Points to Ponder:
(On Interacting With The Arguments of Others)
The following quote was spotted yesterday when taking a breather from business research (and perusing the web):
If it were true that conservatives were racist, sexist, homophobic, fascist, stupid, inflexible, angry, and self-righteous, shouldn't their arguments be easy to deconstruct? Someone who is making a point out of anger, ideology, inflexibility, or resentment would presumably construct a flimsy argument. So why can't the argument itself be dismembered rather than the speaker's personal style or hidden motives? Why the evasions?" [Ann Coulter]
Those who recognize a congruency between the above quote and some recent audiomusings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum on the subject of reason and logic{1} get an extra gold star for paying attention.
Note:
{1} Here is the aforementioned audioposting recorded in recent days:
Miscellaneous Musings on Reason, Logic, and Their Proper Application Thereof (An Audio Post)
Other audiopostings on this subject may be recorded in the days and weeks ahead should your host feel the inclination to do so.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Prayer Requests:
I noted last week a relative of mine was dying and she passed within a day of that blog posting. Her funeral was last Saturday and yesterday another relative passed on also who had been fighting cancer. (A second cousin I am not even sure I ever met now that I think about it.)
Anyway, please remember Jenny Riley as well as Joanne in your prayers and also their closest family members too. I think Joanne's maiden name was Ripplinger. (I do not know what her married name was.)
[Lord] remember Jenny Riley and Joanne Ripplinger. In baptism they died with Christ: may they 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]
I noted last week a relative of mine was dying and she passed within a day of that blog posting. Her funeral was last Saturday and yesterday another relative passed on also who had been fighting cancer. (A second cousin I am not even sure I ever met now that I think about it.)
Anyway, please remember Jenny Riley as well as Joanne in your prayers and also their closest family members too. I think Joanne's maiden name was Ripplinger. (I do not know what her married name was.)
[Lord] remember Jenny Riley and Joanne Ripplinger. In baptism they died with Christ: may they 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]
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Points to Ponder:
(On Freedoms and How They Are Both Earned and Preserved)
[I]t has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag." [Zell Miller]
(On Freedoms and How They Are Both Earned and Preserved)
[I]t has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag." [Zell Miller]
Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing:
Your host's comments will be interspersed where applicable.
The Truth about Islamic Crusades and Imperialism (James Arlandson)
The essence of the above article can be summed up in the author's own words from the article:
It must be admitted that there is much to dislike about the European Crusades. If they are contrasted with the mission and ministry of Jesus and the first generations of Christians, then the Crusades do not look so good. But did the Europeans launch the first Crusade in a mindless, bloodthirsty and irrational way, or were there more pressing reasons? Were they the only ones to be militant?
In light of the various strands of propaganda involved on this issue, the above article is a good reminder of who started the imperialist military incursions and I will give you a hint: it was not the Christians. Moving on...
Looking Back at Iraq (Victor Davis Hanson)
The above article contains an important correction on a lot of the absurd moonbat shrieking about the military intervention in Iraq by a credentialed military historian.{1} Also worth considering is the historical parallel that Davis expounded upon in early 2002 in explaining the approach taken to the Islamic terrorists and how it was similar in several respects to how Western Europe and America approached the problem of Nazi Germany in the 1930's.
The New World of Immigration (Victor Davis Hanson)
One of the dark sides of the illegal immigration issue (read: what most people do not care to consider) is touched on in the above article.
Iraq Veteran Sues Moore Over 9/11 Film (Denise LaVoie)
A hat tip is in order to Christopher Blosser for alerting us to the thread. All I have to say about it is "praise the Lord and pass the ammunition" because it is about time this modern day Joseph Goebbels gets his comeuppance in one area where he will probably feel pain: in the pocketbook. Hopefully this honourable veteran wins his case and gets what he is seeking. But enough on that for now.
An Assessment of the First Year of Pope Benedict XVI's Papacy (Sandro Magister)
Self-explanatory except to note that Sandro Magister's insight on the interworkings of the Vatican is among the finest out there.{2}
Democrats Eye November Landslide (Ron Fournier)
Readers who think this is a pipedream on the part of the Democrats would be advised to consider some of the factors I wrote on in private late last year and blogged to this humble weblog in early spring of this year.{3}
Gore in Hay Climate Change Plea (BBC News)
Am I the only one who when I read the above article has visions of the South Park "Man-Bear-Pig" parody of Al Gore dancing in my head???{4}
Bold Statement on Immigration Shows Off Lady Liberty's Undies (WTOL -Toledo)
My sentiments precisely. The article speaks of Rep. James Sensenbrenner, normally a good barometer on these kinds of issues.{5} However, I plan to blog either tomorrow or later this week (when there is time to finish the draft) on a subject where Rep. Sensenbrenner is mistaken.
We Are Determined: Interview With Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
I certainly hope I am mistaken in detecting similar threads of reasoning between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and certain self-styled "peacemakers"{6} -the issue of the Holocaust's existence notwithstanding of course.
The Blogosphere’s own Captain Queeg (Allahpundit)
Having affixed the Captain Queeg label on someone before who was not of the blogosphere in the past,{7} I suppose affixing it to Mary Mapes is also appropriate in light of the argument she is trying to make. Essentially, she is trying to claim that the CBS document forgeries were not forged. I have dealt with some of the key argumentation fallacies surrounding that issue before and do not want to reiterate past bits on it here. However, she is essentially claiming that the documents are true by trying to attack those who have demonstrated otherwise.{8} It is the same kind of idiocy that those who raise the shibboleth of the so-called "stolen elections" of 2000 and 2004 inexorably involve themselves in.
The fallacy is in not making her own arguments to support her contentions. It does not suffice to simply claim that someone is wrong but one must propose their own alternative theory and that means going beyond merely asserting something which anyone can do.{9} In a word: Ms. Maples needs to put up or shut the hell up. I for one would prefer to see the latter but heck, if she wants to establish a theory{10} I and others can interact with, then bring...it...on. For as far as I am concerned, I doubt it will be anything more than illogical solipsistic gibberish as is par for the course with people of her particular weltanschauung. And you can take that prediction to the bank my friends...guaranteed :)
Notes:
{1} I am not by saying this asserting that Davis' arguments are unimpeachable because of his credentials as a military historian as this would be the very kind of argumentation fallacies I dealt with in another military discussion topic that spanned over a month last year and (unfortunately) resurfaced briefly in January of this year. However, Davis' solid arguments for his position are enhanced by his credentials and that is how one should appeal to an authority if they hope to do so in a non-fallacious fashion.
{2} It seems appropriate to remind readers of an excellent piece Magister wrote on the geopolitics of the Holy See
Between Venus and Mars the Church of Rome Chooses Both
The subtitle of the article reads as follows:
The Holy See’s geopolitics analyzed in the light of the dominant doctrines: realism, isolationism, internationalism, and neoconservatism. For Vatican diplomacy, there can be good reasons even for war.
