Notes on A Few Upcoming Blog Threads:
Briefly as time is short...
--A reader wrote me asking about the concept of "implicit faith." I have been working on a thread to post pertaining to that subject which should be ready soon.
--Do to some feedback on yesterday's brief exposition on the hypocrisy of the apologetics oligarchy, I will be responding to at least one piece of email received on that subject within the next week or so.
--The last thing I expected was a criticism of my prayer for the soldiers blogged yesterday but indeed I got some from a former soldier. A response to those criticisms will be forthcoming.
--As several readers have sent me links to the Iraq Study Group recommendations as per yesterday's request, I will be looking them over and considering how to deal with them in the coming days. Right now, I am leaning towards listing them all in bullet form and noting which ones are practical or otherwise achievable and which ones are impractical or otherwise not worth taking seriously.
--I am working on a response to a friend who is critical of women being allowed to vote to be blogged when it is ready.
--Some "points to ponder" threads are planned from Allen Bloom, Herbert Butterfield, Mike Mentzer, Cardinal Ratzinger, Greg Mockeridge, Fr. John Laux, Albert Cipriani, Ayn Rand, and Stephen Hand among others.
--A weblog thread of miscellaneous links with assorted commentary is also in the works to be completed soon. (The hold up here is determining how many links to use and what subject matters to cover.)
--A weblog update is being worked on bit by bit to be posted within a week or so.
--Some administrative fixes are being made to make the weblog easier to operate from this end.
Anyway, while hardly all I have planned, those are some threads which will be focused on in the coming days and weeks for completion.
Friday, December 08, 2006
As today in the liturgical calendar is the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, it seems appropriate to revisit a couple of threads from this weblog's archives dealing with that subject matter. Ergo...
On the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Fathers Who "Denied" Her Sinlessness--Parts I-II (circa January 15, 2003)
On the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Fathers Who "Denied" Her Sinlessness--Parts I-II (circa January 15, 2003)
Thursday, December 07, 2006
As it is the anniversary of Pearl Harbor's bombing today, it seems appropriate to recognize it with a prayer for the soldiers -slightly modified from the text here to cover both living and dead...
Father, hold our soldiers in your loving hands. Keep them from spiritual and bodily harm. Place them under the protective mantle of our Blessed Mother Mary and send St. Michael and the holy angels before them in every danger. Give them and their families courage, strength and hope. Remember in your mercy all who have made the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom and security of others both recently and in years past. We have in mind with this petition those who are lost their lives on 9/11 and in the current fight against religious zealotry much as in years past who fought the monsters of totalitarian communism and its twin leftist scourge fascism. With special mention we implore your mercy and the intercession of the entire heavenly cohort for those who died at Pearl Harbour sixty-five years ago today and those who gave their lives in that heroic conflict. In your mercy, grant peace to all your children in every nation on earth. We praise you and thank you in Jesus' name. Amen.
Father, hold our soldiers in your loving hands. Keep them from spiritual and bodily harm. Place them under the protective mantle of our Blessed Mother Mary and send St. Michael and the holy angels before them in every danger. Give them and their families courage, strength and hope. Remember in your mercy all who have made the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom and security of others both recently and in years past. We have in mind with this petition those who are lost their lives on 9/11 and in the current fight against religious zealotry much as in years past who fought the monsters of totalitarian communism and its twin leftist scourge fascism. With special mention we implore your mercy and the intercession of the entire heavenly cohort for those who died at Pearl Harbour sixty-five years ago today and those who gave their lives in that heroic conflict. In your mercy, grant peace to all your children in every nation on earth. We praise you and thank you in Jesus' name. Amen.
With all the hubbub on the "Iraq Study Group", I am considering analysing all of their proposals. However, I need to find a link that has all of them in order to do that. Anyone who can find the thread and send it to me, it would be most appreciated as I do not have time at the moment to look for it myself.
On the Election, "Lost Causes", and Activism:
("From the Mailbag" Dept.)
This email was sent in response to my election synopsis thread from last month. The emailer's words will be in purple font.
We may have lost our chance for another generation to re-orient the Supreme Court. Again, Bush in his heart is quite comfortable with the Harriet Miers's of the world and he'll be just dandy with a nominee along those lines. So the collapse of a GOP Congress that can counter that is possibly catastrophic.
Well, to start with, we need to avoid activism on our side when it comes to the judges. As one of my friends noted when the Harriet Miers nomination was still feasible, my opposition to it was in part because of activist mentalities. To wit:
Shawn,
Thank you for joining my voice here in the blogosphere by stating you don't really care if she's pro life or an Evangelical. I honestly think as far as the blogopshere goes, the two of us are rare in stating those.
Perhaps so. I have never cared for judicial activism of any kind much the way I do not like liturgical tampering. In both cases the dictum of Fr. Stravinskas comes to mind which is this:
"Never tamper with the liturgy, even under the pretense of making it 'better' because if you can tamper with it on your end, then you give others the right to do so on their end" (cf. Liturgy of the Third Millennium circa 2000).
The same is the case with activism...allowing it on one side means the other side can do it too. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 5, 2005)]
As it was, Kevin Tierney and I were to my knowledge{1} the only Catholic bloggers who took this view. As far as what the new situation is with the incoming Democrat congressional majorities, I am not that pessimistic actually. One vacancy in the Senate on the Democratic side -by death, scandal, or whatever- means the president gets to pick the replacement to serve out the term. That is not all actually as the margin in the Senate is just one and if not for the election of some more conservative Democrats, the Republicans would still be in control. It does not take much for the power to shift in that situation -the Reid's are going to have to practice diplomacy now and if they bag on the conservative Democrats, the situation could become a repeat of the first six years of the 1980's where the "blue dogs" allied themselves with Republicans against their own party. More could be noted but that suffices for now.
Seems to me that this was a combination of a fed-up-with-Iraq vote (thank you, mainstream media) and disgust at corruption, the lack of exciting leadership based on real conviction, and, let's not forget, a somewhat normal swing of the pendelum.
It was in many respects the normal sixth year cycle of a two term president. If not for the Republicans controlling the Congress in 1998, the same would have probably happened with Clinton: the only president since Calvin Coolidge in 1926 to not see loss of seats in at least one legislature by his party in the sixth year midterm election.
Those who think that this means the Republicans are necessarily on the decline as many Democrat supporters seem to think could well be in for a rude awakening in two years. History does not indicate that such presumptions are at all a given though I suppose we all should be thankful that there were no voting machine glitches this election. Of course if the Republicans win in 2008, then we will hear more about election machine glitches because we all know that there are no voting irregularities when the Democrats win elections right??? {the sarcastic undertone of the last two sentences was definitely intended}...
It's hard to tell what it means as far as where the country lies philophically.
I am not so sure this is such a rubix cube. As I noted in my election synopsis thread:
There is also the fact that no conservatives lost their seats and if anything, conservatives were either re-elected amongst the Republicans or elected amongst the Democrats. The reason the Dems will have majorities in both houses is because of southern conservative Democrats being elected. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 24, 2006)]
Essentially, the Democrats had to hide their true selves from the electorate to get elected to majorities. This was predicted by yours truly before the election as what they would have to do along with somehow making this a referendum on a national level. To revisit the aforementioned election synopsis thread:
We said they would need to nationalize the election around Bush and they did that. We also said that they would need to shut their traps and not tell people what they really planned to do[...] and they actually did that also. Give them credit for actually learning from past mistakes if nothing else. The question is, will the idiotic Republicans realize why they lost in the election or not. Alas, we cannot say there is much optimism here at Rerum Novarum that they will -at least not in the short term. Maybe it will take handing over the gavels in the chambers on January 20, 2007 for them to realize what happened and start the process of pondering why what happened actually happened. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 24, 2006)]
In light of these factors, I do not see how this aligns itself philosophically in favour of the so-called "progressivists" in the Democratic party and their nefarious agendas. If anything, these factors point to this being a standard sixth year cycle pattern and not anything indicating a seismic paradigm shift in the electorate.
The election poses something of the Return of the Blue Dogs Democrats, some more than others.
Precisely and that is not a bad thing.
Almost all the same-sex marriage bans passed.
Yep.
The abortion bill failed in S.D., but that was probably a bridge too far without exceptions for rape or incest--something like 44% voted for it anyway, which surprises me.
Well, this is an issue where the prolifers showed their habitual boneheadedness. I have discussed this problem many times before and this is it in a nutshell:
[W]hile a 100% prolife vote is not necessarily congruent with voting for the candidate who either disallows or will legally plunder you less, if in doubt it is an excellent "tie-breaker" issue when it otherwise appears to be Democans and Republicrats...
At the very least the same Constitutional illogic that allows Roe v. Wade to exist is what allows people to think the government has the right to steal from us in ways that the average person could never do without committing a crime...
[P]ro lifers have a history politically of shooting their movement in the head. And sometimes you have to take part of a loaf and do this a few times before you can get the entire loaf. Forgetting this principle has resulted in the pro lifers politically shooting themselves in the head in the past. (In brief, that is how they lost the Republican controlled Senate to Democrats in 1986 which meant losing control of the Judiciary which meant defeat for Bork in 1987. And as 1990 proved, Bork's replacement was the swing vote that retained Roe v. Wade.) [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa November 5, 2002)]
What I noted in that posting and in many other times over the years was manifested in spades by that referendum in SD failing. As you noted, making exceptions for rape and incest would have resulted in that bill passing and would have outlawed the overwhelming majority of abortions. But rather than try for half a loaf (or in this case, over nine tenths of the loaf) the boneheaded prolifers screwed up again.
I've already mentioned the Arizona anti-illegals initiatives; whatever you might think of them they ain't liberal, and none of them got less than 70% of the vote (denies bail to illegal immigrants, denies some education services to illegal immigrants; denies the collection of punitive damages to them; adopts English as the official state language). And many if not most of the new Dems are also gun-friendly (again, think what you want, but that ain't liberal). You could only find Pelosi on milk cartons. etc.
All of that is true -the Pelosi absence during the election...well...see further up in this post for how I predicted that one.
Sorry for the long response.
No problems :)
Bottom line: The Arlen Specters (including actually Arlen Specter) are already saying this proves the party should move to left. I don't think so. But one thing that's certain is that our two national parties are not Tweedledum/Tweedledee, Rome/Carthage, or Not/Different. People who say that...are just not paying attention, or scoring points in their own fantastical drama.
Well, there are differences between the two parties but not enough. As I noted in a thread posted on election day before we knew which way the voting winds were blowing:
[W]e do not have very good options right now. It needs to be made clear that any support for the Republicans is done grudgingly and not because people think they are that good a party because they are not. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 7, 2006)]
This loss needs to effect a change of mind and approach to the Republicans. The view of the Arlen Specters was actually rebuked by this election when all the factors are taken into consideration. What is needed for the Republicans is to return to the sources (read: being actual conservatives instead of copycat "liberal lite" sorts) and this means recognizing that what was rebuked in this election was not conservatism but party politics.
Conservatives who have supported Republicans for years to get treated like dog turds except around election time finally said (in the words of the great western philosopher Dee Snyder) "we're not gonna take it anymore" and enough of them sat this election out to allow the Republicans to be knocked off of their lofty perch. The war issue served more to galvanize the anti-Bush crowd and while there are enough errors of fact and misperceptions in the "this war is an abomination" crowd to fill a small ocean; nonetheless, perception is often viewed by people as reality.
President Bush was also hurt (even though he was not running) because of the absurd and illogical "amnesty for criminals" issue he has promoted. Throw in the Katrina debacle and a few other areas where the Bush Administration has looked less than adequate and the general six year pattern for voting historically, and the result is not that surprising.
I would advise against being too pessimistic about this and remind you of an old proverb: it is often darkest just before the dawn. That is how I view this situation and believe this makes it more likely to elect a conservative as president in 2008 than it would have been if the Republicans had gotten away with their normal "treat conservatives like crap and then throw them an occasional scrap to shut them up" approach.
Note:
{1} I think Greg Mockeridge agreed with this view at the time too but I cannot recall offhand.
("From the Mailbag" Dept.)
This email was sent in response to my election synopsis thread from last month. The emailer's words will be in purple font.
We may have lost our chance for another generation to re-orient the Supreme Court. Again, Bush in his heart is quite comfortable with the Harriet Miers's of the world and he'll be just dandy with a nominee along those lines. So the collapse of a GOP Congress that can counter that is possibly catastrophic.
Well, to start with, we need to avoid activism on our side when it comes to the judges. As one of my friends noted when the Harriet Miers nomination was still feasible, my opposition to it was in part because of activist mentalities. To wit:
Shawn,
Thank you for joining my voice here in the blogosphere by stating you don't really care if she's pro life or an Evangelical. I honestly think as far as the blogopshere goes, the two of us are rare in stating those.
Perhaps so. I have never cared for judicial activism of any kind much the way I do not like liturgical tampering. In both cases the dictum of Fr. Stravinskas comes to mind which is this:
"Never tamper with the liturgy, even under the pretense of making it 'better' because if you can tamper with it on your end, then you give others the right to do so on their end" (cf. Liturgy of the Third Millennium circa 2000).
The same is the case with activism...allowing it on one side means the other side can do it too. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 5, 2005)]
As it was, Kevin Tierney and I were to my knowledge{1} the only Catholic bloggers who took this view. As far as what the new situation is with the incoming Democrat congressional majorities, I am not that pessimistic actually. One vacancy in the Senate on the Democratic side -by death, scandal, or whatever- means the president gets to pick the replacement to serve out the term. That is not all actually as the margin in the Senate is just one and if not for the election of some more conservative Democrats, the Republicans would still be in control. It does not take much for the power to shift in that situation -the Reid's are going to have to practice diplomacy now and if they bag on the conservative Democrats, the situation could become a repeat of the first six years of the 1980's where the "blue dogs" allied themselves with Republicans against their own party. More could be noted but that suffices for now.
