable Remedies For Society's Problems, Etc.:--Dialogue With Kevin Tierney (circa March 31, 2004)

Society's Ills, the Function of Law in a Just Society, Etc.--Dialogue With Kevin Tierney (circa April 16, 2004)

{2} There are...certain individuals who similarly have a kind of fetish with the term "neo con" and like to use the expression (usually in a derogatory fashion) in application to a lot of different people. This attitude is of course similar to a kind of cultic deadagenting whereby the cult member seeks a pre-emptory assassination attempt of the character of a critic rather than have the common decency to consider the criticisms made on their merits or lack thereof...

[W]ith the case of certain personages who love to use this term who have thus far shirked in true chickensh*t fashion from taking responsibility for their own past and present statements, it seemed appropriate to your host to issue a very simple challenge to such people to identify the characteristics of what a so-called "neo con" is, what their underlying philosophies are, what are signature issues where they have readily identifiable positions, etc.

This is surely not a difficult thing to do; however, the manner in which the perpetrators have fled like vampires from a crucifix from the aforementioned challenge has been for Us very telling to say the least. Certainly We understand why they want to avoid that one so it seemed appropriate to issue the second and much easier challenge: produce evidences to argue for the existence of these so-called "neo cons." We at Rerum Novarum first noted this idea publicly in late October of 2005 in an audioposting[...] and followed it up a bit later with a brief revisiting of the subject with Christopher Blosser.

In other words, it has not been for want of trying on the part of some people to challenge these kinds of people to put up or...well...you know the rest. The aforementioned unsavoury sorts (to put it nicely) have ignored such simple requests for accountability and have continued to prattle on about these so-called "neo cons" including labelling certain parties as such when they have not bothered to explain what their criteria is for doing this. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa December 4, 2005)]

I just realized five minutes ago that the last "points to ponder" installment was the 200th in the history of this weblog...mainly by intuition but I counted from post 140 in the series (with the help of the search feature). Once again (as it usually is) my intuitionometer was correct.

Now the "points to ponder" feature is easily the longest running series in terms of number of installments at this weblog. And the 200th installment seems worthy of being mentioned because that is no small milestone by any means. So I note it here briefly for that and a few other reasons including (i) to show that I can post things briefly at Rerum Novarum in non-"points to ponder" format lest anyone actually doubt that, (ii) for the sake of my own recordkeeping, and also (iii) for the benefit of the Internet historical record; ergo all three reasons are met with this posting ;-)

Points to Ponder:
(On the Sanctity of Human Life and Nazi Atrocities)

The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. To start from the beginning, please go HERE.

If it is once accepted that people have the right to kill 'unproductive' fellow humans--and even if initially it only affects the poor defenseless mentally ill--then as a matter of principle murder is permitted for all unproductive people, in other words for the incurably sick, the people who have become invalids through labor and war, for us all when we become old, frail and therefore unproductive.

Then, it is only necessary for some secret edict to order that the method developed for the mentally ill should be extended to other 'unproductive' people, that it should be applied to those suffering from incurable lung disease, to the elderly who are frail or invalids, to the severely disabled soldiers. Then none of our lives will be safe any more. Some commission can put us on the list of the 'unproductive,' who in their opinion have become worthless life. And no police force will protect us and no court will investigate our murder and give the murderer the punishment he deserves.

Who will be able to trust his doctor any more?

He may report his patient as 'unproductive' and receive instructions to kill him. It is impossible to imagine the degree of moral depravity, of general mistrust that would then spread even through families if this dreadful doctrine is tolerated, accepted and followed.

Woe to mankind, woe to our German nation if God's Holy Commandment 'Thou shalt not kill,' which God proclaimed on Mount Sinai amidst thunder and lightning, which God our Creator inscribed in the conscience of mankind from the very beginning, is not only broken, but if this transgression is actually tolerated and permitted to go unpunished. [Cardinal Clemens von Galen (circa August 3, 1941)]

On the Subject of America's Founding:
(With Christopher Blosser and David Jones--Part III of III)

The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. To start from the beginning of this thread, please go HERE.

It seems appropriate at this time to review some basics on laws in general and what is required for a violator of a law to be punished needs to be considered. Among the sources to be used in exploring that point is the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia and its article on canon law:

Laws in general, and irritant laws in particular, are not retroactive, unless such is expressly declared by the legislator to be the case. The publication or promulgation of the law has a double aspect: law must be brought to the knowledge of the community in order that the latter may be able to observe it, and in this consists the publication. But there may be legal forms of publication, requisite and necessary, and in this consists the promulgation properly so called (see PROMULGATION). [Catholic Encyclopedia: From the Article Canon Law (c. 1913)]

In other words, a law must be brought to the attention of those who are expected to comply with it. This is done by promulgating the law locally and this is a function of a diocesan or metropolitan bishop for their particular area. For this reason, a law is not considered binding until it has been promulgated. And since a law requires promulgation to be valid (and further, as bishops back then had more autonomy than they do now on these matters), David's interpretation of these events shows an evidently anti-historical perspective. And of course in the event of a doubt as to the applicability of particular laws, Bishop Carroll's practicing of the Jesuit probabilism mentioned earlier{1} would be utilized and be considered morally permissible by the Vatican.