Hopefully it will help in clarifying a lot of the propaganda by certain partisans against our military involvement in the Middle East viz. what the Holy See actually thinks on this matter and why. (In a nutshell: it is not as clear-cut as many have attempted to portray it.)
{3} On Geopolitical Issues, the 2006 Elections, Shifting Voting Demographics, Etc. --Dialogue With Mark Bonocore Parts I-IV (circa March 3-4, 2006)
{4} I refer of course to this on-target parody (quoted script courtesy of Right Wing News):
Students of South Park Elementary...I'm here to educate you about the single biggest threat to our planet. You see, there is something out there which threatens our very existence and may be the end of the human race as we know it. I'm talking of course about...Manbearpig...
It is a creature which roams the earth alone. It is half man, half bear, and half pig. Some people say that Manbearpig isn't real. Well, I'm here to tell you know, Manbearpig is very real, and he most certainly exists. I'm serial. Manbearpig doesn't care who you are or what you've done. Manbearpig simply wants to get you! I'm super-serial. But have no fear, because I am here to save you! And someday, when the world is rid of Manbearpig, everyone will say "Thank you, Al Gore. You're super awesome."
{5} Though I am not sure I have ever mentioned it up to this time, I have over the years used Rep. Sensenbrenner as a kind of "acid test" for initial positions on issues. This has been done primarily on those occasions when I have not had the time to study them myself with the detail required. This has proven to be a good rule to follow but all rules admit of exceptions -one of which I will be writing on soon.
{6} Here are a few threads from this weblog pertaining in some fashion or another to the subject noted above in order from newest to oldest:
Revisiting the Flawed "Chickenhawk" Argument (circa May 1, 2006)
"Vreebird" Dept. (circa March 6, 2006)
Miscellaneous Musings (circa December 10, 2005)
More on Marxists, Their Methodology, and Other Tidbits (circa July 20, 2005)
{7} A subject I do not intend to revisit at this time.
{8} Whatever one wants to say about the merits or demerits of the arguments advanced by those who have asserted that those documents were forged; nonetheless, arguments have been made to sustain the assertion. Ms. Maples cannot claim the same for her own assertions (at least not as of this writing).
{9} The following are two examples of many which could be noted from the archives of this humble weblog:
Preserving the Historical Record (circa January 23, 2006)
Responding to a Rationally Challenged So-Called "Progressivist" (circa May 17, 2005)
{10} [W]hen one is dealing with a theory, they are dealing with both abstract notions as well as coordinating dynamic principles of action. One of the author's intellectual mentors once defined a theory as "a set of non contradictory abstract ideas (or as philosophers like to call them 'principles') which purports to be either a correct description of reality or a guideline for successful action."...
Having established a working meaning of the term theory, it is worth noting also that the word thesis according to the Merriam Webster Thesaurus is related to the word theory. (Both of them having a foundation in the term assumption.) A good way of looking at this in the current context is to view a thesis as "an abstract principle or proposition to be advanced and maintained by argument" and a theory as incorporating a thesis -or a series of theses -with a guideline for successful action. The reason for this is because a theory by its nature must involve either (i) a correct description of reality or (ii) a guideline for successful action. For this reason, any viable theory involves several principles if you will which work together.
Or another way of looking at it would be to consider that a theory is being conceived of a series of non contradictory coordinative theses or points of presupposition. When viewed in this light, a theory clearly is only as strong as the theses which support it. [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa January 14, 2004)]
Your host's comments will be interspersed where applicable.
The Truth about Islamic Crusades and Imperialism (James Arlandson)
The essence of the above article can be summed up in the author's own words from the article:
It must be admitted that there is much to dislike about the European Crusades. If they are contrasted with the mission and ministry of Jesus and the first generations of Christians, then the Crusades do not look so good. But did the Europeans launch the first Crusade in a mindless, bloodthirsty and irrational way, or were there more pressing reasons? Were they the only ones to be militant?
In light of the various strands of propaganda involved on this issue, the above article is a good reminder of who started the imperialist military incursions and I will give you a hint: it was not the Christians. Moving on...
Looking Back at Iraq (Victor Davis Hanson)
The above article contains an important correction on a lot of the absurd moonbat shrieking about the military intervention in Iraq by a credentialed military historian.{1} Also worth considering is the historical parallel that Davis expounded upon in early 2002 in explaining the approach taken to the Islamic terrorists and how it was similar in several respects to how Western Europe and America approached the problem of Nazi Germany in the 1930's.
The New World of Immigration (Victor Davis Hanson)
One of the dark sides of the illegal immigration issue (read: what most people do not care to consider) is touched on in the above article.
Iraq Veteran Sues Moore Over 9/11 Film (Denise LaVoie)
A hat tip is in order to Christopher Blosser for alerting us to the thread. All I have to say about it is "praise the Lord and pass the ammunition" because it is about time this modern day Joseph Goebbels gets his comeuppance in one area where he will probably feel pain: in the pocketbook. Hopefully this honourable veteran wins his case and gets what he is seeking. But enough on that for now.
An Assessment of the First Year of Pope Benedict XVI's Papacy (Sandro Magister)
Self-explanatory except to note that Sandro Magister's insight on the interworkings of the Vatican is among the finest out there.{2}
Democrats Eye November Landslide (Ron Fournier)
Readers who think this is a pipedream on the part of the Democrats would be advised to consider some of the factors I wrote on in private late last year and blogged to this humble weblog in early spring of this year.{3}
Gore in Hay Climate Change Plea (BBC News)
Am I the only one who when I read the above article has visions of the South Park "Man-Bear-Pig" parody of Al Gore dancing in my head???{4}
Bold Statement on Immigration Shows Off Lady Liberty's Undies (WTOL -Toledo)
My sentiments precisely. The article speaks of Rep. James Sensenbrenner, normally a good barometer on these kinds of issues.{5} However, I plan to blog either tomorrow or later this week (when there is time to finish the draft) on a subject where Rep. Sensenbrenner is mistaken.
We Are Determined: Interview With Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
I certainly hope I am mistaken in detecting similar threads of reasoning between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and certain self-styled "peacemakers"{6} -the issue of the Holocaust's existence notwithstanding of course.
The Blogosphere’s own Captain Queeg (Allahpundit)
Having affixed the Captain Queeg label on someone before who was not of the blogosphere in the past,{7} I suppose affixing it to Mary Mapes is also appropriate in light of the argument she is trying to make. Essentially, she is trying to claim that the CBS document forgeries were not forged. I have dealt with some of the key argumentation fallacies surrounding that issue before and do not want to reiterate past bits on it here. However, she is essentially claiming that the documents are true by trying to attack those who have demonstrated otherwise.{8} It is the same kind of idiocy that those who raise the shibboleth of the so-called "stolen elections" of 2000 and 2004 inexorably involve themselves in.