Seems to me that this was a combination of a fed-up-with-Iraq vote (thank you, mainstream media) and disgust at corruption, the lack of exciting leadership based on real conviction, and, let's not forget, a somewhat normal swing of the pendelum.
It was in many respects the normal sixth year cycle of a two term president. If not for the Republicans controlling the Congress in 1998, the same would have probably happened with Clinton: the only president since Calvin Coolidge in 1926 to not see loss of seats in at least one legislature by his party in the sixth year midterm election.
Those who think that this means the Republicans are necessarily on the decline as many Democrat supporters seem to think could well be in for a rude awakening in two years. History does not indicate that such presumptions are at all a given though I suppose we all should be thankful that there were no voting machine glitches this election. Of course if the Republicans win in 2008, then we will hear more about election machine glitches because we all know that there are no voting irregularities when the Democrats win elections right??? {the sarcastic undertone of the last two sentences was definitely intended}...
It's hard to tell what it means as far as where the country lies philophically.
I am not so sure this is such a rubix cube. As I noted in my election synopsis thread:
There is also the fact that no conservatives lost their seats and if anything, conservatives were either re-elected amongst the Republicans or elected amongst the Democrats. The reason the Dems will have majorities in both houses is because of southern conservative Democrats being elected. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 24, 2006)]
Essentially, the Democrats had to hide their true selves from the electorate to get elected to majorities. This was predicted by yours truly before the election as what they would have to do along with somehow making this a referendum on a national level. To revisit the aforementioned election synopsis thread:
We said they would need to nationalize the election around Bush and they did that. We also said that they would need to shut their traps and not tell people what they really planned to do[...] and they actually did that also. Give them credit for actually learning from past mistakes if nothing else. The question is, will the idiotic Republicans realize why they lost in the election or not. Alas, we cannot say there is much optimism here at Rerum Novarum that they will -at least not in the short term. Maybe it will take handing over the gavels in the chambers on January 20, 2007 for them to realize what happened and start the process of pondering why what happened actually happened. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 24, 2006)]
In light of these factors, I do not see how this aligns itself philosophically in favour of the so-called "progressivists" in the Democratic party and their nefarious agendas. If anything, these factors point to this being a standard sixth year cycle pattern and not anything indicating a seismic paradigm shift in the electorate.
The election poses something of the Return of the Blue Dogs Democrats, some more than others.
Precisely and that is not a bad thing.
Almost all the same-sex marriage bans passed.
Yep.
The abortion bill failed in S.D., but that was probably a bridge too far without exceptions for rape or incest--something like 44% voted for it anyway, which surprises me.
Well, this is an issue where the prolifers showed their habitual boneheadedness. I have discussed this problem many times before and this is it in a nutshell:
[W]hile a 100% prolife vote is not necessarily congruent with voting for the candidate who either disallows or will legally plunder you less, if in doubt it is an excellent "tie-breaker" issue when it otherwise appears to be Democans and Republicrats...
At the very least the same Constitutional illogic that allows Roe v. Wade to exist is what allows people to think the government has the right to steal from us in ways that the average person could never do without committing a crime...
[P]ro lifers have a history politically of shooting their movement in the head. And sometimes you have to take part of a loaf and do this a few times before you can get the entire loaf. Forgetting this principle has resulted in the pro lifers politically shooting themselves in the head in the past. (In brief, that is how they lost the Republican controlled Senate to Democrats in 1986 which meant losing control of the Judiciary which meant defeat for Bork in 1987. And as 1990 proved, Bork's replacement was the swing vote that retained Roe v. Wade.) [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa November 5, 2002)]
What I noted in that posting and in many other times over the years was manifested in spades by that referendum in SD failing. As you noted, making exceptions for rape and incest would have resulted in that bill passing and would have outlawed the overwhelming majority of abortions. But rather than try for half a loaf (or in this case, over nine tenths of the loaf) the boneheaded prolifers screwed up again.
I've already mentioned the Arizona anti-illegals initiatives; whatever you might think of them they ain't liberal, and none of them got less than 70% of the vote (denies bail to illegal immigrants, denies some education services to illegal immigrants; denies the collection of punitive damages to them; adopts English as the official state language). And many if not most of the new Dems are also gun-friendly (again, think what you want, but that ain't liberal). You could only find Pelosi on milk cartons. etc.
All of that is true -the Pelosi absence during the election...well...see further up in this post for how I predicted that one.
Sorry for the long response.
No problems :)
Bottom line: The Arlen Specters (including actually Arlen Specter) are already saying this proves the party should move to left. I don't think so. But one thing that's certain is that our two national parties are not Tweedledum/Tweedledee, Rome/Carthage, or Not/Different. People who say that...are just not paying attention, or scoring points in their own fantastical drama.
Well, there are differences between the two parties but not enough. As I noted in a thread posted on election day before we knew which way the voting winds were blowing:
[W]e do not have very good options right now. It needs to be made clear that any support for the Republicans is done grudgingly and not because people think they are that good a party because they are not. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 7, 2006)]
This loss needs to effect a change of mind and approach to the Republicans. The view of the Arlen Specters was actually rebuked by this election when all the factors are taken into consideration. What is needed for the Republicans is to return to the sources (read: being actual conservatives instead of copycat "liberal lite" sorts) and this means recognizing that what was rebuked in this election was not conservatism but party politics.
Conservatives who have supported Republicans for years to get treated like dog turds except around election time finally said (in the words of the great western philosopher Dee Snyder) "we're not gonna take it anymore" and enough of them sat this election out to allow the Republicans to be knocked off of their lofty perch. The war issue served more to galvanize the anti-Bush crowd and while there are enough errors of fact and misperceptions in the "this war is an abomination" crowd to fill a small ocean; nonetheless, perception is often viewed by people as reality.
President Bush was also hurt (even though he was not running) because of the absurd and illogical "amnesty for criminals" issue he has promoted. Throw in the Katrina debacle and a few other areas where the Bush Administration has looked less than adequate and the general six year pattern for voting historically, and the result is not that surprising.
I would advise against being too pessimistic about this and remind you of an old proverb: it is often darkest just before the dawn. That is how I view this situation and believe this makes it more likely to elect a conservative as president in 2008 than it would have been if the Republicans had gotten away with their normal "treat conservatives like crap and then throw them an occasional scrap to shut them up" approach.
Note:
{1} I think Greg Mockeridge agreed with this view at the time too but I cannot recall offhand.
Some Additional Outlining of the Public and Private Double Standards of the Apologetics Oligarchy:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
This is the lions share of text from an email I quoted a previous weblog posting in accordance with my long-manifested approach to private correspondence. I also mentioned in a second posting that I would eventually be putting this thread up in its near-entirety. What made the decision to do so at this time pretty easy is the recent response by a key member of the apologetics oligarchy to yet another attempted snowjob by one of the community's more flagrant violators of basic integrity and ethics as of late. This predicatable brushoff by such a key member of the aforementioned oligarchy basically made my posting of this thread inevitable and I might as well get it out of the way now while the iron is still hot. But first some disclosure as to how the material below came about.
What you are about to read was originally written in response to a friend who vetted a post for this weblog. I was multitasking on a lot of projects at the time and was composing the last part of the text in a rush. For that reason, I was concerned about the flow of the text and wanted to make sure what I wrote was adequate -as I was responding to a dialogual partner with no small degree of intellectual firepower. In light of the circumstances, it seemed appropriate to me to get a second opinion so I asked them to review the piece. The feedback was basically that the text read really well but they were admittedly concerned about some of the "barbs" in the text towards certain parties which were ancillary to the subject being discussed in that thread.
It was in writing a response to that which produced the text you are about to read -though this is a toned down more refined version of what was actually written. I was shocked at the text coming out as it did because it was in structure and content a one take which is very rare for me when writing. I knew I would use it at some point either wholly or in part and this is the lions share of the email material. (I judged some of the text as not prudent to post lest it detract from the purpose of posting this thread to begin with.)
I have decided to post the text in purple as what I note below frankly saddens me to no small degree. And while I am sure this will piss off some parties, frankly I do not give a damn. Furthermore, I challenge anyone who disputes my viewing of this matter to present a viable hypothesis of their own to explain the obvious double standards involved here otherwise their kvetching will be without merit to me. Without further ado...
Basically, my lack of respect for Catholic apologists grows by leaps and bounds every day it seems: between these antics and the refusal of people like Akin to publicly rebuke people like Shea and (on other issues) Dave Armstrong I see them as having no credibility whatsoever. When I hear anyone say "lets go after James White" from this crowd, my natural response is "why when y'all criticize in him what you condone in Catholic apologists; ergo, violating the law of non-contradiction and making of this whole enterprise a joke???"
You may be right about the barbs being inappropriate but I have watched this cowardly evasion on Mark's part for over a year now on these subjects. As I see it, he is disgracing Catholics publicly by virtue of having a prominent public profile and refusing to honestly interact with these issues. I cannot show him even an ounce of public respect anymore until he repents for this crap to the same degree he spewed it to begin with: publicly on his blog will suffice. (He made an ass of himself and insulted others repeatedly in that forum on this subject so public repentence in the same forum by him is required in the interest of both consistency as well as out of principle.)
Even worse than his insults and his making an ass of himself is his obvious hypocrisy. Indeed, his attempts to explain away why it is okay for Akin to say what Harrison, McKenna, Mockeridge, Blosser, myself and others{1} have said is sickening and shows just how much this is a matter of personalities instead of issues.I mean why is it okay for Jimmy to say something but for the exact same thing said by others to be not only unacceptable but for such people to be publicly ridiculed and otherwise insulted??? If it is not a matter of $$$ than I have to wonder what it is since a valid opinion is not valid because of the person who holds it but instead its validity or invalidity stands on its own merits. That is where it is at XXXXXXX and I want this bullshit stopped. NOW.
I cannot and will not give any support whatsoever of a financial nature to apologetics organizations likeUnCatholic Answers{2} or any of them. I will not write any articles on any subjects whatsoever for either periodicals or for websites, or whatever because I want nothing to do with it anymore. And frankly, I hate to say it because this is a wonderful endeavour in and of itself. I would never have devoted my time over the years to it if I did not see it as being of value. But the value has been sullied and continues to plummet as long as people refuse to recognize that the Emperor has no clothes on.
I have seen this go on for a long time -particularly since 9/11 for reasons I proposed a hypothesis about here- and for a long time, I bit my tongue hoping that things would reverse themselves. For a long time I was willing to believe (against all evidences to the contrary) that what I was seeing was not there -that it was merely me being too overly critical of an enterprise which has its share of frail humans in it and thus will have its chaff along with the wheat. But instead, far from rebounding it is getting worse by the day and I see no end to it in sight.
If not for the obvious and manifested refusal of the apologist community{3}, I would be content to continue to bite my tongue. But when attempts to address this publicly (since private appeals have fallen on deaf ears) result not only in no action taken but indeed result in the apologist oligarchy circling the wagons and protecting one another's idiotic blatherings from legitimate scrutiny, then I cannot and indeed will not play along.
Out of principle I cannot tolerate this anymore XXXXXXX and this is why out of principle I not only have refused the label of Catholic apologist for over five years now but also why I have in the past two to three years in particular come to the point to where I absolutely loathe it. That is why I want it made as clear as possible that I consider applying the term to me in any way whatsoever to be a personal insult. However well intended the person is who does it, that is how I see it and will continue to as long as the garbage spewed by these apologist bigmouths that is condoned by silence or publicly approved of (even tacitly) by the oligarchy continues. That is why I am giving some consideration to removing all apologetics-related material from the side margin of Rerum Novarum. Whether I actually do the latter or not is still uncertain but I am strongly tempted to.
I take principles very seriously XXXXXXX and have an abiding respect for others who do also -even if I disagree with them. But two principles which I cannot compromise are those of integrity and honesty. I expect this in a person's views, in their scholarship, in everything they do. (I also expect an abiding respect for reason and logic though if the attempts in the other areas are tended to, I can overlook lapses here for the sake of getting along.) But I cannot see the value in promoting an enterprise that masquerades as all ethical and moral like Catholic apologetics but which contains every kind of seedy unethical and hypocritical opportunist sort that one finds in secular society.
If these are supposed to be people who are trying to persuade people of the "better way" of orthodox catholicity then they should not show such obvious lacks of integrity on these matters. Indeed, I have at times seen greater integrity amongst atheists and frankly that is disconcerting. It is both a scandal and a disgrace.
To give a political example, it is like the Republicans who saw their congressional power obliterated overnight because they were not true to conservative principles first and foremost.{4} They were in other words hypocrites for preaching about caring for the Constitution while they spent like drunken sailors in the most foul and unconstitutional fashion ala the Democrats in the old days. They also gave every impression of trying to do just enought to placate the base and get re-elected. Frankly, I can respect the people for throwing the Republicans out because if they are going to govern like Democrats, why go with a pale impressionist of the real thing when you can have the real thing??? But that is not the only analogy I could use.
This one will hit Catholics closer to home because I honestly get the impression that like the US Bishops who twiddled their thumbs and pretended "all is nice" when children were being molested by predator priests that the apologetics "old boys network" will continue to twiddle their thumbs until the whole apologetics structure collapses like ancient Rome. Then what was successfully built over a span of thirty odd years bit by bit will have to start from scratch.
I am proposing a public purgation of sorts which I know the apologists will not like. But frankly, it needs to be done if the tree is to continue to bear fruit. But there is too much ego in that crowd and I am not too optimistic that they will be willing to do it. And as this has to start from the top, I do not expect those in $$$ positions to want to do anything lest they shut down the rolling of the gravy train -though that train will grind to a halt bit by bit until it is no more unless something is done to stop that eroding. And at the moment, what is being done is a big fat zero by the oligarchs.