Because of the confusion on this matter which was still present in the Church in the late 1700's, the bishops would have to assess the matter to the best of their abilities taking into account the circumstances involved, etc. To remind David and others of the span of authority of the diocesan bishops:

Bishops, Jurisdiction of. Bishops are the successors of the Apostles and by divine institution rule their dioceses with ordinary power under the authority of the pope. They have legislative, juridical, and executive power... [A] bishop can enact those laws which he considers for the good of his dioceses and he is a judge in the first instance in all ecclesiastical trials; he can punish lay people with censures and clerics by deprivation of offices or censures (qv). He has supreme direction of the clergy, the conduct of divine worship, administration of ecclesiastical property, building of churches, etc. [Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary: Donald Attwater General Editor, tenth edition, pg. 62 (c. 1941)]

As the first bishop on the American continent (and probably for a time the only bishop),{2} John Carroll would have had to make sense of the conflicting approaches to masonry on the continent as well as the lack of recent papal statements on the matter making it clear that the ban was intended to be universal. There is also the subject of prudence and if Bishop Carroll in taking a hardline approach in America (where the nation was in its infancy) would not have caused more problems than less. This was after all not a case of dealing with masonry in a well-established nation as in France, England, Germany, Spain, etc. For this reason, prudence was even more important because as noxious a weed as masonry was, things would only have been compounded if it was handled too rashly by the ecclesiastical authorities. Or as the spiritual masters note on the difference between prudent and imprudent zeal:

In every home there grows some thorn, something, in other words, that needs correction; for the best soil is seldom without its noxious weed. Imprudent zeal, by seeking awkwardly to pluck out the thorn, often succeeds only in plunging it farther in, thus rendering the wound deeper and more painful. In such a case it is essential to act with reflection and great prudence. There is a time to speak and a time to be silent, says the Holy Spirit. (Ecclesiastes III., 7.) Prudent zeal is silent when it realizes that to be so is less hurtful than to speak. [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Spiritual Instruction on Zeal Part I (circa September 29, 2002)]

Perhaps Bishop Carroll judged that it would have been more hurtful to the Catholic cause in America to enforce the masonry ban in the decades after America's founding. Certainly, as long as the ban itself was not universally recognized at the time, his hesitancy on the matter cannot be faulted him. Or (to rephrase it), a Catholic with a proper approach to spiritual matters would not fault him. But that point aside, there is more to consider about Bishop Carroll.

For example, John Carroll's non-promulgation of the masonic ban in America did not prevent Pope Pius VI (r. 1775-1799) from appointing him Bishop of Baltimore in the 1780's and Pope Pius VII (r. 1800-1823) from raising him to Archepiscopal standing in 1809. David by his comments would presume to judge John Carroll in a fashion not judged by the popes of his time. More could be noted but that suffices for now to shoot some holes in the bottom of the boat of David's theories on these matters. Hopefully it is clear that once again there are complexities to these things of no small detail that fundy readings like David's do not take proper stock of. And (as always) God is in the details often overlooked.

"Meanwhile, Chris Burgwald writes an interesting post. Would be curious as to your thoughts or possibly even your participation on this thread, especially since nothing is prohibiting you from commenting.

Chris' thread reads good.

it does touch on the David Schindler vs. Fr. Neuhaus debate, if you haven't read the relevant links I can provide them.

Please do. In the meantime, these threads will be wrapped up with a final citation from William Walen's article on papal condemnations of the lodge:

It is correct that Daniel Carroll, brother of Bishop (later Archbishop) John Carroll of Baltimore was both an active (and devout) Catholic and Mason. While this might seem an impossible contradiction, it is important to know the details of the Church's condemnation of Freemasonry in the 18th century. The first official Grand Lodge was established in London in 1717, and membership spread gradually throughout Europe and even more slowly to the British Colonies. The Church made its first official statement about Freemasonry only in 1738, when Pope Clement XII (r. 1730-40) condemned the practices of the Lodges that were then multiplying in Catholic lands. His condemnation was followed by that of Pope Benedict XIV (1740-58) in a 1751 bull. The pontiff also persuaded Empress Maria Teresa of Austria to close the lodges in her empire.