The fallacy is in not making her own arguments to support her contentions. It does not suffice to simply claim that someone is wrong but one must propose their own alternative theory and that means going beyond merely asserting something which anyone can do.{9} In a word: Ms. Maples needs to put up or shut the hell up. I for one would prefer to see the latter but heck, if she wants to establish a theory{10} I and others can interact with, then bring...it...on. For as far as I am concerned, I doubt it will be anything more than illogical solipsistic gibberish as is par for the course with people of her particular weltanschauung. And you can take that prediction to the bank my friends...guaranteed :)
Notes:
{1} I am not by saying this asserting that Davis' arguments are unimpeachable because of his credentials as a military historian as this would be the very kind of argumentation fallacies I dealt with in another military discussion topic that spanned over a month last year and (unfortunately) resurfaced briefly in January of this year. However, Davis' solid arguments for his position are enhanced by his credentials and that is how one should appeal to an authority if they hope to do so in a non-fallacious fashion.
{2} It seems appropriate to remind readers of an excellent piece Magister wrote on the geopolitics of the Holy See
Between Venus and Mars the Church of Rome Chooses Both
The subtitle of the article reads as follows:
The Holy See’s geopolitics analyzed in the light of the dominant doctrines: realism, isolationism, internationalism, and neoconservatism. For Vatican diplomacy, there can be good reasons even for war.
Hopefully it will help in clarifying a lot of the propaganda by certain partisans against our military involvement in the Middle East viz. what the Holy See actually thinks on this matter and why. (In a nutshell: it is not as clear-cut as many have attempted to portray it.)
{3} On Geopolitical Issues, the 2006 Elections, Shifting Voting Demographics, Etc. --Dialogue With Mark Bonocore Parts I-IV (circa March 3-4, 2006)
{4} I refer of course to this on-target parody (quoted script courtesy of Right Wing News):
Students of South Park Elementary...I'm here to educate you about the single biggest threat to our planet. You see, there is something out there which threatens our very existence and may be the end of the human race as we know it. I'm talking of course about...Manbearpig...
It is a creature which roams the earth alone. It is half man, half bear, and half pig. Some people say that Manbearpig isn't real. Well, I'm here to tell you know, Manbearpig is very real, and he most certainly exists. I'm serial. Manbearpig doesn't care who you are or what you've done. Manbearpig simply wants to get you! I'm super-serial. But have no fear, because I am here to save you! And someday, when the world is rid of Manbearpig, everyone will say "Thank you, Al Gore. You're super awesome."
{5} Though I am not sure I have ever mentioned it up to this time, I have over the years used Rep. Sensenbrenner as a kind of "acid test" for initial positions on issues. This has been done primarily on those occasions when I have not had the time to study them myself with the detail required. This has proven to be a good rule to follow but all rules admit of exceptions -one of which I will be writing on soon.
{6} Here are a few threads from this weblog pertaining in some fashion or another to the subject noted above in order from newest to oldest:
Revisiting the Flawed "Chickenhawk" Argument (circa May 1, 2006)
"Vreebird" Dept. (circa March 6, 2006)
Miscellaneous Musings (circa December 10, 2005)
More on Marxists, Their Methodology, and Other Tidbits (circa July 20, 2005)
{7} A subject I do not intend to revisit at this time.
{8} Whatever one wants to say about the merits or demerits of the arguments advanced by those who have asserted that those documents were forged; nonetheless, arguments have been made to sustain the assertion. Ms. Maples cannot claim the same for her own assertions (at least not as of this writing).
{9} The following are two examples of many which could be noted from the archives of this humble weblog:
Preserving the Historical Record (circa January 23, 2006)
Responding to a Rationally Challenged So-Called "Progressivist" (circa May 17, 2005)
{10} [W]hen one is dealing with a theory, they are dealing with both abstract notions as well as coordinating dynamic principles of action. One of the author's intellectual mentors once defined a theory as "a set of non contradictory abstract ideas (or as philosophers like to call them 'principles') which purports to be either a correct description of reality or a guideline for successful action."...
Having established a working meaning of the term theory, it is worth noting also that the word thesis according to the Merriam Webster Thesaurus is related to the word theory. (Both of them having a foundation in the term assumption.) A good way of looking at this in the current context is to view a thesis as "an abstract principle or proposition to be advanced and maintained by argument" and a theory as incorporating a thesis -or a series of theses -with a guideline for successful action. The reason for this is because a theory by its nature must involve either (i) a correct description of reality or (ii) a guideline for successful action. For this reason, any viable theory involves several principles if you will which work together.
Or another way of looking at it would be to consider that a theory is being conceived of a series of non contradictory coordinative theses or points of presupposition. When viewed in this light, a theory clearly is only as strong as the theses which support it. [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa January 14, 2004)]
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Points to Ponder:
(A D-Day Rememberance)
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped free a continent. These are the heroes who helped end a war.
Gentlemen, I look at you and I think of the words of Stephen Spender's poem. You are men who in your "lives fought for life . . . and left the vivid air signed with your honor.''
I think I know what you may be thinking right now--thinking, "We were just part of a bigger effort; everyone was brave that day.'' Well, everyone was. Do you remember the story of Bill Millin of the 51st Highlanders? Forty years ago today, British troops were pinned down near a bridge, waiting desperately for help. Suddenly, they heard the sound of bagpipes, and some thought they were dreaming. Well, they weren't. They looked up and saw Bill Millin with his bagpipes, leading the reinforcements and ignoring the smack of the bullets into the ground around him.
Lord Lovat was with him--Lord Lovat of Scotland, who calmly announced when he got to the bridge, "Sorry I'm a few minutes late,'' as if he'd been delayed by a traffic jam, when in truth he'd just come from the bloody fighting on Sword Beach, which he and his men had just taken.
There was the impossible valor of the Poles who threw themselves between the enemy and the rest of Europe as the invasion took hold, and the unsurpassed courage of the Canadians who had already seen the horrors of war on this coast. They knew what awaited them there, but they would not be deterred. And once they hit Juno Beach, they never looked back.
All of these men were part of a rollcall of honor with names that spoke of a pride as bright as the colors they bore: the Royal Winnipeg Rifles, Poland's 24th Lancers, the Royal Scots Fusiliers, the Screaming Eagles, the Yeomen of England's armored divisions, the forces of Free France, the Coast Guard's "Matchbox Fleet'' and you, the American Rangers.
Forty summers have passed since the battle that you fought here. You were young the day you took these cliffs; some of you were hardly more than boys, with the deepest joys of life before you. Yet, you risked everything here. Why? Why did you do it? What impelled you to put aside the instinct for self-preservation and risk your lives to take these cliffs? What inspired all the men of the armies that met here? We look at you, and somehow we know the answer. It was faith and belief; it was loyalty and love.