Sorry for the rant, trust me my friend it is not you. If anything, I wish there were a lot more Catholics like you XXXXXXX. But this issue is a big one and I feel for that reason it is time to not be silent on these matters any longer.
PS While I have been for the most part apart from that crowd for a few years now, I would be willing to eat some crow too: for not being consistent in my own principles and calling this stuff out back when I first noticed it really starting to get out of hand (late 2002). If silence implies consent than I could be said to at least appear to have been complicit and for that I have some regrets.
Notes:
{1} Though he has shown the same problems with other subjects that Mark has shown on the torture subject; nonetheless, I have to recognize (even if personally I would rather not) that Dave Armstrong handled this issue well at least to a macro extent.
{2} Credit for this term goes to Greg Mockeridge.
{3} Professional as well as amateur though the former have far more responsibility IMHO.
{4} I am writing an election analysis thread to be posted later this week time-willing and this is one point I will make in that thread.
As it was, the analysis thread noted in footnote four was not posted for ten days after the email was sent. (Time once again not being my ally in that endeavour but I digress.)
[Update and Retraction: Greg Mockeridge informed me that the use of the above epithet of UnCatholic Answers was too rash on his part noting that it appears to be too blanket of a statement -presuming that everyone involved with Catholic Answers is at fault instead of Jimmy Akin and Karl Keating which is where both he and I view this problem as being. While my trackrecord on this matter should be adequate to make it clear that I do not view things this monolithically; I nonetheless upon further reflection regret my use of that expression and hereby retract it. I do not however retract the view that until the heads of Catholic Answers clean up their act and stop supporting (explicitly or tacitly) the kinds of double standards amply outlined in this and other threads to Rerum Novarum and other places that they do not deserve donations or any other support from Catholics who find such hypocrisy unconscionable. -ISM 3/19/07 7:51 pm]
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
This is the lions share of text from an email I quoted a previous weblog posting in accordance with my long-manifested approach to private correspondence. I also mentioned in a second posting that I would eventually be putting this thread up in its near-entirety. What made the decision to do so at this time pretty easy is the recent response by a key member of the apologetics oligarchy to yet another attempted snowjob by one of the community's more flagrant violators of basic integrity and ethics as of late. This predicatable brushoff by such a key member of the aforementioned oligarchy basically made my posting of this thread inevitable and I might as well get it out of the way now while the iron is still hot. But first some disclosure as to how the material below came about.
What you are about to read was originally written in response to a friend who vetted a post for this weblog. I was multitasking on a lot of projects at the time and was composing the last part of the text in a rush. For that reason, I was concerned about the flow of the text and wanted to make sure what I wrote was adequate -as I was responding to a dialogual partner with no small degree of intellectual firepower. In light of the circumstances, it seemed appropriate to me to get a second opinion so I asked them to review the piece. The feedback was basically that the text read really well but they were admittedly concerned about some of the "barbs" in the text towards certain parties which were ancillary to the subject being discussed in that thread.
It was in writing a response to that which produced the text you are about to read -though this is a toned down more refined version of what was actually written. I was shocked at the text coming out as it did because it was in structure and content a one take which is very rare for me when writing. I knew I would use it at some point either wholly or in part and this is the lions share of the email material. (I judged some of the text as not prudent to post lest it detract from the purpose of posting this thread to begin with.)
I have decided to post the text in purple as what I note below frankly saddens me to no small degree. And while I am sure this will piss off some parties, frankly I do not give a damn. Furthermore, I challenge anyone who disputes my viewing of this matter to present a viable hypothesis of their own to explain the obvious double standards involved here otherwise their kvetching will be without merit to me. Without further ado...
Basically, my lack of respect for Catholic apologists grows by leaps and bounds every day it seems: between these antics and the refusal of people like Akin to publicly rebuke people like Shea and (on other issues) Dave Armstrong I see them as having no credibility whatsoever. When I hear anyone say "lets go after James White" from this crowd, my natural response is "why when y'all criticize in him what you condone in Catholic apologists; ergo, violating the law of non-contradiction and making of this whole enterprise a joke???"
You may be right about the barbs being inappropriate but I have watched this cowardly evasion on Mark's part for over a year now on these subjects. As I see it, he is disgracing Catholics publicly by virtue of having a prominent public profile and refusing to honestly interact with these issues. I cannot show him even an ounce of public respect anymore until he repents for this crap to the same degree he spewed it to begin with: publicly on his blog will suffice. (He made an ass of himself and insulted others repeatedly in that forum on this subject so public repentence in the same forum by him is required in the interest of both consistency as well as out of principle.)
Even worse than his insults and his making an ass of himself is his obvious hypocrisy. Indeed, his attempts to explain away why it is okay for Akin to say what Harrison, McKenna, Mockeridge, Blosser, myself and others{1} have said is sickening and shows just how much this is a matter of personalities instead of issues.I mean why is it okay for Jimmy to say something but for the exact same thing said by others to be not only unacceptable but for such people to be publicly ridiculed and otherwise insulted??? If it is not a matter of $$$ than I have to wonder what it is since a valid opinion is not valid because of the person who holds it but instead its validity or invalidity stands on its own merits. That is where it is at XXXXXXX and I want this bullshit stopped. NOW.
I cannot and will not give any support whatsoever of a financial nature to apologetics organizations like
I have seen this go on for a long time -particularly since 9/11 for reasons I proposed a hypothesis about here- and for a long time, I bit my tongue hoping that things would reverse themselves. For a long time I was willing to believe (against all evidences to the contrary) that what I was seeing was not there -that it was merely me being too overly critical of an enterprise which has its share of frail humans in it and thus will have its chaff along with the wheat. But instead, far from rebounding it is getting worse by the day and I see no end to it in sight.
If not for the obvious and manifested refusal of the apologist community{3}, I would be content to continue to bite my tongue. But when attempts to address this publicly (since private appeals have fallen on deaf ears) result not only in no action taken but indeed result in the apologist oligarchy circling the wagons and protecting one another's idiotic blatherings from legitimate scrutiny, then I cannot and indeed will not play along.
Out of principle I cannot tolerate this anymore XXXXXXX and this is why out of principle I not only have refused the label of Catholic apologist for over five years now but also why I have in the past two to three years in particular come to the point to where I absolutely loathe it. That is why I want it made as clear as possible that I consider applying the term to me in any way whatsoever to be a personal insult. However well intended the person is who does it, that is how I see it and will continue to as long as the garbage spewed by these apologist bigmouths that is condoned by silence or publicly approved of (even tacitly) by the oligarchy continues. That is why I am giving some consideration to removing all apologetics-related material from the side margin of Rerum Novarum. Whether I actually do the latter or not is still uncertain but I am strongly tempted to.
I take principles very seriously XXXXXXX and have an abiding respect for others who do also -even if I disagree with them. But two principles which I cannot compromise are those of integrity and honesty. I expect this in a person's views, in their scholarship, in everything they do. (I also expect an abiding respect for reason and logic though if the attempts in the other areas are tended to, I can overlook lapses here for the sake of getting along.) But I cannot see the value in promoting an enterprise that masquerades as all ethical and moral like Catholic apologetics but which contains every kind of seedy unethical and hypocritical opportunist sort that one finds in secular society.
If these are supposed to be people who are trying to persuade people of the "better way" of orthodox catholicity then they should not show such obvious lacks of integrity on these matters. Indeed, I have at times seen greater integrity amongst atheists and frankly that is disconcerting. It is both a scandal and a disgrace.
To give a political example, it is like the Republicans who saw their congressional power obliterated overnight because they were not true to conservative principles first and foremost.{4} They were in other words hypocrites for preaching about caring for the Constitution while they spent like drunken sailors in the most foul and unconstitutional fashion ala the Democrats in the old days. They also gave every impression of trying to do just enought to placate the base and get re-elected. Frankly, I can respect the people for throwing the Republicans out because if they are going to govern like Democrats, why go with a pale impressionist of the real thing when you can have the real thing??? But that is not the only analogy I could use.
This one will hit Catholics closer to home because I honestly get the impression that like the US Bishops who twiddled their thumbs and pretended "all is nice" when children were being molested by predator priests that the apologetics "old boys network" will continue to twiddle their thumbs until the whole apologetics structure collapses like ancient Rome. Then what was successfully built over a span of thirty odd years bit by bit will have to start from scratch.
I am proposing a public purgation of sorts which I know the apologists will not like. But frankly, it needs to be done if the tree is to continue to bear fruit. But there is too much ego in that crowd and I am not too optimistic that they will be willing to do it. And as this has to start from the top, I do not expect those in $$$ positions to want to do anything lest they shut down the rolling of the gravy train -though that train will grind to a halt bit by bit until it is no more unless something is done to stop that eroding. And at the moment, what is being done is a big fat zero by the oligarchs.
Sorry for the rant, trust me my friend it is not you. If anything, I wish there were a lot more Catholics like you XXXXXXX. But this issue is a big one and I feel for that reason it is time to not be silent on these matters any longer.
PS While I have been for the most part apart from that crowd for a few years now, I would be willing to eat some crow too: for not being consistent in my own principles and calling this stuff out back when I first noticed it really starting to get out of hand (late 2002). If silence implies consent than I could be said to at least appear to have been complicit and for that I have some regrets.
Notes:
{1} Though he has shown the same problems with other subjects that Mark has shown on the torture subject; nonetheless, I have to recognize (even if personally I would rather not) that Dave Armstrong handled this issue well at least to a macro extent.
{2} Credit for this term goes to Greg Mockeridge.
{3} Professional as well as amateur though the former have far more responsibility IMHO.
{4} I am writing an election analysis thread to be posted later this week time-willing and this is one point I will make in that thread.
As it was, the analysis thread noted in footnote four was not posted for ten days after the email was sent. (Time once again not being my ally in that endeavour but I digress.)
[Update and Retraction: Greg Mockeridge informed me that the use of the above epithet of UnCatholic Answers was too rash on his part noting that it appears to be too blanket of a statement -presuming that everyone involved with Catholic Answers is at fault instead of Jimmy Akin and Karl Keating which is where both he and I view this problem as being. While my trackrecord on this matter should be adequate to make it clear that I do not view things this monolithically; I nonetheless upon further reflection regret my use of that expression and hereby retract it. I do not however retract the view that until the heads of Catholic Answers clean up their act and stop supporting (explicitly or tacitly) the kinds of double standards amply outlined in this and other threads to Rerum Novarum and other places that they do not deserve donations or any other support from Catholics who find such hypocrisy unconscionable. -ISM 3/19/07 7:51 pm]
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Points to Ponder:
(On Combatting the "Herd Mentality")
The only way to gain an authentic self-esteem was through one's unswerving commitment to reason and reality...Those who had defaulted on their fundamental philosophic responsibility (namely, thinking) were of no concern to me. They were hapless individuals, who were constantly buffeted about by every chance intellectual trend that came along…When I attempted to politely explain this to the hysterics - the mystics, who were emotionally driven --...they seemed to regard it as heresy and declared me a lunatic. Not only did they not care, it frightened them, as what was most shatteringly terrifying to them was to be regarded as different, to lose approval of the pack. [Mike Mentzer]
(On Combatting the "Herd Mentality")
The only way to gain an authentic self-esteem was through one's unswerving commitment to reason and reality...Those who had defaulted on their fundamental philosophic responsibility (namely, thinking) were of no concern to me. They were hapless individuals, who were constantly buffeted about by every chance intellectual trend that came along…When I attempted to politely explain this to the hysterics - the mystics, who were emotionally driven --...they seemed to regard it as heresy and declared me a lunatic. Not only did they not care, it frightened them, as what was most shatteringly terrifying to them was to be regarded as different, to lose approval of the pack. [Mike Mentzer]
Friday, December 01, 2006
Points to Ponder:
(On Patriotism and Building a Just Society)
With soul enlightened by the Gospel, it is possible to better understand how it is necessary to love one’s homeland, so that it actively makes its contribution as it progresses on the road of culture and civilization. Membership in a certain nation should be accompanied by sacrificial efforts and the sincere exchange of gifts received as an inheritance from previous generations, in order to build a society open to other peoples and the exchange of traditions. [Pope John Paul II (circa 2003)]
(On Patriotism and Building a Just Society)
With soul enlightened by the Gospel, it is possible to better understand how it is necessary to love one’s homeland, so that it actively makes its contribution as it progresses on the road of culture and civilization. Membership in a certain nation should be accompanied by sacrificial efforts and the sincere exchange of gifts received as an inheritance from previous generations, in order to build a society open to other peoples and the exchange of traditions. [Pope John Paul II (circa 2003)]
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Highlighting a Key Problem With Common Apologetics Methodology:
Unlike any other subject matter which I have dealt with on this weblog, the ancillary subject matter briefly touched on in this thread (read: the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) is one that I will not respond to email traffic on in any forum until at least next August. Readers of this weblog for more than a year presumably know the reason why I have taken this position and if not, they can consider the threads in footnote one{1} to be my main reason for that decision -as what interests me at a given time can differ for various and sundry reasons. Having noted that, there is a larger issue of which the ancillary issue is a subtext and it is for that reason that I will touch on the subject at this time.
To start with, what brought about this post is what I view as a cheap trick attempted by Jimmy Akin to comment on something without seeking to substantiate his position by rational argument. I view such tactics as lowbrow and in proportion to my respect for the intelligence of the person making them, a degree of disgust is inevitable. In the case of Jimmy Akin, that makes the degree of disgust quite high indeed because he is a very intelligent man and one of the best of the contemporary Catholic apologists. In response to his attempted slipping of a blurb about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings into what was otherwise a very enjoyable sci-fi thread, I made the following brief comment in the comments box of the thread. Jimmy's words will be italicized in the original comments and in darkgreen throughout the balance of this posting.