It took many years for the full weight of the papal condemnations to reach every diocese of the Church. The bulls were sometimes never promulgated by some bishops who saw no need; others never understood their import; and still more never received the decree. In Ireland, for example, priests and laypeople were members for decades after the bulls were promulgated out of ignorance of the condemnation. Indeed, a Catholic, Lord Robert Edward Petre (d. 1801) was grand master of the English Lodge as late as 1772. In the Colonies, a similar situation existed, so it is possible to see how Daniel Carroll might be a member without being aware of the prohibition. In the early 19th century, starting with Pope Pius [VII] (r. 1800-23), the popes issued numerous condemnations and made much more clear the Church's opposition to the secret society. [William J. Whalen: Excerpt from the Article Papal Condemnations of the Lodge (circa 1955-1958)]

The third papal pronouncement against masonry was made by Pope Pius VII in 1821 and made it eminently clear that the ban was to be universally applicable. Subsequent confirmations by Pope Leo XII (1826), Pope Pius VIII (1829), and Pope Gregory XVI (1832) were made along with popes subsequent to them. However, there was confusion on this prior to Pius VII's time viz. the scope of the ban. Someone who was honestly seeking to learn from history rather than involve themselves in ideological anachronistic interpretations would approach these things with care. And in fact, that is the underlying thread that permeates all three of these posts -something your host will touch on briefly and then conclude this series.

Unfortunately, David has failed time and again to account for numerous threads in the mosaic of the history of the period under discussion (circa 1775-1815). For this reason, he has made no small number of errors in his reading of the historical record. But then again, if he was familiar with how history should be approached, he would not act in this fashion.{3} In the latter subject, some words from Pope John Paul II on the one hundreth anniversary of the death of Pope Leo XIII come to mind which will be used in concluding this thread.

[I]n the study of history it is impossible to apply automatically to the past criteria and values acquired only in the course of the centuries. Rather, it is important first of all to make the effort to return to the social-cultural context of the period, to understand what occurred on the basis of the motivations, circumstances and implications of the period under examination. Historical events are the result of a complex interaction between human freedom and personal and structural conditioning. All this should be borne in mind. [Pope John Paul II: Excerpt from his Message on the 100th Anniversary of the Death of Pope Leo XIII (c. 2003)]

And indeed your host has borne the above advice of Pope John Paul II in mind throughout this response. Hopefully in time, David Jones and his ideological allies will learn to act in like manner.

Addendum - For Further Reading

Catholics and the Republic (Fr. Christopher Hunter -SSPX)

With the exception of a particular bit about George Washington converting on his deathbed (this by all appearances appears to be an urban legend of sorts) and one or two other minor issues (such as the organization of the SSPX itself), I recommend the above article from my former pastor wholeheartedly.

Notes:

{1} Probabilism is something Bishop John would have learned as a Jesuit and which his brother Daniel would probably be familiar with from his six years of study at the Jesuit college in Flanders.

As far as what is and is not "binding", there was a question in the eighteenth century as to whether the nature of masonry in America was the same as masonry in Europe. This matter was later clarified in the nineteenth century but during the lifetime of Daniel Carroll, it was not so clear and failure to take this into account is for David to do Daniel and John Carroll a monumental injustice.

{2} To briefly remind readers of the authority and obligations of a diocesan bishop:

The bishop [has] obligations regarding the Holy See. Throughout his entire administration he must conform to the general legislation of the Church and the directions of the pope. [Catholic Encyclopedia: From the Article Bishops (c. 1913)]

And as Bishop Carroll made it clear in 1794 that he did not see the ban as being among the general legislation of the Church, readers should be very cautious to impute evil motives to a prelate whom the American hierachy (and not a few popes) had high praise for.

{3} Two "points to ponder" threads on the role of the historian and potential biases of certain approaches to history may prove instructional on this point:

Points to Ponder on the Role of the Historian (circa October 14, 2005)

Readers can note that my approach to this whole subject has been in accordance with the proper approach as outlined by the twentieth century British historical philosopher Herbert Butterfield...the first paragraph outlines my approach to historical issues and the second one outlines the approach of David Jones. But there is more:

Points to Ponder on the Myopic View of the Whig Historian (circa October 17, 2005)

While the example Buttefield uses in the above thread to illustrate the problematical limitations of the Whig approach to history does not apply to David Jones, the method being criticized (via the examples given) unquestionably does. There is nothing authentically ressourcement oriented in David Jones' approach to the subject in question whatever pretentions his posting them on a weblog which deals (supposedly) with ressourcement methodology may appear to imply. But that is a subject for perhaps another time.