The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next. It was the deep knowledge--and pray God we have not lost it--that there is a profound, moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.
You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you. [President Ronald W. Reagan (circa June 6, 1984)]
(A D-Day Rememberance)
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped free a continent. These are the heroes who helped end a war.
Gentlemen, I look at you and I think of the words of Stephen Spender's poem. You are men who in your "lives fought for life . . . and left the vivid air signed with your honor.''
I think I know what you may be thinking right now--thinking, "We were just part of a bigger effort; everyone was brave that day.'' Well, everyone was. Do you remember the story of Bill Millin of the 51st Highlanders? Forty years ago today, British troops were pinned down near a bridge, waiting desperately for help. Suddenly, they heard the sound of bagpipes, and some thought they were dreaming. Well, they weren't. They looked up and saw Bill Millin with his bagpipes, leading the reinforcements and ignoring the smack of the bullets into the ground around him.
Lord Lovat was with him--Lord Lovat of Scotland, who calmly announced when he got to the bridge, "Sorry I'm a few minutes late,'' as if he'd been delayed by a traffic jam, when in truth he'd just come from the bloody fighting on Sword Beach, which he and his men had just taken.
There was the impossible valor of the Poles who threw themselves between the enemy and the rest of Europe as the invasion took hold, and the unsurpassed courage of the Canadians who had already seen the horrors of war on this coast. They knew what awaited them there, but they would not be deterred. And once they hit Juno Beach, they never looked back.
All of these men were part of a rollcall of honor with names that spoke of a pride as bright as the colors they bore: the Royal Winnipeg Rifles, Poland's 24th Lancers, the Royal Scots Fusiliers, the Screaming Eagles, the Yeomen of England's armored divisions, the forces of Free France, the Coast Guard's "Matchbox Fleet'' and you, the American Rangers.
Forty summers have passed since the battle that you fought here. You were young the day you took these cliffs; some of you were hardly more than boys, with the deepest joys of life before you. Yet, you risked everything here. Why? Why did you do it? What impelled you to put aside the instinct for self-preservation and risk your lives to take these cliffs? What inspired all the men of the armies that met here? We look at you, and somehow we know the answer. It was faith and belief; it was loyalty and love.
The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next. It was the deep knowledge--and pray God we have not lost it--that there is a profound, moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.
You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you. [President Ronald W. Reagan (circa June 6, 1984)]
Friday, June 02, 2006
Thursday, June 01, 2006
On the Fourth Amendment, The Supreme Court, and Warrantless Searches:
(Aka "One From the Mailbag" Dept.)
My interlocuter's words will be in blue font.
I believe your reading of the 4th [Amendment] is incorrect. If you look at the text the first clause, about unreasonable searches, it is an independent clause and can function as a complete sentence. The following part, about warrants, is also an independent clause. This means that searches are grammatically and logically distinct from the issuance of warrants. A search, in other words, can be reasonable and warrantless, but a warrant requires certain standards.
This is certainly a feasible theory you have. I should note that my intention of that posting was not to deal with all facets of what is and is not an acceptable search in conformity with constitutional principles. Essentially, I did not intend to say anything more than if the four provisions in the body of the amendment are met, the argument for a constitutional violation when raiding a building to search and seize cannot be credibly maintained. That is all.{1}
I'm not a lawyer, but if I recall correctly I think there have been a number of cases in which SCOTUS has ruled that some warrantless searches are reasonable.
Well, the Supreme Court has ruled on a lot of issues where one wonders what they are smoking in the judges chambers (to put it mildly). Need I remind you of Kelo{2}??? When the justices can miss the boat that badly on constitutional so-called "interpretation", one should be hesitant if the judgments you talk about were handed down by a Supreme Court with the same justice configuration as the one that muffed that ruling. But I digress.
Notes:
{1} Upon reviewing that text, I see that the phrasing I used lent itself to the interpretation my interlocuter placed on it. For that reason, I have tweaked the text slightly in a few spots to clarify my original intentions and thank the writer for bringing it to my attention.
{2} Miscellaneous Notes and Notifications (circa June 29, 2005)
(Aka "One From the Mailbag" Dept.)
My interlocuter's words will be in blue font.
I believe your reading of the 4th [Amendment] is incorrect. If you look at the text the first clause, about unreasonable searches, it is an independent clause and can function as a complete sentence. The following part, about warrants, is also an independent clause. This means that searches are grammatically and logically distinct from the issuance of warrants. A search, in other words, can be reasonable and warrantless, but a warrant requires certain standards.
This is certainly a feasible theory you have. I should note that my intention of that posting was not to deal with all facets of what is and is not an acceptable search in conformity with constitutional principles. Essentially, I did not intend to say anything more than if the four provisions in the body of the amendment are met, the argument for a constitutional violation when raiding a building to search and seize cannot be credibly maintained. That is all.{1}
I'm not a lawyer, but if I recall correctly I think there have been a number of cases in which SCOTUS has ruled that some warrantless searches are reasonable.
Well, the Supreme Court has ruled on a lot of issues where one wonders what they are smoking in the judges chambers (to put it mildly). Need I remind you of Kelo{2}??? When the justices can miss the boat that badly on constitutional so-called "interpretation", one should be hesitant if the judgments you talk about were handed down by a Supreme Court with the same justice configuration as the one that muffed that ruling. But I digress.
Notes:
{1} Upon reviewing that text, I see that the phrasing I used lent itself to the interpretation my interlocuter placed on it. For that reason, I have tweaked the text slightly in a few spots to clarify my original intentions and thank the writer for bringing it to my attention.
{2} Miscellaneous Notes and Notifications (circa June 29, 2005)
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Saturday, May 27, 2006
On the Latest Bush Administration SNAFU Situation:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Readers of this weblog are aware that I have had a rather ambivalent view of President Bush for years. On some issues, his approach is correct and on others there is little if anything to differentiate him from those who politically oppose him. On the latest situation with the FBI raid of Rep. William Jefferson's offices, at the very least there is the appearance of impropriety in how this was handled. The usual suspects are griping about supposed "Constitutional violations" but in doing this, they only show how the Constitution is appealed to by them when it is expedient and otherwise it is ignored. In this case, the griping is about the fourth amendment and a supposed "infringement" therein. Let us consider now that amendment and what it allows and does not allow:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Okay now, it is made clear in the text that what people are to be secure from is unreasonable searches and seizures. That phrasing implies that there are searches and seizures which are reasonable; otherwise the text would assert a right from all forms of searches and seizures. It is also clear that a search and seizure can be considered "reasonable" if certain guidelines are followed including (i) issuing a warrant to search, (ii) issuing said warrant with probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, (iii) a description of the place to be searched being included in the aforesaid warrant, and (iv) the persons or things to be seized also being described in the warrant issued. If the aforementioned criteria is met, than the assertion of a "constitutional violation" has no merit to it whatsoever.