In real life, some argued during World War II that the entire population of Japan was functioning as combatants and so we could nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is not tenable, given human nature
When dealing with a conscripted population, the dynamic of the situation is different than when dealing with unconscripted civilians. When that is taken into account along with a plethora of other factors{1} that are glossed over in simplistic fashion by not a few "apologist" sorts, what is rashly presumed to be "untenable" becomes quite tenable indeed.
Too bad you had to ruin a really good sci-fi post with that attempted fast one.
I decided to omit the footnote from that response as the link it contained is among the ones in the first footnote of this post. In response to Jimmy, original blurb, Greg Mockeridge also wrote some stuff -indeed much more than I did. Readers interested in what he said can peruse that combox thread at Jimmy's blog.{2} My interest in this posting is fourfold: (i) to respond to what Jimmy said to Greg and myself, (ii) to deal with the broader issue of certain fallacies which are common to many who approach this issue, (iii) to cover them at the same time, and (iv) to be reasonably brief about it all. How well I succeed in achieving all four objectives in this post will be debatable of course but without further ado, here goes...
Shawn & Greg:
I know that y'all have a burr under your saddle on the subject of the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but you really need to keep perspective on matters.
If I have a burr under [my] saddle on anything Jimmy it is (i) the complete lack of sound thinking that permeates Catholic circles on these subjects and (ii) the way Greg and I have been treated by members of the apologetics oligarchy when discussing this subject. I am also aware that if an opinion is reiterated enough, many people will accept it as correct even if it is not. The latter is human nature sadly whereas the former is something that should be of concern to those who believe that Catholics have important contributions to make to the arena of ideas. There are serious problems here which too many want to pretend do not exist which I have noted in past public postings on this subject matter:
Catholic apologists are oftentimes intellectually dependent. I say this because they demonstrate a serious lacuna in their ability to utilize the thinking mechanism. Their intellectual dependence is on what the Catholic Church's magisterium[...] says on issues. Where this authority speaks with a clear voice, they can wade their way into issues of discussion with a degree of comfort. However, where this authority does not speak[...], they are at a loss of what to do. This is where they flail around like a drowning man seeking to find anything they can remotely ascribe to a magisterial statement on the issue in question as their way of coping with a lack of such guidance which they so evidently need.
For it is easy to argue a position where there are definite guidelines of sorts and Catholic doctrine does provide certain principles which are able to be grasped. The problem is the areas where there is not the same authoritative guidance. Finding themselves unable to argue a position on the grounds of what is reasonable and what is logical[...], they seek to manufacture an intervention by magisterial authority in the hopes of avoiding accountability for the grey matter between their ears. This approach is (of course) not a properly Catholic one and any hope of convincing non-Catholics that their position is the correct one evaporates like dew on a hot summer morning. The end result is various apologists claiming magisterial sanction for certain doctrinal applications and parroting sections of the catechism where general principles are espoused as if they are one and the same. Then, when you point out to these "apologists" that they are not defining their terms either at all or at least not correctly, the response in return is either hostile shrieking, insults, or continued repetition of the same flawed approaches as before as if such repetition constitutes a valid argument. From there, a disintegration of any genuine dialogue occurs (if one existed to begin with) and the end result is hardly edifying in any way to those who are casually observing what is going on--let alone to those who are involved in the disputation as active (or passive) participants.
Anyway, that is what we have seen occurring in recent years in the Catholic apologetics movement with the old apologetics hegemony breaking down and the previously unchallenged bigwigs not being properly equipped to provide a coherent and persuasive voice in the arena of ideas viz. application of principles in the public square. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 5, 2006)]
And again:
Frankly, what I wrote is not a rubix cube. It is a theory properly understood and is intended to provoke logical thought and reasoned analysis. And as logical thought and reasoned analysis is quite rare in most circles (including "apologetics" ones), a degree of condescention is required to outline certain elementary factors that are required for that.
It is indeed unfortunate but after over seven years of observing this phenomenon of "Catholic apologetics" and seeing this problem manifest itself not only amongst the neophytes but to a larger extent the seasoned apologists, I am not about to stand by and pretend that the ship is not sinking when indeed it is. On making a positive contribution to the arena of ideas and influencing culture for the good, Catholic apologists are (as a whole) miserable failures!!! A key reason for this is that they presume a competence in certain issues[...] which they do not have.
Furthermore, as many of them evince either ignorance of (or an unwillingness to differentiate) between what is an authoritative Church pronouncement and what is not, they inevitably[...] throw everything into the same kettle and this is erroneous. It is also disingenuous to no small degree.
I am beyond tired of seeing illogical fideism and warmed over neo-ultramontanism by these self-anointed "experts." All they do is provide fuel for the anti-Catholic caricatures of Catholics as intellectual infants who cannot think and blindly accept anything that is said by a curial representative -no matter how illogical and opposed to sound reasoning it happens to be. As Catholics we recognize that magisterial teachings require religious submission. This is a tall order and it should not be casually presumed without adequate warrant. I refuse to stand by, even by proxy, and watch a bunch of ignorant self-anointed "experts" lump every curial utterance into that category as a cheap expedient to shut off legitimate and necessary debate on various issues. This kind of crap has gone on for too long and it needed to be stopped yesterday. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 22, 2006)]
More could be noted{3} but that suffices to get my point across adequately at the present time.
Now despite more and more evidence that there are few who take the idea of sound rational logical thought seriously in Catholic circles, I am perhaps a bit of an optimist in thinking there are still some out there who have not bent the knee to the Baal of intellectual dependence yet -even among those who call themselves "apologists." But based on what I have observed, I have found myself as a rule less and less optimistic{4} as the years go passing by.
The fact that the Japanese--unlike the Borg and the Cylons--had free will means that one cannot simply rely on the idea that "they all count as aggressors" and exterminate them en masse.
It is better to say nothing at all than play this kind of "lets take a position but slip it into an unrelated post to appear to be not taking a position per se" kind of game. It is disappointing to see that even someone as intelligent as you are Jimmy can fail to make some of the necessary distinctions in this situation that need to be considered for a fair assessment on the matter. Maybe the argumentation fallacy of provincialism that impairs a lot of Catholic approaches to this issue is a deeper problem than I initially presumed.
You'd have to *show* that they were all aggressors, which is dubious in view of the fact that different human use their free will in different ways.
Jimmy, when the mass population was conscripted and working actively against the allied forces in the war -and even had brainwashed children to act as little kamikazes- this is not the same as opening fire on a defenseless city or populace. But rather than speak in the abstract, lets make of this a more real life situation.
Assume for a moment Jimmy that you are a soldier in Okinawa in 1945 and a child sidled up to you with a bomb pack on. Are you telling me you would stand there and let yourself get blown away??? Hardly, you would with the greatest of likelihood do what you could to make sure the bomb would not hurt you -even going so far as shooting the child if you had to. The latter would not be done because you wanted to hurt the child but because if you did not, you would be killed too: either by the child's bomb or by your fellow soldiers who would see any attempt at helping to be giving aid and comfort to the enemy.{5} These kinds of decisions are always made in a snap second and with survival in mind.
That you see is what such children would be (enemies) in the scenario noted above. And for the sake of survival in that situation they must be viewed as such. It is a ghastly picture but guess what: war is a very ghastly business and there is a reason why it should never be undertaken lightly.
In a post *about* killing fictional races that do not have human freedom of will, it is entirely appropriate for me to make passing mention of this difference and to state what is, in fact, the dominant opinion among Catholic thinkers about the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
And as I have noted on more than one occasion Jimmy, opinions unsubstantiated by rational argumentation are not worth consideration no matter who makes them. There is no shortage of uninformed opinions out there; ergo one must judge an opinion by objective criteria. The problem is, people are disposed to think of what certain people say as being right irregardless of the merits of their arguments (if they provide any). That is why I would not consider on this matter of discussion that there are many "thinkers" at all: even normally very sharp knives react emotionally to the issue and that impairs the thinking mechanism more times than not. Throw in a general ignorance of many prevalent factors involved and the dominant opinion does not surprise me at all.
Arguing to consensus is of course a fallacious form of argumentation but I trust you were not doing that with your statement but instead making a general statement. Nonetheless, to address the majority view briefly, I know Jimmy that you know as well as anyone that the predominant view of theologians can change on issues and indeed has changed on many of them. Indeed, many of the theological positions taken by the Second Vatican Council were hardly majority viewpoints prior to the convening of that synod. Other examples could be noted but that suffices to point out the problem with staking anyone's tent with "the majority view" among theologians.
There is another problem more implicit and it is this Jimmy: you happen to be one of these people, by virtue of your position in apologetics and the overall quality of the work you have done over the years, whom many people will accept something as true simply because you say it. This is problematical in some respect because there are a lot of people who do not know how to think very well and that is how they approach people whom they have an implicit faith of sorts in. This is why such people need to be careful in what they say and how they say it.
Surely you do not think I am somehow unaware that most theologians disagree with the position I have taken. If anything, I have been far more generous in giving those who disagree with me a fair amount of latitude as long as they stick to the issues and do not attempt indirect attempts to cut myself or others down or shut off legitimate disagreement on the issue as not a few so-called "apologists" do when the shoe is on the other foot: both on this issue and also several others which could be noted.
Another reason I will not call most who disagree with me on this issue "thinkers" as far as the issue goes because frankly, I have seen no attempts thus far to put together a hypothesis on the matter that can be subjected to reasonable scrutiny. And until I see such an attempt made, it would be fallacious to accept the opinion of anyone whomever they are. That is the problem with many if not most on this issue: they namedrop people whose opinions seem to concur with theirs but without presenting any evidence as to how said people arrived at their opinions. Sorry but that is not think[ing] Jimmy no matter how you chop the turkey.
This is not "attempting a fast one." The mention must be brief because of the nature of the post.
Other examples could have been made and you could have avoided giving the impression that this is a closed issue when in fact it is not. Again, your word carries a lot of weight with people Jimmy. There are those who would take your word over any assemblage of facts and rational analysis that would be provided by others. It is a sad spectacle{6} but it is what it is.
I am not obligated, just because I known that some Hiroshima-defenders out there, to slam on the brakes and conduct an extended discourse on the moral illegitimacy of the indiscriminate killing of Japanese people.
You assume it is indiscriminate but do not make any attempt to defend this assumption by rational argument. Apparently, people are supposed to tip the biretta, bow three times, and uncritically incense it because Jimmy Akin says so. In reality, the burden is on someone who makes an assumption to defend it or else to not make it. And this works both ways Jimmy, not just one way.
The burden is on defenders of the nuking to prove that it was morally legitimate to indiscriminately kill Japanese people--particularly given what the Catechism says on the subject of indiscriminate killing in wartime.
Again, the burden Jimmy is on both sides, not merely one.{7} For those who claim that the Catechism passage on indiscriminate killing in wartime applies to what happened on August 6, 1945 and August 9, 1945, they have to demonstrate this and cannot merely assume it. I have already explained in detail why this assumption is faulty for many reasons but I am not about to rehash the issue here. I have already more than established a solid burden of proof for my theory{8} on this matter. Beyond that, the arguments on this score from people of your persuasion without fail tend to be normative and thus subjective rather than non-normative and objective.
For example, does any bomb really kill with discrimination when it hits its target??? Obviously not. I have yet to find a bomb that actually asks who is home before it explodes so that it only kills the persons so aimed for. Therefore, the problem in the atomic bombing case is not what you claim it is. You and others essentially make an arbitrary normative or subjective "it is too big" attempted argument which is hardly non-normative or objective no matter how you slice the bread. More could be noted but as I have already more than adequately established by sound rigorous logical argument my position on this matter and various contingent factors in a series of threads{9}, I am not about to do so again.
And, let me point out, this combox is not the proper place for that discussion.
That is why I blogged this thread and will post the link to the combox so it does not clutter your combox. But kindly keep matters in context Jimmy: when this subject erupted back in 2005, you were AWOL on it as was (in truly predictable fashion) the rest of the apologetics oligarchy. I did not anticipate that my theory would be accepted either immediately or without some friction but I was shocked at the unethical behaviour that masqueraded about as "apologetics"{10} by some whom I once thought fairly highly of. Not a few persons disgraced themselves in how they handled this matter -some more so than others.
Despite what happened, I still think highly of you Jimmy (you are one of a select few apologists I can say that about). What happened in 2005 was a symptom of a much larger problem that has been going on for a long time. I hope therefore that you will call those self-styled "apologists" I refer to in the previous paragraph from the cliff over which they are running (to the discredit of Catholic apologetics). Again, you do have that kind of influence Jimmy -you are probably one of the few who does. It is my hope that you will use it and not seek merely to preserve the status quo: a subject I will touch on another time in another posting when I feel inclined to speak on these matters again.
Notes:
{1} Threads on the Atomic Bomb Droppings, Military and Statistical Calculations, the Moral and Ethical Aspects of the Subject Matter in Question, Etc. (circa August 17, 2005-September 20, 2005)
"Armstrong Illusions" Dept. Revisited (circa January 23, 2006)
Preserving the Historical Record (circa January 26, 2006)
Guest Editorial on the Atomic Bombings, the Continued Emphasis on it Publicly by Certain Apologists, and the Goal of Catholic Apologetics --By Dr. Art Sippo (circa January 26, 2006)
A Followup Guest Editorial on the Atomic Bombings, the Continued Emphasis on it Publicly by Certain Apologists, and the Goal of Catholic Apologetics--By Dr. Art Sippo (circa January 31, 2006)
Some Brief Wrapup Comments on the Previous Guest Editorial (circa January 31, 2006)
Dismantling the GS 80 Attempted "Argument" By Recourse to General Norms of Theological Interpretation (circa February 4, 2006)
{2} Which for the record is among my semi-regular reads.
{3} I could also mention the public flap over supposed "torture" but will save that one for another time as this is too long already. Oh and another more explicit writing is being considered for posting which would get to the core of what is noted above amongst the apologetics oligarchy and do so in a much briefer and much less irenic way. Whether or when it is blogged remains uncertain at this time.