Let us start with the issuing of a search warrant. Was this done in the Jefferson case??? Yes it was and you can review it HERE if you like. In fact, open that text in a separate window and let us go over it step by step.
We know that a warrant was issued so step one of the procedure for a reasonable search and seizure was met. If you look at the first part of the warrant, you will see a sworn affidavit which meets part of the second part of the criteria for a reasonable search and seizure. Included in that affidavit is a detailed description of the place to be searched which meets the third criteria and a listing of the persons or things to be seized is also listed -albeit in the link above (available for public viewing) they are blacked out for confidentiality purposes.{1} The warrant is ninety-five pages long and contains all the required criteria for a reasonable search including establishing within it the reasons for probable cause justifying the search thus meeting the second part of the second piece of criteria for a reasonable search and seizure.
In the search warrant, the arguments for probable cause include violations by Rep. Jefferson of (i) bribery of a public official, (ii) wire fraud -deprivation of honest services, (iii) wire fraud -scheme to defraud, (iv) bribery of a foreign official, (v) conspiracy to commit the aforementioned offenses. So as the criteria was met as enumerated by the fourth amendment, the search therefore was reasonable and the the cries of "unconstitutionality" on this are nothing more than the babblings of ignorant people. But that is not all.
As Texas Fred noted, the Bush Administration is attempting to get in the way of the FBI doing their job here and that has resulted in the Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the Director of the FBI Robert S. Mueller III threatening to resign. If there is probable cause that an elected representative of the United States (in this case, Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana) broke the law, then the FBI and the Attorney General are acting accordingly here and any attempt to obstruct them in the process is a serious offense. It stretches credibility to claim it is an impeachable offense in and of itself of course; however, that does not mean that the matter is lacking in seriousness.
Now I am aware that even House Republican leaders are claiming that this is a constitutional violation but there is another dynamic involved here that needs to be considered: 2006 is an election year. Because of the latter, there are probably some who want to be on the side of objecting to this because (i) President Bush's popularity figures are at an all-time low and (ii) by opposing the president of their own party, the Republicans who take that position can try to claim some kind of independence from presidential coattails going into the fall elections.
As much as I am hesitant to compare the Bush Administration to the Nixon Administration, on the matter of interfering with an FBI investigation, it certainly appears that there is a viable connection to be made on that point. Likewise, much as I am hesitant to compare the Bush Administration to the Clinton Administration, it bears noting that one of the charges brought against President Clinton and which he was impeached on{2} was obstruction of justice. With that in mind, I cannot fault some people{3} for seeing in the above comparisons a stronger case on obstruction of justice being levied at President Bush than President Clinton considering the seriousness of the charges involved with the obstruction of justice in the Jefferson case. By contrast, Bill Clinton lying under oath to a grand jury about his sexual escapades{4} is more of a bagatelle really. But enough on this matter for now.
[Update: Due to a misunderstanding of my intention in writing this post, the material above has been tweaked a bit in spots. I explain my reasons for doing this HERE. - ISM 6/01/06 5:50pm]
Notes:
{1} This is hardly irregular since (i) evidence in a criminal investigation is supposed to be protected and (ii) the public does not have a right to know the intricacies of this criminal investigation any more than they do any other investigation. It suffices that the requirements for reasonable search and seizure are met which could logically be taken to mean the guidelines noted in the fourth amendment. As was noted above, this has been met in the Jefferson case so no more needs to be said on this point at this time.
{2} The House impeaches and the Senate votes for removal from office; ergo this explains why Clinton could be impeached and yet still serve out the remaining part of his term.
{3} Obviously those who have been spreading lies and libel about George Bush the past six years on a whole host of issues are not to be taken seriously as they are simply like the blind pig who finds an acorn once in a while. (Not hard to do when you rail against everything.) But even many who are much more discerning and who are willing to allow for the normal conventions of politics in their analysis, some of this cannot help but be troubling.
{4} There were far more impeachable high crimes (including treason) committed in the Clinton Administration. Or as I noted when discussing these issues in mid 2003:
Where were these nitwits during Filegate when Clinton and his wife pilfered over 1,000 FBI files on political opponents??? Chuck Colson went to jail for a while in the 1970's for possessing just ONE of these kinds of files. But Clinton??? Nope, he and Moloch Hillary got off scott free because there is a clear and unmistakable double-standard here.
What about Chinagate where the safety of our nuclear secrets were sacrificed for re-election funds??? Anyone who thinks THIS can possibly be less problematical than any war mismanagement by the current president is in need of a SERIOUS reality transplant. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 11, 2003)]
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Readers of this weblog are aware that I have had a rather ambivalent view of President Bush for years. On some issues, his approach is correct and on others there is little if anything to differentiate him from those who politically oppose him. On the latest situation with the FBI raid of Rep. William Jefferson's offices, at the very least there is the appearance of impropriety in how this was handled. The usual suspects are griping about supposed "Constitutional violations" but in doing this, they only show how the Constitution is appealed to by them when it is expedient and otherwise it is ignored. In this case, the griping is about the fourth amendment and a supposed "infringement" therein. Let us consider now that amendment and what it allows and does not allow:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Okay now, it is made clear in the text that what people are to be secure from is unreasonable searches and seizures. That phrasing implies that there are searches and seizures which are reasonable; otherwise the text would assert a right from all forms of searches and seizures. It is also clear that a search and seizure can be considered "reasonable" if certain guidelines are followed including (i) issuing a warrant to search, (ii) issuing said warrant with probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, (iii) a description of the place to be searched being included in the aforesaid warrant, and (iv) the persons or things to be seized also being described in the warrant issued. If the aforementioned criteria is met, than the assertion of a "constitutional violation" has no merit to it whatsoever.
Let us start with the issuing of a search warrant. Was this done in the Jefferson case??? Yes it was and you can review it HERE if you like. In fact, open that text in a separate window and let us go over it step by step.
We know that a warrant was issued so step one of the procedure for a reasonable search and seizure was met. If you look at the first part of the warrant, you will see a sworn affidavit which meets part of the second part of the criteria for a reasonable search and seizure. Included in that affidavit is a detailed description of the place to be searched which meets the third criteria and a listing of the persons or things to be seized is also listed -albeit in the link above (available for public viewing) they are blacked out for confidentiality purposes.{1} The warrant is ninety-five pages long and contains all the required criteria for a reasonable search including establishing within it the reasons for probable cause justifying the search thus meeting the second part of the second piece of criteria for a reasonable search and seizure.
In the search warrant, the arguments for probable cause include violations by Rep. Jefferson of (i) bribery of a public official, (ii) wire fraud -deprivation of honest services, (iii) wire fraud -scheme to defraud, (iv) bribery of a foreign official, (v) conspiracy to commit the aforementioned offenses. So as the criteria was met as enumerated by the fourth amendment, the search therefore was reasonable and the the cries of "unconstitutionality" on this are nothing more than the babblings of ignorant people. But that is not all.
As Texas Fred noted, the Bush Administration is attempting to get in the way of the FBI doing their job here and that has resulted in the Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the Director of the FBI Robert S. Mueller III threatening to resign. If there is probable cause that an elected representative of the United States (in this case, Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana) broke the law, then the FBI and the Attorney General are acting accordingly here and any attempt to obstruct them in the process is a serious offense. It stretches credibility to claim it is an impeachable offense in and of itself of course; however, that does not mean that the matter is lacking in seriousness.
Now I am aware that even House Republican leaders are claiming that this is a constitutional violation but there is another dynamic involved here that needs to be considered: 2006 is an election year. Because of the latter, there are probably some who want to be on the side of objecting to this because (i) President Bush's popularity figures are at an all-time low and (ii) by opposing the president of their own party, the Republicans who take that position can try to claim some kind of independence from presidential coattails going into the fall elections.
As much as I am hesitant to compare the Bush Administration to the Nixon Administration, on the matter of interfering with an FBI investigation, it certainly appears that there is a viable connection to be made on that point. Likewise, much as I am hesitant to compare the Bush Administration to the Clinton Administration, it bears noting that one of the charges brought against President Clinton and which he was impeached on{2} was obstruction of justice. With that in mind, I cannot fault some people{3} for seeing in the above comparisons a stronger case on obstruction of justice being levied at President Bush than President Clinton considering the seriousness of the charges involved with the obstruction of justice in the Jefferson case. By contrast, Bill Clinton lying under oath to a grand jury about his sexual escapades{4} is more of a bagatelle really. But enough on this matter for now.
[Update: Due to a misunderstanding of my intention in writing this post, the material above has been tweaked a bit in spots. I explain my reasons for doing this HERE. - ISM 6/01/06 5:50pm]
Notes:
{1} This is hardly irregular since (i) evidence in a criminal investigation is supposed to be protected and (ii) the public does not have a right to know the intricacies of this criminal investigation any more than they do any other investigation. It suffices that the requirements for reasonable search and seizure are met which could logically be taken to mean the guidelines noted in the fourth amendment. As was noted above, this has been met in the Jefferson case so no more needs to be said on this point at this time.
{2} The House impeaches and the Senate votes for removal from office; ergo this explains why Clinton could be impeached and yet still serve out the remaining part of his term.
{3} Obviously those who have been spreading lies and libel about George Bush the past six years on a whole host of issues are not to be taken seriously as they are simply like the blind pig who finds an acorn once in a while. (Not hard to do when you rail against everything.) But even many who are much more discerning and who are willing to allow for the normal conventions of politics in their analysis, some of this cannot help but be troubling.
{4} There were far more impeachable high crimes (including treason) committed in the Clinton Administration. Or as I noted when discussing these issues in mid 2003:
Where were these nitwits during Filegate when Clinton and his wife pilfered over 1,000 FBI files on political opponents??? Chuck Colson went to jail for a while in the 1970's for possessing just ONE of these kinds of files. But Clinton??? Nope, he and Moloch Hillary got off scott free because there is a clear and unmistakable double-standard here.
What about Chinagate where the safety of our nuclear secrets were sacrificed for re-election funds??? Anyone who thinks THIS can possibly be less problematical than any war mismanagement by the current president is in need of a SERIOUS reality transplant. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 11, 2003)]
Thursday, May 25, 2006
The rarely updated Miscellaneous BLOG has received a new post today inspired by the words of Texas Fred. That entry is accessible HERE for those who are interested in a new word definition for future discussions and (perhaps) posterity.
"Cohiba Ergo Sum" Dept.
(Dan Brown and The DaVinci Code Are "MISTed" The Curmudgeon in a Guest Editorial)
[Prefatory Note: Unlike what I normally do with guest editorials (either posit prefatory and/or concluding commentary or write a separate commentary of my own on them) with this one, it is so short and self-explanatory (I hope) that those conventions can be avoided. Without further ado, here it is. -ISM]
#######
If Dan Brown wrote a novel about the Holocaust it would probably look like this:
Robert Langdon, while on a lecture tour in Germany, is contacted by a reclusive unorthodox World War 2 historian who claims to have a great secret which would rock the Western world to its foundations:
Everything we have been taught for the past 60 years about the Nazis and the Holocaust were lies, Langdon is told. No Jews died at the hands of the Nazis and there were no death camps in Poland and Eastern Europe. In fact, Langdon "discovers," the "real" secret behind the Holocaust is that the Nazis were persecuted by the Jews, not the other way around. Langdon also "discovers" that the "myth of the Holocaust" was created by a Vast Zionist Conspiracy under the control of the Israeli government and international bankers.
Langdon soon "learns" that for thousands of years ruthless Jewish conspirators have been murdering the true heirs of Abraham in order to preserve their false version of Judaism and to hide the “truth” that Abraham really worshiped the Divine Feminine and intended to start a fertility cult.
The "evidence" Langdon uncovers? A set of "ancient" secret documents known as "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." (The "Protocols" were actually fabricated by the Russian secret police and released to a gullible Russian public as a pretext for the Czar's systematic murder of thousands of innocent Jewish peasants. But so what?)
Of course, Dan Brown would say that all this is "just fiction," but that it "poses" some "interesting" questions about history, which we can't really know anything about for sure anyway. After all, Brown would argue, he has done his research:
He has read the "scholarly" papers published by the Institute for Historical Review and "well-researched" books such as "Did Six Million Really Die?" and "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century." (Both books were written by notorious neo-Nazi nutcases, and the IHR was set up by a well-known anti-semitic propagandist. But what the heck; it's great material for a novel, no?)
And so it would go in the confused world of Dan Brown.
#######
(Dan Brown and The DaVinci Code Are "MISTed" The Curmudgeon in a Guest Editorial)
[Prefatory Note: Unlike what I normally do with guest editorials (either posit prefatory and/or concluding commentary or write a separate commentary of my own on them) with this one, it is so short and self-explanatory (I hope) that those conventions can be avoided. Without further ado, here it is. -ISM]
#######
If Dan Brown wrote a novel about the Holocaust it would probably look like this:
Robert Langdon, while on a lecture tour in Germany, is contacted by a reclusive unorthodox World War 2 historian who claims to have a great secret which would rock the Western world to its foundations:
Everything we have been taught for the past 60 years about the Nazis and the Holocaust were lies, Langdon is told. No Jews died at the hands of the Nazis and there were no death camps in Poland and Eastern Europe. In fact, Langdon "discovers," the "real" secret behind the Holocaust is that the Nazis were persecuted by the Jews, not the other way around. Langdon also "discovers" that the "myth of the Holocaust" was created by a Vast Zionist Conspiracy under the control of the Israeli government and international bankers.