{4} Fortunately (I suppose) in recent weeks I have found some Catholics who can honestly interact with an issue on its merits and this has made me at least cautiously optimistic that there are more people of character out there than I was starting to presume. I refer of course to Dr. Scott Carson and Dr. Michael Liccione. Maybe the reason they can do this is partly because they are not part of the apologetics oligarchy and therefore have no vested interest in circling the wagons to protect one another from legitimate scrutiny while hypocritically condoning similar scrutiny being hurled at rival apologist camps.
{5} I am sure some of the brainless overreactive sorts will claim that this means I endorse murder or something equally as stupid: I note it here so that when it happens, people cannot say that I did not anticipate this pathetic Jerry Springeresque-mainstream mediaesque attempt to avoid intelligent discussion via cultic deadangenting tactics.
{6} I do not mean this in any way as a personal slight against you Jimmy, only as a lament of sorts against people in general. (The metaphor of people as sheep which was used in the Gospels makes more and more sense to me the longer I observe humanity.)
{7} To assert otherwise is to endorse (however tacitly) intellectual and ethical laziness on one side of the issue.
{8} I say theory because it is far more than a mere hypothesis.
{9} See footnote one.
{10} The problems were many but one which was particularly noxious was the violation of private correspondence by a certain party I will not name at this time. When it happened again, I wrote a blog post on the subject which can be read HERE. Certain persons whom I shall not name tried to assert that I "lied" on this matter but if not for my growing tired of responding to them only to have said parties dodge the issues and involve themselves in more character assassination, I would have easily dispatched with this baseless assertion and done so by objective criteria as I had previously done with a panopoly of their other public assertions. Or as I have noted elsewhere:
As for the claim that I lied about his violation of private correspondence, I could easily shred that thread also if (i) I wanted to take the time to do it and (ii) if I actually thought it would do any good to take the time to do it.[...] Unfortunately, unlike XXXX, I do not have all the time in the world to cut and paste people's work to create libelous distortions even if I wanted to. And I most certainly do not countenance this attitude at all -viewing instead a potential excess of prose as preferable to such mutilations of the work of others to insure that the words of others are not taken out of context. [Excerpt from an Unsent Email Correspondence (as of November 25, 2006)]
The approach take by the apologetics oligarchy against one of their own engaging in this unethical libelous behaviour??? Why silence of course.
Unlike any other subject matter which I have dealt with on this weblog, the ancillary subject matter briefly touched on in this thread (read: the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) is one that I will not respond to email traffic on in any forum until at least next August. Readers of this weblog for more than a year presumably know the reason why I have taken this position and if not, they can consider the threads in footnote one{1} to be my main reason for that decision -as what interests me at a given time can differ for various and sundry reasons. Having noted that, there is a larger issue of which the ancillary issue is a subtext and it is for that reason that I will touch on the subject at this time.
To start with, what brought about this post is what I view as a cheap trick attempted by Jimmy Akin to comment on something without seeking to substantiate his position by rational argument. I view such tactics as lowbrow and in proportion to my respect for the intelligence of the person making them, a degree of disgust is inevitable. In the case of Jimmy Akin, that makes the degree of disgust quite high indeed because he is a very intelligent man and one of the best of the contemporary Catholic apologists. In response to his attempted slipping of a blurb about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings into what was otherwise a very enjoyable sci-fi thread, I made the following brief comment in the comments box of the thread. Jimmy's words will be italicized in the original comments and in darkgreen throughout the balance of this posting.
In real life, some argued during World War II that the entire population of Japan was functioning as combatants and so we could nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is not tenable, given human nature
When dealing with a conscripted population, the dynamic of the situation is different than when dealing with unconscripted civilians. When that is taken into account along with a plethora of other factors{1} that are glossed over in simplistic fashion by not a few "apologist" sorts, what is rashly presumed to be "untenable" becomes quite tenable indeed.
Too bad you had to ruin a really good sci-fi post with that attempted fast one.
I decided to omit the footnote from that response as the link it contained is among the ones in the first footnote of this post. In response to Jimmy, original blurb, Greg Mockeridge also wrote some stuff -indeed much more than I did. Readers interested in what he said can peruse that combox thread at Jimmy's blog.{2} My interest in this posting is fourfold: (i) to respond to what Jimmy said to Greg and myself, (ii) to deal with the broader issue of certain fallacies which are common to many who approach this issue, (iii) to cover them at the same time, and (iv) to be reasonably brief about it all. How well I succeed in achieving all four objectives in this post will be debatable of course but without further ado, here goes...
Shawn & Greg:
I know that y'all have a burr under your saddle on the subject of the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but you really need to keep perspective on matters.
If I have a burr under [my] saddle on anything Jimmy it is (i) the complete lack of sound thinking that permeates Catholic circles on these subjects and (ii) the way Greg and I have been treated by members of the apologetics oligarchy when discussing this subject. I am also aware that if an opinion is reiterated enough, many people will accept it as correct even if it is not. The latter is human nature sadly whereas the former is something that should be of concern to those who believe that Catholics have important contributions to make to the arena of ideas. There are serious problems here which too many want to pretend do not exist which I have noted in past public postings on this subject matter:
Catholic apologists are oftentimes intellectually dependent. I say this because they demonstrate a serious lacuna in their ability to utilize the thinking mechanism. Their intellectual dependence is on what the Catholic Church's magisterium[...] says on issues. Where this authority speaks with a clear voice, they can wade their way into issues of discussion with a degree of comfort. However, where this authority does not speak[...], they are at a loss of what to do. This is where they flail around like a drowning man seeking to find anything they can remotely ascribe to a magisterial statement on the issue in question as their way of coping with a lack of such guidance which they so evidently need.
For it is easy to argue a position where there are definite guidelines of sorts and Catholic doctrine does provide certain principles which are able to be grasped. The problem is the areas where there is not the same authoritative guidance. Finding themselves unable to argue a position on the grounds of what is reasonable and what is logical[...], they seek to manufacture an intervention by magisterial authority in the hopes of avoiding accountability for the grey matter between their ears. This approach is (of course) not a properly Catholic one and any hope of convincing non-Catholics that their position is the correct one evaporates like dew on a hot summer morning. The end result is various apologists claiming magisterial sanction for certain doctrinal applications and parroting sections of the catechism where general principles are espoused as if they are one and the same. Then, when you point out to these "apologists" that they are not defining their terms either at all or at least not correctly, the response in return is either hostile shrieking, insults, or continued repetition of the same flawed approaches as before as if such repetition constitutes a valid argument. From there, a disintegration of any genuine dialogue occurs (if one existed to begin with) and the end result is hardly edifying in any way to those who are casually observing what is going on--let alone to those who are involved in the disputation as active (or passive) participants.
Anyway, that is what we have seen occurring in recent years in the Catholic apologetics movement with the old apologetics hegemony breaking down and the previously unchallenged bigwigs not being properly equipped to provide a coherent and persuasive voice in the arena of ideas viz. application of principles in the public square. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 5, 2006)]
And again:
Frankly, what I wrote is not a rubix cube. It is a theory properly understood and is intended to provoke logical thought and reasoned analysis. And as logical thought and reasoned analysis is quite rare in most circles (including "apologetics" ones), a degree of condescention is required to outline certain elementary factors that are required for that.
It is indeed unfortunate but after over seven years of observing this phenomenon of "Catholic apologetics" and seeing this problem manifest itself not only amongst the neophytes but to a larger extent the seasoned apologists, I am not about to stand by and pretend that the ship is not sinking when indeed it is. On making a positive contribution to the arena of ideas and influencing culture for the good, Catholic apologists are (as a whole) miserable failures!!! A key reason for this is that they presume a competence in certain issues[...] which they do not have.
Furthermore, as many of them evince either ignorance of (or an unwillingness to differentiate) between what is an authoritative Church pronouncement and what is not, they inevitably[...] throw everything into the same kettle and this is erroneous. It is also disingenuous to no small degree.
I am beyond tired of seeing illogical fideism and warmed over neo-ultramontanism by these self-anointed "experts." All they do is provide fuel for the anti-Catholic caricatures of Catholics as intellectual infants who cannot think and blindly accept anything that is said by a curial representative -no matter how illogical and opposed to sound reasoning it happens to be. As Catholics we recognize that magisterial teachings require religious submission. This is a tall order and it should not be casually presumed without adequate warrant. I refuse to stand by, even by proxy, and watch a bunch of ignorant self-anointed "experts" lump every curial utterance into that category as a cheap expedient to shut off legitimate and necessary debate on various issues. This kind of crap has gone on for too long and it needed to be stopped yesterday. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 22, 2006)]
More could be noted{3} but that suffices to get my point across adequately at the present time.
Now despite more and more evidence that there are few who take the idea of sound rational logical thought seriously in Catholic circles, I am perhaps a bit of an optimist in thinking there are still some out there who have not bent the knee to the Baal of intellectual dependence yet -even among those who call themselves "apologists." But based on what I have observed, I have found myself as a rule less and less optimistic{4} as the years go passing by.
The fact that the Japanese--unlike the Borg and the Cylons--had free will means that one cannot simply rely on the idea that "they all count as aggressors" and exterminate them en masse.
It is better to say nothing at all than play this kind of "lets take a position but slip it into an unrelated post to appear to be not taking a position per se" kind of game. It is disappointing to see that even someone as intelligent as you are Jimmy can fail to make some of the necessary distinctions in this situation that need to be considered for a fair assessment on the matter. Maybe the argumentation fallacy of provincialism that impairs a lot of Catholic approaches to this issue is a deeper problem than I initially presumed.
You'd have to *show* that they were all aggressors, which is dubious in view of the fact that different human use their free will in different ways.
Jimmy, when the mass population was conscripted and working actively against the allied forces in the war -and even had brainwashed children to act as little kamikazes- this is not the same as opening fire on a defenseless city or populace. But rather than speak in the abstract, lets make of this a more real life situation.
Assume for a moment Jimmy that you are a soldier in Okinawa in 1945 and a child sidled up to you with a bomb pack on. Are you telling me you would stand there and let yourself get blown away??? Hardly, you would with the greatest of likelihood do what you could to make sure the bomb would not hurt you -even going so far as shooting the child if you had to. The latter would not be done because you wanted to hurt the child but because if you did not, you would be killed too: either by the child's bomb or by your fellow soldiers who would see any attempt at helping to be giving aid and comfort to the enemy.{5} These kinds of decisions are always made in a snap second and with survival in mind.
That you see is what such children would be (enemies) in the scenario noted above. And for the sake of survival in that situation they must be viewed as such. It is a ghastly picture but guess what: war is a very ghastly business and there is a reason why it should never be undertaken lightly.
In a post *about* killing fictional races that do not have human freedom of will, it is entirely appropriate for me to make passing mention of this difference and to state what is, in fact, the dominant opinion among Catholic thinkers about the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
And as I have noted on more than one occasion Jimmy, opinions unsubstantiated by rational argumentation are not worth consideration no matter who makes them. There is no shortage of uninformed opinions out there; ergo one must judge an opinion by objective criteria. The problem is, people are disposed to think of what certain people say as being right irregardless of the merits of their arguments (if they provide any). That is why I would not consider on this matter of discussion that there are many "thinkers" at all: even normally very sharp knives react emotionally to the issue and that impairs the thinking mechanism more times than not. Throw in a general ignorance of many prevalent factors involved and the dominant opinion does not surprise me at all.
Arguing to consensus is of course a fallacious form of argumentation but I trust you were not doing that with your statement but instead making a general statement. Nonetheless, to address the majority view briefly, I know Jimmy that you know as well as anyone that the predominant view of theologians can change on issues and indeed has changed on many of them. Indeed, many of the theological positions taken by the Second Vatican Council were hardly majority viewpoints prior to the convening of that synod. Other examples could be noted but that suffices to point out the problem with staking anyone's tent with "the majority view" among theologians.
There is another problem more implicit and it is this Jimmy: you happen to be one of these people, by virtue of your position in apologetics and the overall quality of the work you have done over the years, whom many people will accept something as true simply because you say it. This is problematical in some respect because there are a lot of people who do not know how to think very well and that is how they approach people whom they have an implicit faith of sorts in. This is why such people need to be careful in what they say and how they say it.
Surely you do not think I am somehow unaware that most theologians disagree with the position I have taken. If anything, I have been far more generous in giving those who disagree with me a fair amount of latitude as long as they stick to the issues and do not attempt indirect attempts to cut myself or others down or shut off legitimate disagreement on the issue as not a few so-called "apologists" do when the shoe is on the other foot: both on this issue and also several others which could be noted.
Another reason I will not call most who disagree with me on this issue "thinkers" as far as the issue goes because frankly, I have seen no attempts thus far to put together a hypothesis on the matter that can be subjected to reasonable scrutiny. And until I see such an attempt made, it would be fallacious to accept the opinion of anyone whomever they are. That is the problem with many if not most on this issue: they namedrop people whose opinions seem to concur with theirs but without presenting any evidence as to how said people arrived at their opinions. Sorry but that is not think[ing] Jimmy no matter how you chop the turkey.
This is not "attempting a fast one." The mention must be brief because of the nature of the post.
Other examples could have been made and you could have avoided giving the impression that this is a closed issue when in fact it is not. Again, your word carries a lot of weight with people Jimmy. There are those who would take your word over any assemblage of facts and rational analysis that would be provided by others. It is a sad spectacle{6} but it is what it is.
I am not obligated, just because I known that some Hiroshima-defenders out there, to slam on the brakes and conduct an extended discourse on the moral illegitimacy of the indiscriminate killing of Japanese people.
You assume it is indiscriminate but do not make any attempt to defend this assumption by rational argument. Apparently, people are supposed to tip the biretta, bow three times, and uncritically incense it because Jimmy Akin says so. In reality, the burden is on someone who makes an assumption to defend it or else to not make it. And this works both ways Jimmy, not just one way.