Langdon soon "learns" that for thousands of years ruthless Jewish conspirators have been murdering the true heirs of Abraham in order to preserve their false version of Judaism and to hide the “truth” that Abraham really worshiped the Divine Feminine and intended to start a fertility cult.
The "evidence" Langdon uncovers? A set of "ancient" secret documents known as "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." (The "Protocols" were actually fabricated by the Russian secret police and released to a gullible Russian public as a pretext for the Czar's systematic murder of thousands of innocent Jewish peasants. But so what?)
Of course, Dan Brown would say that all this is "just fiction," but that it "poses" some "interesting" questions about history, which we can't really know anything about for sure anyway. After all, Brown would argue, he has done his research:
He has read the "scholarly" papers published by the Institute for Historical Review and "well-researched" books such as "Did Six Million Really Die?" and "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century." (Both books were written by notorious neo-Nazi nutcases, and the IHR was set up by a well-known anti-semitic propagandist. But what the heck; it's great material for a novel, no?)
And so it would go in the confused world of Dan Brown.
#######
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
A Weblog Remembrance:
Considering how much the propagandists in the MSM made a big deal out of the "2000th death in Iraq since the start of military operations" last year, I do not expect them to give equal time to the fact that we have now surpassed 5,000th deaths at the hands of Islamic terrorists since September 11, 2001. Nonetheless, you can view it for yourself in the side margin of this humble weblog and click on the logo to get the code to add to your own website or weblog if you have one and feel inclined to do that. (The logo will also be included in this posting.) If not than at the very least give a minimal of equal time to this milestone in the war on terror if you do not want to be thought of as placing ideology ahead of both principles as well as consistency.
Considering how much the propagandists in the MSM made a big deal out of the "2000th death in Iraq since the start of military operations" last year, I do not expect them to give equal time to the fact that we have now surpassed 5,000th deaths at the hands of Islamic terrorists since September 11, 2001. Nonetheless, you can view it for yourself in the side margin of this humble weblog and click on the logo to get the code to add to your own website or weblog if you have one and feel inclined to do that. (The logo will also be included in this posting.) If not than at the very least give a minimal of equal time to this milestone in the war on terror if you do not want to be thought of as placing ideology ahead of both principles as well as consistency.
Monday, May 22, 2006
"Dog Days of Summer" Dept.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Apparently I am not the only one who has noticed this situation as of late:
Blogger Burnout: it's the end of the beginning ("Neo-NeoCon")
The above post explains to some extent why I have found blogging such a chore as of late -though I do not have a problem "wrapping my mind around" the Iran issue as the writer above claims that they do. But just because I can "wrap my mind around" the issue does not mean that I am either (i) enthusiastic to discuss it or (ii) motivated to put much energy into blogging. I sense that the summer months will be hard ones blogging-wise to maintain reasonable production on this matter both with my business increasing in time demands and the general mental malaise noted by "neo-neocon" in the thread noted above.
There is a reason why they refer to the summer months as the "dog days of summer" and with this being an election year, it is imperative that minds remain focused on the big picture and not get bogged down with side distractions. And as I intend to be razor sharp for the final months before the election; ergo that will necessitate dialing back the intensity a bit for the summer months. Intensity and duration are two sides of the same coin and this is manifested in the laws of nature itself.{1} I am not therefore going to try and fight it as I know it will be futile and I take Santayana's dictum{2} seriously.
Notes:
{1} I remind you of the theories of motion as discovered by Sir Isaac Newton. If an object in motion will remain in motion, then attempts to stop that object will not succeed without a greater or equal force being involved. In light of the manner whereby intensity and duration are inversely proportioned, an intense reaction cannot sustain itself for very long in opposing an object in motion -particularly if that object appeals to the lower levels of our nature from which there is continual struggle against anyway.
What must be attempted is to reverse the direction of the moving object but the approach taken has to be one focused on success over the long term. For that reason, the intensity behind such an approach has to be by logical necessity of lessor import if there is to be a conceivable reversal of trends that will be more than illusory. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa August 11, 2004]
{2} It is a lesson that with elections coming up needs to be reiterated time and again lest we repeat history because we do not learn from it (cf. Santayana). [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 17, 2002)]
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Apparently I am not the only one who has noticed this situation as of late:
Blogger Burnout: it's the end of the beginning ("Neo-NeoCon")
The above post explains to some extent why I have found blogging such a chore as of late -though I do not have a problem "wrapping my mind around" the Iran issue as the writer above claims that they do. But just because I can "wrap my mind around" the issue does not mean that I am either (i) enthusiastic to discuss it or (ii) motivated to put much energy into blogging. I sense that the summer months will be hard ones blogging-wise to maintain reasonable production on this matter both with my business increasing in time demands and the general mental malaise noted by "neo-neocon" in the thread noted above.
There is a reason why they refer to the summer months as the "dog days of summer" and with this being an election year, it is imperative that minds remain focused on the big picture and not get bogged down with side distractions. And as I intend to be razor sharp for the final months before the election; ergo that will necessitate dialing back the intensity a bit for the summer months. Intensity and duration are two sides of the same coin and this is manifested in the laws of nature itself.{1} I am not therefore going to try and fight it as I know it will be futile and I take Santayana's dictum{2} seriously.
Notes:
{1} I remind you of the theories of motion as discovered by Sir Isaac Newton. If an object in motion will remain in motion, then attempts to stop that object will not succeed without a greater or equal force being involved. In light of the manner whereby intensity and duration are inversely proportioned, an intense reaction cannot sustain itself for very long in opposing an object in motion -particularly if that object appeals to the lower levels of our nature from which there is continual struggle against anyway.
What must be attempted is to reverse the direction of the moving object but the approach taken has to be one focused on success over the long term. For that reason, the intensity behind such an approach has to be by logical necessity of lessor import if there is to be a conceivable reversal of trends that will be more than illusory. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa August 11, 2004]
{2} It is a lesson that with elections coming up needs to be reiterated time and again lest we repeat history because we do not learn from it (cf. Santayana). [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 17, 2002)]
Saturday, May 20, 2006
"Mexicali Blues" Dept.
(For Securing Our Southern Border)
Ahat tip sombrero tip is due to the Texas Cowgirl on this one...
(For Securing Our Southern Border)
A
Friday, May 19, 2006
"Crying 'Wolf'" Dept.
(On The DaVinci Code and Movie Protests in General)
I seem to be one of the few Christians who has not blown a gasket over the whole DaVinci Code situation. Perhaps the reason for this is my operative presupposition lo these many years of watching movies like this bomb at the box office time and again. That may explain part of it but the other is an instinct that the repetitive shrieking by various religious groups about the latest movie "abomination" almost always gives the movie in question publicity that it generally does not need. (The media maxim "there is no such thing as bad publicity" comes to mind here.)
That is not to say that on occasion it is not appropriate for practical or tactical reasons to register a public protest of course. And I would not be telling the truth if I did not admit that I have on occasion done this -particularly in 2003 and 2004 with two movies that were released in 2004.{1} But those were exceptions to the rule for reasons which I made clear in the respective postings dealing with them.{2}
It seems as obvious to me as the sun rising in the east every morning that a protest that has a hope of success needs to be carefully undertaken. That means picking targets with care and not bitching and moaning about every poorly made and religiously/morally objectionable movie that is made. For to do this is to emulate the fable about The Boy Who Cried 'Wolf' and I cannot see how that helps in the culture wars.
But as usual though, Santatyana's dictum is probably going to be ignored by those who act in this fashion until the time a real wolf is at the doorstep...at which time no one will believe these people when they resort to their predictable whining and complaining yet again.
Notes:
{1} Those movies were The Passion of the Christ and Fahrenheit 9/11. My reasons for selecting those movies can be ascertained in the threads listed below pertaining to each movie --not everything which was blogged on these matters at this humble weblog but certainly most of the postings:
The Passion of the Christ
Dialogue on Mel Gibson's Movie--Parts I-II (circa October 4-5, 2003)
On "Traditionalism", "Antisemitism", and Mel Gibson (circa November 18, 2003)
Miscellaneous Morning Musings on The Passion of the Christ (circa February 20, 2004)
More on the Mel Gibson/Hutton Gibson situation (circa February 22, 2004)
Guest Editorial on Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ --By Mark Downey with Commentary by I. Shawn McElhinney (circa February 24, 2004)
Briefly on The Passion of the Christ (circa March 2, 2004)
Fahrenheit 9/11 and The Passion of the Christ
A Tale of Two Movies: Fahrenheit 9/11 vs. The Passion of the Christ (circa July 15, 2004)
Fahrenheit 9/11
Some Links onJoseph Goebbels Reincarnated Michael Moore (circa June 27, 2004)
Fifty-Nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 (circa August 24, 2004)
Miscellaneous Thread For Viewing (circa October 18, 2004)
A Weblog Amendment (circa October 22, 2004)
{2} Or in summary form, with Gibson's movie I did not feel the hubbub about it was warranted since (i) it started before the project was even completed and before the movie hit theatres and (ii) I was disgusted at the double standards employed by almost all of its critics. With the Moore movie it was another reason altogether: it got a ton of publicity and was packed with countless Goebbelsian deceptions intended to sway a voting audience in a crucial election year. For that reason, I allowed the Alexander Hamilton side to my tendencies a bit of free reign to do whatever I could do to undermine that movie having an effect.
(On The DaVinci Code and Movie Protests in General)
I seem to be one of the few Christians who has not blown a gasket over the whole DaVinci Code situation. Perhaps the reason for this is my operative presupposition lo these many years of watching movies like this bomb at the box office time and again. That may explain part of it but the other is an instinct that the repetitive shrieking by various religious groups about the latest movie "abomination" almost always gives the movie in question publicity that it generally does not need. (The media maxim "there is no such thing as bad publicity" comes to mind here.)
That is not to say that on occasion it is not appropriate for practical or tactical reasons to register a public protest of course. And I would not be telling the truth if I did not admit that I have on occasion done this -particularly in 2003 and 2004 with two movies that were released in 2004.{1} But those were exceptions to the rule for reasons which I made clear in the respective postings dealing with them.{2}
It seems as obvious to me as the sun rising in the east every morning that a protest that has a hope of success needs to be carefully undertaken. That means picking targets with care and not bitching and moaning about every poorly made and religiously/morally objectionable movie that is made. For to do this is to emulate the fable about The Boy Who Cried 'Wolf' and I cannot see how that helps in the culture wars.
But as usual though, Santatyana's dictum is probably going to be ignored by those who act in this fashion until the time a real wolf is at the doorstep...at which time no one will believe these people when they resort to their predictable whining and complaining yet again.
Notes:
{1} Those movies were The Passion of the Christ and Fahrenheit 9/11. My reasons for selecting those movies can be ascertained in the threads listed below pertaining to each movie --not everything which was blogged on these matters at this humble weblog but certainly most of the postings:
The Passion of the Christ
Dialogue on Mel Gibson's Movie--Parts I-II (circa October 4-5, 2003)
On "Traditionalism", "Antisemitism", and Mel Gibson (circa November 18, 2003)
Miscellaneous Morning Musings on The Passion of the Christ (circa February 20, 2004)
More on the Mel Gibson/Hutton Gibson situation (circa February 22, 2004)
Guest Editorial on Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ --By Mark Downey with Commentary by I. Shawn McElhinney (circa February 24, 2004)
Briefly on The Passion of the Christ (circa March 2, 2004)
Fahrenheit 9/11 and The Passion of the Christ
A Tale of Two Movies: Fahrenheit 9/11 vs. The Passion of the Christ (circa July 15, 2004)
Fahrenheit 9/11
Some Links on
Fifty-Nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 (circa August 24, 2004)
Miscellaneous Thread For Viewing (circa October 18, 2004)
A Weblog Amendment (circa October 22, 2004)
{2} Or in summary form, with Gibson's movie I did not feel the hubbub about it was warranted since (i) it started before the project was even completed and before the movie hit theatres and (ii) I was disgusted at the double standards employed by almost all of its critics. With the Moore movie it was another reason altogether: it got a ton of publicity and was packed with countless Goebbelsian deceptions intended to sway a voting audience in a crucial election year. For that reason, I allowed the Alexander Hamilton side to my tendencies a bit of free reign to do whatever I could do to undermine that movie having an effect.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Dr. Edward Peters clarifies contribution to Neo-Conned, IHS Press (Christopher Blosser)
To remind readers of the context behind that series (and why Dr. Peters' stance on this matter is admirable), the following two threads will hopefully assist in clarifying the matter for those who are interested:
On IHS Press, Potential Fascist Connections, Antisemitism, Etc.
From the Mailbag (With Chris Blosser)
While more could be noted, that will suffice for now except to once again commend Dr. Peters for placing principle above ideology on this matter.
To remind readers of the context behind that series (and why Dr. Peters' stance on this matter is admirable), the following two threads will hopefully assist in clarifying the matter for those who are interested:
On IHS Press, Potential Fascist Connections, Antisemitism, Etc.
From the Mailbag (With Chris Blosser)
While more could be noted, that will suffice for now except to once again commend Dr. Peters for placing principle above ideology on this matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)