The burden is on defenders of the nuking to prove that it was morally legitimate to indiscriminately kill Japanese people--particularly given what the Catechism says on the subject of indiscriminate killing in wartime.
Again, the burden Jimmy is on both sides, not merely one.{7} For those who claim that the Catechism passage on indiscriminate killing in wartime applies to what happened on August 6, 1945 and August 9, 1945, they have to demonstrate this and cannot merely assume it. I have already explained in detail why this assumption is faulty for many reasons but I am not about to rehash the issue here. I have already more than established a solid burden of proof for my theory{8} on this matter. Beyond that, the arguments on this score from people of your persuasion without fail tend to be normative and thus subjective rather than non-normative and objective.
For example, does any bomb really kill with discrimination when it hits its target??? Obviously not. I have yet to find a bomb that actually asks who is home before it explodes so that it only kills the persons so aimed for. Therefore, the problem in the atomic bombing case is not what you claim it is. You and others essentially make an arbitrary normative or subjective "it is too big" attempted argument which is hardly non-normative or objective no matter how you slice the bread. More could be noted but as I have already more than adequately established by sound rigorous logical argument my position on this matter and various contingent factors in a series of threads{9}, I am not about to do so again.
And, let me point out, this combox is not the proper place for that discussion.
That is why I blogged this thread and will post the link to the combox so it does not clutter your combox. But kindly keep matters in context Jimmy: when this subject erupted back in 2005, you were AWOL on it as was (in truly predictable fashion) the rest of the apologetics oligarchy. I did not anticipate that my theory would be accepted either immediately or without some friction but I was shocked at the unethical behaviour that masqueraded about as "apologetics"{10} by some whom I once thought fairly highly of. Not a few persons disgraced themselves in how they handled this matter -some more so than others.
Despite what happened, I still think highly of you Jimmy (you are one of a select few apologists I can say that about). What happened in 2005 was a symptom of a much larger problem that has been going on for a long time. I hope therefore that you will call those self-styled "apologists" I refer to in the previous paragraph from the cliff over which they are running (to the discredit of Catholic apologetics). Again, you do have that kind of influence Jimmy -you are probably one of the few who does. It is my hope that you will use it and not seek merely to preserve the status quo: a subject I will touch on another time in another posting when I feel inclined to speak on these matters again.
Notes:
{1} Threads on the Atomic Bomb Droppings, Military and Statistical Calculations, the Moral and Ethical Aspects of the Subject Matter in Question, Etc. (circa August 17, 2005-September 20, 2005)
"Armstrong Illusions" Dept. Revisited (circa January 23, 2006)
Preserving the Historical Record (circa January 26, 2006)
Guest Editorial on the Atomic Bombings, the Continued Emphasis on it Publicly by Certain Apologists, and the Goal of Catholic Apologetics --By Dr. Art Sippo (circa January 26, 2006)
A Followup Guest Editorial on the Atomic Bombings, the Continued Emphasis on it Publicly by Certain Apologists, and the Goal of Catholic Apologetics--By Dr. Art Sippo (circa January 31, 2006)
Some Brief Wrapup Comments on the Previous Guest Editorial (circa January 31, 2006)
Dismantling the GS 80 Attempted "Argument" By Recourse to General Norms of Theological Interpretation (circa February 4, 2006)
{2} Which for the record is among my semi-regular reads.
{3} I could also mention the public flap over supposed "torture" but will save that one for another time as this is too long already. Oh and another more explicit writing is being considered for posting which would get to the core of what is noted above amongst the apologetics oligarchy and do so in a much briefer and much less irenic way. Whether or when it is blogged remains uncertain at this time.
{4} Fortunately (I suppose) in recent weeks I have found some Catholics who can honestly interact with an issue on its merits and this has made me at least cautiously optimistic that there are more people of character out there than I was starting to presume. I refer of course to Dr. Scott Carson and Dr. Michael Liccione. Maybe the reason they can do this is partly because they are not part of the apologetics oligarchy and therefore have no vested interest in circling the wagons to protect one another from legitimate scrutiny while hypocritically condoning similar scrutiny being hurled at rival apologist camps.
{5} I am sure some of the brainless overreactive sorts will claim that this means I endorse murder or something equally as stupid: I note it here so that when it happens, people cannot say that I did not anticipate this pathetic Jerry Springeresque-mainstream mediaesque attempt to avoid intelligent discussion via cultic deadangenting tactics.
{6} I do not mean this in any way as a personal slight against you Jimmy, only as a lament of sorts against people in general. (The metaphor of people as sheep which was used in the Gospels makes more and more sense to me the longer I observe humanity.)
{7} To assert otherwise is to endorse (however tacitly) intellectual and ethical laziness on one side of the issue.
{8} I say theory because it is far more than a mere hypothesis.
{9} See footnote one.
{10} The problems were many but one which was particularly noxious was the violation of private correspondence by a certain party I will not name at this time. When it happened again, I wrote a blog post on the subject which can be read HERE. Certain persons whom I shall not name tried to assert that I "lied" on this matter but if not for my growing tired of responding to them only to have said parties dodge the issues and involve themselves in more character assassination, I would have easily dispatched with this baseless assertion and done so by objective criteria as I had previously done with a panopoly of their other public assertions. Or as I have noted elsewhere:
As for the claim that I lied about his violation of private correspondence, I could easily shred that thread also if (i) I wanted to take the time to do it and (ii) if I actually thought it would do any good to take the time to do it.[...] Unfortunately, unlike XXXX, I do not have all the time in the world to cut and paste people's work to create libelous distortions even if I wanted to. And I most certainly do not countenance this attitude at all -viewing instead a potential excess of prose as preferable to such mutilations of the work of others to insure that the words of others are not taken out of context. [Excerpt from an Unsent Email Correspondence (as of November 25, 2006)]
The approach take by the apologetics oligarchy against one of their own engaging in this unethical libelous behaviour??? Why silence of course.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Points to Ponder:
(On Discussion Subjects That Interest Me at a Given Time)
[A] subject as a rule needs to be of contemporary significance to be of interest to me in its discussing. This can take many forms including but not limited to (i) something that interests me that I have a reasonable degree of knowledge about which I may not have discussed before and want to discuss for some reason, (ii) that someone emails me on a subject previously discussed and I am predisposed for some reason to discuss it again at or approximate to that time, (iii) contemporary events which provide for the opportunity to in some fashion expound on timeless principles pertaining in some fashion or another to the subject so discussed, (iv) something I recall from reading which is of interest to me at a given moment in time, or (v) a situation whereby some additional threads can be added to the mosaic of subjects which have been of interest to me at various times as a way of further refining through development my views on a given subject matter. [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa November 27, 2006)]
(On Discussion Subjects That Interest Me at a Given Time)
[A] subject as a rule needs to be of contemporary significance to be of interest to me in its discussing. This can take many forms including but not limited to (i) something that interests me that I have a reasonable degree of knowledge about which I may not have discussed before and want to discuss for some reason, (ii) that someone emails me on a subject previously discussed and I am predisposed for some reason to discuss it again at or approximate to that time, (iii) contemporary events which provide for the opportunity to in some fashion expound on timeless principles pertaining in some fashion or another to the subject so discussed, (iv) something I recall from reading which is of interest to me at a given moment in time, or (v) a situation whereby some additional threads can be added to the mosaic of subjects which have been of interest to me at various times as a way of further refining through development my views on a given subject matter. [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa November 27, 2006)]
Friday, November 24, 2006
Points to Ponder:
(On Building One's Character)
One builds one's own character. The required first step is a choice. One's got to choose to build one's character; one's got to hold it as a value - that's the first step. Once one understands that one possesses the faculty of volition, or the power of choice, that particular individual will go about seeking the character traits and integrating them into his personality structure or character structure. The question for most people is "how does one go about doing that?" The first step after making, deciding or focusing on the fact that he has a choice, is that he has to decide what character traits he finds valuable and meaningful. Most people would agree on most of them. Some of the "eternal verities," so to speak, very few people would challenge the importance of character traits such as honesty, integrity, hard work, discipline, and so forth. Then, when you get into the more debatable -- from certain points of view -- things such as altruism, or self-sacrifice, there would be considerable area for debate. But generally, just to answer your question, the most important factor in going about building character is, first of all, to decide or choose to hold that particular value as a high value, a premium, in one's life, and then actually the rest will fall into place. There are bound to be ups and downs along the way -- even some mistakes made in terms of what's integrated -- but if one holds Reason as a value, along with character-building, the rest will fall into place much easier. The very fact that a person would choose to hold character building as a high-value, I would assume that the person is a "seeker;" that is, a "seeker" after truth. [Mike Mentzer to John Little (circa 1986)]
(On Building One's Character)
One builds one's own character. The required first step is a choice. One's got to choose to build one's character; one's got to hold it as a value - that's the first step. Once one understands that one possesses the faculty of volition, or the power of choice, that particular individual will go about seeking the character traits and integrating them into his personality structure or character structure. The question for most people is "how does one go about doing that?" The first step after making, deciding or focusing on the fact that he has a choice, is that he has to decide what character traits he finds valuable and meaningful. Most people would agree on most of them. Some of the "eternal verities," so to speak, very few people would challenge the importance of character traits such as honesty, integrity, hard work, discipline, and so forth. Then, when you get into the more debatable -- from certain points of view -- things such as altruism, or self-sacrifice, there would be considerable area for debate. But generally, just to answer your question, the most important factor in going about building character is, first of all, to decide or choose to hold that particular value as a high value, a premium, in one's life, and then actually the rest will fall into place. There are bound to be ups and downs along the way -- even some mistakes made in terms of what's integrated -- but if one holds Reason as a value, along with character-building, the rest will fall into place much easier. The very fact that a person would choose to hold character building as a high-value, I would assume that the person is a "seeker;" that is, a "seeker" after truth. [Mike Mentzer to John Little (circa 1986)]
"Santayana's Dictum" Dept.
(A Synopsis of Our Overall Prescience Viz. the 2006 Elections and A Bit of Analysis As Well)
[Prefatory Note: Your host apologizes for the delay in posting this thread -it was ready to go back on November 22, 2006 but there were too many glitches in the text formatting to be posted at that time and not enough time to fix them. Anyway, the text here is the same as before with only the most minor of adjustments (including the addition of a footnote among them). -ISM]
As it has been customary for the present writer to write an analysis of sorts after each election cycle{1}, it seems appropriate to do so after the recent election; ergo, the post you have before you.
Now readers of this weblog are aware that your humble servant has reiterated numerous times certain principles to account for in making prognoses on future events. We intend with this email to outline some areas where we were remarkable prescient before getting to one area where we must eat some crow. But without further ado, let us get to it.
To start with, there is the historical trackrecord of elections. Often did the present writer speak of these matters in private conversations and sometimes even in public media formats. In perusing the archives, the following bits were found which will be revisited in sequential order so that readers can denote the consistency of my approach to these matters for reasons which will soon be evident:
For those who know their history, political savvy is going to be needed in much greater supply than normal in the next year and a half. I will outline in this post reasons for that seemingly bold assertion.
To start with, I have noted before that a year is an eternity in politics.[...] For that reason alone, what seems like a certain thing now may not be that way a year from now. (Let alone a year and a half from now.) But that does not mean that there are not certain lessons that history can teach us of general tendencies which can give us probabilities of what is more likely than not to happen. And it is utilizing the latter that I intend to do in the rest of this post in discussing the 2006 elections.
By all historical indicators of norms, the 2006 elections should favour the Democrats because historically the party which holds the White House loses ground in the midterm elections of a two-term president as a rule. And while many might scoff at the idea of the current crop of Democrats achieving that kind of feat, it frankly does not matter as a rule how potent or impotent they are politically. And as a brief outline from recent history should help clarify this a bit, that is what we will do at this time. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 21, 2005)]
The above text was the first public utterance we made on the principle of midterms in the second term of a presidency. Readers can review the entire thread to see the historical outline sketched which showed itself to apply again in this election year. The subject was revisited in the months prior to the election both in chat format as well as on this weblog. Here are the salient threads that can be recalled offhand -the first is a chat with Kevin Tierney which is reproduced in substantial integrity{2} at this time:
Kevin: the Machiavellian in me wants the dems to win the house so something like this can be put out and I'm at work, so I can't view it :)
me: well, if nothing else Conyers keeps me from having any of my blog postings be considered the "world's longest blog post" ;-)
Kevin: some of the charges there, let the dems go forward with that. It would give new definition to the concept of "hari-kari"
me: I predict Conyers and company may well use that report as their manifesto of sorts for this November and yes, it would turn off most people enough to marginalize the dems to make their takeover of the House go from possible/probable to snowballs-chance-in-hell ish
Kevin: their chances have declined incredibly from the beginning of the year when everyone was taking it as granted the dems were taking over both houses
me: agreed but I still think they are to be favoured
Kevin: I don't think either side is favored now it's 50-50 the dems have a chance in the senate, not the house I think
me: my reason is the "midterm of a two term president election cycle" pattern historically but the Senate will hold either way methinks the question mark is the House and that is key cause even if they take over and try impeachment schtick the Senate holding guarantees that there will be no removal of Bush prior to January 20, 2009
me: admittedly my Machiavellian side would get joy in seeing such hearings take place...cause it would make the Dems in 2008 less likely to win the presidency because we would see all the rabidness in full media view rather than somewhat sequestered as it is now and most people would be turned off by it to no small degree
Kevin: the only problem is astute democrat congressmen are few and far between
me: in short, we are in agreement here
Kevin: even Hillary Clinton is not that smart. One thing is for sure, she does not have her husband's charisma or the ability to bullshit
me: Lieberman is being challenged by the rabid moronic leftist fringe sorts in his re-election I hope Joe kicks the fringe candidate's keister soundly. I like him and wish there were more Dems like him [Excerpt from a Chat With Kevin Tierney (circa August 7, 2006)]
As readers can see, our hope for Leiberman panned. Readers can say that our comments on Conyers and the strategery we noted not being used means that we missed a prediction but at best it is a half-prediction and the germ of the point remains intact.{3} The present writer also made another reference to the historical pattern in the above thread. And from another chat file with Kevin, we noted these points including some predictions which remain to be fulfilled{4}:
me: well, that is what closed door sessions are for and a complicit media remember only with the 1994 congress did a lot of this stuff get televised prior to that, it was not on TV for viewing on CSpan or whatever and if the Dems win, they will probably make some excuse that the subjects to be treated on are "too delicate a matter to be publicly broadcast" or some other bullshit of that sort
me: if I sound downright nasty in my portrayal, it is because of experience in seeing them when they have a majority and how haughty they act. The Republicans act stupid a lot but the Democratic ancients are downright evil at times...not to mention vindictive...think of the way high school bullies and the "popular class" sorts acted for a good picture of the mentality
Kevin: their flanks have collapsed now, so my worries are less
me: my worries are less too...but a wounded animal is a fiercer fighter and there is enough anger out there at Bush
Kevin: the republicans don't have to win in November they just have to not lose
me: if they can convince enough fools to make the 2006 election a referendum on Bush, it may well work this time...things have changed since 2004...Bush has shown weakness in spots which is from our POV appalling...from their view, it is exploitable if they know what they are doing
Kevin: they won't be able to focus their message though since they call for a referendum on bush, but then state we achieve that by withdrawing from Iraq which nobody outside of the angry left blogosphere actually believes
me: put it this way...if I was the strategist for the Dems in 2006, I guarantee they would win the House cause I know where to hit Bush for maximum effect
someone on their side has to know too...the Q is if they will be listened to
which odds are is no
Kevin: let the dems charge the line, all anyone has to do is just hold the spears forward. Sure one horse breaks through, but they don't take the ground :)
me: lol nice analogy
me: I hope it is apropo...history is not on our side here though midterms of a two term president are rarely not a disaster for the incumbent party particularly if one party holds both houses and the presidency
Kevin: I do not believe history is a God who is infallible and to be worshipped. :) the tides of history are always shifting.
me: even the Republicans after the absolute ass kicking they got in 1932 and a further setback in 1934 and a 1936 electoral absolutely cleaned House literally in 1938 (about 75 House seats and 14 Senate seats were gained that year)
history is not to be worshipped nor is it infallible, but as Newman said it has lessons that we ignore to our own detriment...or as Santayana said "ignore history and you are doomed to repeat it" [Excerpt from a Chat With Kevin Tierney (circa September 6, 2006)]
Again, readers can notice your host's appeal to history on this matter as something to be taken seriously. However, the present writer would be dishonest if he did not admit that the tea leaves were reading differently to him in September as noted in the following blog posting of miscellaneous tidbits:
Some have opined that there will be a tidalwave of anti-Republican sentiment this November aimed as some kind of "referendum" on President Bush. Others have claimed the converse: that the Republicans will consolidate and maybe expand their holdings as the Democrats come apart at the seams. I have noted in the past on various occasions that a year is an eternity in politics. Keeping that factor in mind, it suffices to note that even two months is a long time -maybe an ice age or whatever. My gut intuition on these matters at the moment is the following:
---The Republicans will not lose the Senate. Period. They are vulnerable in the House this is true both by virtue of current circumstances as well as the traditional pattern of parties out of power gaining in the mid term elections of a two term presidency. But the Senate will hold -only 33 are up for re-election and the Democrats would have to hold serve on all their guys and pick up about ten seats or so in the Senate just to tie. (Remember, Cheney is the tiebreaker.) But ultimately I see the Republicans at the moment losing some seats in the House but holding serve. They may lose some in the Senate too but whatever happens, they will retain the Senate no matter what. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 14, 2006)]
While making note of the historical pattern and also that two months is a long time in politics; nonetheless, your host writing on the fly should have double checked the Senate numbers before posting some of what is in the above thread. For some reason, we were thinking it was ten to tie instead of six which may not sound like much of a difference but it is for reasons now to be explained in brief.
In an elected body where only one third are elected in a given cycle, basically assuming an even split roughly between the parties (which is something that is not necessarily a given), we were seeing approximately a third of the senators up for election (ten) being needed to close the senate gap rather than roughly a fifth (six). If we had taken a few minutes to double check the numbers above, the above statement would never have made about the Dems "not winning the Senate period" but instead we would have recognized that it was much more probable than we were presuming.{5}
Basically not much changed between what was noted on September 14, 2006 and what was posted on the weekend leading up to the election. Or to quote a post of miscellaneous tidbits on some subjects:
---As I have told not a few friends and associates in recent weeks, watch for this election cycle's "October Surprise." Well, it took 30 days but on 10/30 we got it in John Kerry's recent public snafu. After this one, I cannot see how the Democrats can win either house of Congress because (i) seven days before an election is too quick to be able to spin this one away and (ii) this will anger Independents like your weblog host as well as Republicans who may have been a bit lax viz. the upcoming election. Anyway, that is what our gut intuition is on the election at the present time. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 1, 2006)]
For the record, it is obvious that our intuition in the above paragraph was wrong. However, while the present writer did note more than once his intuition about the Republicans holding, he also noted a concern that they would not get the message if they did. Or to quote a post from the day of the election when it was too early to tell where the winds were blowing:
It needs to be made clear that any support for the Republicans is done grudgingly and not because people think they are that good a party because they are not...
[W]e must avoid being one-issue focused here. Granted national security is a huge issue and definitely must be at or near the top of the list of anyone who actually is concerned with the survival of not only themselves but also civilization. But we cannot let these guys off the hook in the myriad of areas where they are screwing up. They need to be told in no uncertain terms that they are not being approved of in this election as much as their opponents are being rejected. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa November 7, 2006)]
Obviously our concern there ended up being not founded as the Republicans were rebuked on election day. And the reasons why they were rebuked are ones which your host outlined in advance. In other words, while we outlined what the Dems would need to do to win and also noted the historical trackrecord, we obviously underestimated the Dems being smart enough to know what they needed to do to win and to actually do it. We said they would need to nationalize the election around Bush and they did that. We also said that they would need to shut their traps and not tell people what they really planned to do{6} and they actually did that also. Give them credit for actually learning from past mistakes if nothing else. The question is, will the idiotic Republicans realize why they lost in the election or not. Alas, we cannot say there is much optimism here at Rerum Novarum that they will -at least not in the short term. Maybe it will take handing over the gavels in the chambers on January 20, 2007 for them to realize what happened and start the process of pondering why what happened actually happened.
How does your host feel about the election results??? He noted on the day after the election, that he was not that disturbed by what happened in the election -which is a surprise cause the converse was actually presumed to be how he would take it. And as time goes on, we find that appraisal not changing in the slightest. What happened to the Republicans and why did they lose -history's pattern working against them notwithstanding??? Well, the present writer summarized it in an email just the other day and will quote from it{7} at this time:
[T]he Republicans...saw their congressional power obliterated overnight because they were not true to conservative principles first and foremost.[...] They were in other words hypocrites for preaching about caring for the Constitution while they spent like drunken sailors in the most foul and unconstitutional fashion ala the Democrats in the old days. They also gave every impression of trying to do just enough to placate the base and get re-elected. Frankly, I can respect the people for throwing the Republicans out because if they are going to govern like Democrats, why go with a pale impressionist of the real thing when you can have the real thing...[Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa November 14, 2006)]
There is also the fact that no conservatives lost their seats and if anything, conservatives were either re-elected amongst the Republicans or elected amongst the Democrats. The reason the Dems will have majorities in both houses is because of southern conservative Democrats being elected. This makes the majority the Democrats will have a very fragile one -particularly in the Senate- and if the more rabid Democrat sorts do not show that they can work and play well with others{8}, then they will fail to govern effectively and will be thrown out in 2008.
To wrap up this thread, while more could be noted than just what is in the above snippet and followup paragraph, that will nonetheless have to suffice for now -though your host will probably revisit this subject after the new congress convenes in January of 2007. In summary: conservatism did not lose in 2006 while party loyalty at all cost amongst the Republicans did. Thank God the present writer is an Independent voter of ten years standing is all he will say about that at the present time.
Notes:
{1} Here are the analyses blogged on the elections that have taken place since this weblog debuted:
A Rerum Novarum Post-Election Commentary, Development of Some Key November 2002 Post-Election Observations, Etc. (circa November 24, 2004)
Analysis of the Overall Election Trends (circa November 6, 2002)
{2} The only changes made were some spelling glitches, removing the time stamps to give the thread a better cohesion, and imbedding any url links from the chat log. All of these were done for easier reading of the material.
{3} For while the Democrat leadership did not act as we said they may well act, at the same time (i) if they had acted that way or essentially been honest with the electorate, they would have lost soundly and (ii) their silence in the final weeks from public interaction shows that they knew well that to speak their minds would have meant defeat.
{4} For the record, your host hopes to be disproven on the predictions of upcoming Democrat party media censorship of congressional proceedings.
{5} Gut intuitions do not constitute "predictions" properly-speaking but we note it here nonetheless in the interest of disclosure.
{6} We may post that email in its entirety and not revealing the identity of the person it was sent it to; however, because of the contents of said email and what it says about certain persons and institutions, we want to mull over that for a while longer before deciding one way or the other on what to do with it.
{7} Or in other words, be profoundly disingenuous to the voting public.
{8} Your host predicts that to some extent they will not be as rabid as they may want to for one reason: it would sabotage Hillary Clinton's presidential aspirations in 2008. You gotta know that Bill Clinton will have a talk with the party leadership about that before they are sworn in on January 20, 2007 --if he has not done so already-- and tell this crowd to not impair Hillary's chances by acting out their extremist tendencies on several polarizing issues. (We may discuss some of them later including a couple predictions made in private on this crowd that may shock the readers of this humble weblog.)
(A Synopsis of Our Overall Prescience Viz. the 2006 Elections and A Bit of Analysis As Well)
[Prefatory Note: Your host apologizes for the delay in posting this thread -it was ready to go back on November 22, 2006 but there were too many glitches in the text formatting to be posted at that time and not enough time to fix them. Anyway, the text here is the same as before with only the most minor of adjustments (including the addition of a footnote among them). -ISM]
As it has been customary for the present writer to write an analysis of sorts after each election cycle{1}, it seems appropriate to do so after the recent election; ergo, the post you have before you.
Now readers of this weblog are aware that your humble servant has reiterated numerous times certain principles to account for in making prognoses on future events. We intend with this email to outline some areas where we were remarkable prescient before getting to one area where we must eat some crow. But without further ado, let us get to it.
To start with, there is the historical trackrecord of elections. Often did the present writer speak of these matters in private conversations and sometimes even in public media formats. In perusing the archives, the following bits were found which will be revisited in sequential order so that readers can denote the consistency of my approach to these matters for reasons which will soon be evident:
For those who know their history, political savvy is going to be needed in much greater supply than normal in the next year and a half. I will outline in this post reasons for that seemingly bold assertion.
To start with, I have noted before that a year is an eternity in politics.[...] For that reason alone, what seems like a certain thing now may not be that way a year from now. (Let alone a year and a half from now.) But that does not mean that there are not certain lessons that history can teach us of general tendencies which can give us probabilities of what is more likely than not to happen. And it is utilizing the latter that I intend to do in the rest of this post in discussing the 2006 elections.
By all historical indicators of norms, the 2006 elections should favour the Democrats because historically the party which holds the White House loses ground in the midterm elections of a two-term president as a rule. And while many might scoff at the idea of the current crop of Democrats achieving that kind of feat, it frankly does not matter as a rule how potent or impotent they are politically. And as a brief outline from recent history should help clarify this a bit, that is what we will do at this time. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 21, 2005)]
The above text was the first public utterance we made on the principle of midterms in the second term of a presidency. Readers can review the entire thread to see the historical outline sketched which showed itself to apply again in this election year. The subject was revisited in the months prior to the election both in chat format as well as on this weblog. Here are the salient threads that can be recalled offhand -the first is a chat with Kevin Tierney which is reproduced in substantial integrity{2} at this time:
Kevin: the Machiavellian in me wants the dems to win the house so something like this can be put out and I'm at work, so I can't view it :)
me: well, if nothing else Conyers keeps me from having any of my blog postings be considered the "world's longest blog post" ;-)
Kevin: some of the charges there, let the dems go forward with that. It would give new definition to the concept of "hari-kari"
me: I predict Conyers and company may well use that report as their manifesto of sorts for this November and yes, it would turn off most people enough to marginalize the dems to make their takeover of the House go from possible/probable to snowballs-chance-in-hell ish
Kevin: their chances have declined incredibly from the beginning of the year when everyone was taking it as granted the dems were taking over both houses
me: agreed but I still think they are to be favoured
Kevin: I don't think either side is favored now it's 50-50 the dems have a chance in the senate, not the house I think
me: my reason is the "midterm of a two term president election cycle" pattern historically but the Senate will hold either way methinks the question mark is the House and that is key cause even if they take over and try impeachment schtick the Senate holding guarantees that there will be no removal of Bush prior to January 20, 2009
me: admittedly my Machiavellian side would get joy in seeing such hearings take place...cause it would make the Dems in 2008 less likely to win the presidency because we would see all the rabidness in full media view rather than somewhat sequestered as it is now and most people would be turned off by it to no small degree
Kevin: the only problem is astute democrat congressmen are few and far between
me: in short, we are in agreement here
Kevin: even Hillary Clinton is not that smart. One thing is for sure, she does not have her husband's charisma or the ability to bullshit
me: Lieberman is being challenged by the rabid moronic leftist fringe sorts in his re-election I hope Joe kicks the fringe candidate's keister soundly. I like him and wish there were more Dems like him [Excerpt from a Chat With Kevin Tierney (circa August 7, 2006)]
As readers can see, our hope for Leiberman panned. Readers can say that our comments on Conyers and the strategery we noted not being used means that we missed a prediction but at best it is a half-prediction and the germ of the point remains intact.{3} The present writer also made another reference to the historical pattern in the above thread. And from another chat file with Kevin, we noted these points including some predictions which remain to be fulfilled{4}:
me: well, that is what closed door sessions are for and a complicit media remember only with the 1994 congress did a lot of this stuff get televised prior to that, it was not on TV for viewing on CSpan or whatever and if the Dems win, they will probably make some excuse that the subjects to be treated on are "too delicate a matter to be publicly broadcast" or some other bullshit of that sort
me: if I sound downright nasty in my portrayal, it is because of experience in seeing them when they have a majority and how haughty they act. The Republicans act stupid a lot but the Democratic ancients are downright evil at times...not to mention vindictive...think of the way high school bullies and the "popular class" sorts acted for a good picture of the mentality
Kevin: their flanks have collapsed now, so my worries are less
me: my worries are less too...but a wounded animal is a fiercer fighter and there is enough anger out there at Bush
Kevin: the republicans don't have to win in November they just have to not lose
me: if they can convince enough fools to make the 2006 election a referendum on Bush, it may well work this time...things have changed since 2004...Bush has shown weakness in spots which is from our POV appalling...from their view, it is exploitable if they know what they are doing
Kevin: they won't be able to focus their message though since they call for a referendum on bush, but then state we achieve that by withdrawing from Iraq which nobody outside of the angry left blogosphere actually believes
me: put it this way...if I was the strategist for the Dems in 2006, I guarantee they would win the House cause I know where to hit Bush for maximum effect
someone on their side has to know too...the Q is if they will be listened to
which odds are is no
Kevin: let the dems charge the line, all anyone has to do is just hold the spears forward. Sure one horse breaks through, but they don't take the ground :)
me: lol nice analogy
me: I hope it is apropo...history is not on our side here though midterms of a two term president are rarely not a disaster for the incumbent party particularly if one party holds both houses and the presidency
Kevin: I do not believe history is a God who is infallible and to be worshipped. :) the tides of history are always shifting.
me: even the Republicans after the absolute ass kicking they got in 1932 and a further setback in 1934 and a 1936 electoral absolutely cleaned House literally in 1938 (about 75 House seats and 14 Senate seats were gained that year)
history is not to be worshipped nor is it infallible, but as Newman said it has lessons that we ignore to our own detriment...or as Santayana said "ignore history and you are doomed to repeat it" [Excerpt from a Chat With Kevin Tierney (circa September 6, 2006)]
Again, readers can notice your host's appeal to history on this matter as something to be taken seriously. However, the present writer would be dishonest if he did not admit that the tea leaves were reading differently to him in September as noted in the following blog posting of miscellaneous tidbits:
Some have opined that there will be a tidalwave of anti-Republican sentiment this November aimed as some kind of "referendum" on President Bush. Others have claimed the converse: that the Republicans will consolidate and maybe expand their holdings as the Democrats come apart at the seams. I have noted in the past on various occasions that a year is an eternity in politics. Keeping that factor in mind, it suffices to note that even two months is a long time -maybe an ice age or whatever. My gut intuition on these matters at the moment is the following:
---The Republicans will not lose the Senate. Period. They are vulnerable in the House this is true both by virtue of current circumstances as well as the traditional pattern of parties out of power gaining in the mid term elections of a two term presidency. But the Senate will hold -only 33 are up for re-election and the Democrats would have to hold serve on all their guys and pick up about ten seats or so in the Senate just to tie. (Remember, Cheney is the tiebreaker.) But ultimately I see the Republicans at the moment losing some seats in the House but holding serve. They may lose some in the Senate too but whatever happens, they will retain the Senate no matter what. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 14, 2006)]
While making note of the historical pattern and also that two months is a long time in politics; nonetheless, your host writing on the fly should have double checked the Senate numbers before posting some of what is in the above thread. For some reason, we were thinking it was ten to tie instead of six which may not sound like much of a difference but it is for reasons now to be explained in brief.
In an elected body where only one third are elected in a given cycle, basically assuming an even split roughly between the parties (which is something that is not necessarily a given), we were seeing approximately a third of the senators up for election (ten) being needed to close the senate gap rather than roughly a fifth (six). If we had taken a few minutes to double check the numbers above, the above statement would never have made about the Dems "not winning the Senate period" but instead we would have recognized that it was much more probable than we were presuming.{5}
Basically not much changed between what was noted on September 14, 2006 and what was posted on the weekend leading up to the election. Or to quote a post of miscellaneous tidbits on some subjects:
---As I have told not a few friends and associates in recent weeks, watch for this election cycle's "October Surprise." Well, it took 30 days but on 10/30 we got it in John Kerry's recent public snafu. After this one, I cannot see how the Democrats can win either house of Congress because (i) seven days before an election is too quick to be able to spin this one away and (ii) this will anger Independents like your weblog host as well as Republicans who may have been a bit lax viz. the upcoming election. Anyway, that is what our gut intuition is on the election at the present time. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 1, 2006)]
For the record, it is obvious that our intuition in the above paragraph was wrong. However, while the present writer did note more than once his intuition about the Republicans holding, he also noted a concern that they would not get the message if they did. Or to quote a post from the day of the election when it was too early to tell where the winds were blowing:
It needs to be made clear that any support for the Republicans is done grudgingly and not because people think they are that good a party because they are not...
[W]e must avoid being one-issue focused here. Granted national security is a huge issue and definitely must be at or near the top of the list of anyone who actually is concerned with the survival of not only themselves but also civilization. But we cannot let these guys off the hook in the myriad of areas where they are screwing up. They need to be told in no uncertain terms that they are not being approved of in this election as much as their opponents are being rejected. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa November 7, 2006)]
Obviously our concern there ended up being not founded as the Republicans were rebuked on election day. And the reasons why they were rebuked are ones which your host outlined in advance. In other words, while we outlined what the Dems would need to do to win and also noted the historical trackrecord, we obviously underestimated the Dems being smart enough to know what they needed to do to win and to actually do it. We said they would need to nationalize the election around Bush and they did that. We also said that they would need to shut their traps and not tell people what they really planned to do{6} and they actually did that also. Give them credit for actually learning from past mistakes if nothing else. The question is, will the idiotic Republicans realize why they lost in the election or not. Alas, we cannot say there is much optimism here at Rerum Novarum that they will -at least not in the short term. Maybe it will take handing over the gavels in the chambers on January 20, 2007 for them to realize what happened and start the process of pondering why what happened actually happened.
How does your host feel about the election results??? He noted on the day after the election, that he was not that disturbed by what happened in the election -which is a surprise cause the converse was actually presumed to be how he would take it. And as time goes on, we find that appraisal not changing in the slightest. What happened to the Republicans and why did they lose -history's pattern working against them notwithstanding??? Well, the present writer summarized it in an email just the other day and will quote from it{7} at this time:
[T]he Republicans...saw their congressional power obliterated overnight because they were not true to conservative principles first and foremost.[...] They were in other words hypocrites for preaching about caring for the Constitution while they spent like drunken sailors in the most foul and unconstitutional fashion ala the Democrats in the old days. They also gave every impression of trying to do just enough to placate the base and get re-elected. Frankly, I can respect the people for throwing the Republicans out because if they are going to govern like Democrats, why go with a pale impressionist of the real thing when you can have the real thing...[Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa November 14, 2006)]
There is also the fact that no conservatives lost their seats and if anything, conservatives were either re-elected amongst the Republicans or elected amongst the Democrats. The reason the Dems will have majorities in both houses is because of southern conservative Democrats being elected. This makes the majority the Democrats will have a very fragile one -particularly in the Senate- and if the more rabid Democrat sorts do not show that they can work and play well with others{8}, then they will fail to govern effectively and will be thrown out in 2008.
To wrap up this thread, while more could be noted than just what is in the above snippet and followup paragraph, that will nonetheless have to suffice for now -though your host will probably revisit this subject after the new congress convenes in January of 2007. In summary: conservatism did not lose in 2006 while party loyalty at all cost amongst the Republicans did. Thank God the present writer is an Independent voter of ten years standing is all he will say about that at the present time.
Notes:
{1} Here are the analyses blogged on the elections that have taken place since this weblog debuted:
A Rerum Novarum Post-Election Commentary, Development of Some Key November 2002 Post-Election Observations, Etc. (circa November 24, 2004)
Analysis of the Overall Election Trends (circa November 6, 2002)
{2} The only changes made were some spelling glitches, removing the time stamps to give the thread a better cohesion, and imbedding any url links from the chat log. All of these were done for easier reading of the material.
{3} For while the Democrat leadership did not act as we said they may well act, at the same time (i) if they had acted that way or essentially been honest with the electorate, they would have lost soundly and (ii) their silence in the final weeks from public interaction shows that they knew well that to speak their minds would have meant defeat.
{4} For the record, your host hopes to be disproven on the predictions of upcoming Democrat party media censorship of congressional proceedings.
{5} Gut intuitions do not constitute "predictions" properly-speaking but we note it here nonetheless in the interest of disclosure.
{6} We may post that email in its entirety and not revealing the identity of the person it was sent it to; however, because of the contents of said email and what it says about certain persons and institutions, we want to mull over that for a while longer before deciding one way or the other on what to do with it.
{7} Or in other words, be profoundly disingenuous to the voting public.
{8} Your host predicts that to some extent they will not be as rabid as they may want to for one reason: it would sabotage Hillary Clinton's presidential aspirations in 2008. You gotta know that Bill Clinton will have a talk with the party leadership about that before they are sworn in on January 20, 2007 --if he has not done so already-- and tell this crowd to not impair Hillary's chances by acting out their extremist tendencies on several polarizing issues. (We may discuss some of them later including a couple predictions made in private on this crowd that may shock the readers of this humble weblog.)
On an Upcoming Weblog Update, Etc.
I am working bit by bit on a weblog update which will cover materials blogged since the last update (August 16, 2006). It will probably incorporate some old threads from the archives and also remand some other threads to the archivesbut the main focus will be on the stuff since the last update. As some threads will be removed from the side margin in this update, it seems appropriate to explain what my criteria is for such a selection -as I have been asked before why some threads are included and others are not.
Of course some threads are simply better than other ones subject-wise, argumentation-wise{1}, and the like. Other times, I look back and wish I had handled a subject better and decide for that reason to remand existing side margin threads or not include a particular thread in the update sequence. But this is not an exact science by any means.
Remanding threads to the archives does not necessarily mean that I disapprove of them. Sometimes it happens that certain threads are no longer as relevent to particular circumstances to remain in the side margin when there are space limits to consider and other threads of greater prevalance to take their place. Another way of saying it is this: nothing gets deleted here at Rerum Novarum but sometimes certain threads are not as relevant so they are removed from the side margin but are still accessible in the archives.{2}
Anyway, I should have the weblog updated by December 1st. That is the time frame I am shooting for time-willing.
Notes:
{1} Unfortunately, shorter threads are usually not my best though over time I have been improving in this area.
{2} Sometimes on those rare occasions where I actually change my mind on a person or issue, I will update the thread to note this if I remember the existence of said thread. (Not easy to do with so many blog entries.) The same is the case with threads directed at arguments made by individuals.
I am working bit by bit on a weblog update which will cover materials blogged since the last update (August 16, 2006). It will probably incorporate some old threads from the archives and also remand some other threads to the archivesbut the main focus will be on the stuff since the last update. As some threads will be removed from the side margin in this update, it seems appropriate to explain what my criteria is for such a selection -as I have been asked before why some threads are included and others are not.
Of course some threads are simply better than other ones subject-wise, argumentation-wise{1}, and the like. Other times, I look back and wish I had handled a subject better and decide for that reason to remand existing side margin threads or not include a particular thread in the update sequence. But this is not an exact science by any means.
Remanding threads to the archives does not necessarily mean that I disapprove of them. Sometimes it happens that certain threads are no longer as relevent to particular circumstances to remain in the side margin when there are space limits to consider and other threads of greater prevalance to take their place. Another way of saying it is this: nothing gets deleted here at Rerum Novarum but sometimes certain threads are not as relevant so they are removed from the side margin but are still accessible in the archives.{2}
Anyway, I should have the weblog updated by December 1st. That is the time frame I am shooting for time-willing.
Notes:
{1} Unfortunately, shorter threads are usually not my best though over time I have been improving in this area.
{2} Sometimes on those rare occasions where I actually change my mind on a person or issue, I will update the thread to note this if I remember the existence of said thread. (Not easy to do with so many blog entries.) The same is the case with threads directed at arguments made by individuals.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
I should have the election synopsis thread done in about an hour. If that is achieved, then it will be the last thread posted until the weekend -I would have said last thread posted until Monday but I want to possibly remember an old friend before ceasing posting before that time. It depends on how much spacing I can get in essentially but if it is not possible than I will remember my old friend sometime next week.
"None Dare Call It A Zionist Conspiracy" Dept.
(With no apologies to Gary Allen)
With that title, we have a resumption of a thread started here and a followup note from someone accusing me of "zionist complicity: or whatever. I will let them explain it in their own words so here goes...
Mr. McElhinney,
One could only wish that you were as concerned about the heinous Zionist influence in the Catholic apologetics community and Church in general as you are about the spelling of your name! But I will at least give you credit for putting up my letter. I did not think you had the guts to do it. Maybe you are not completely brainwashed, a mind-numbed robot working for the Zionists in their filthy drive to rebuild the insane profanity known as the "Jewish Temple". We shall see.
But rest assured, Mr. McElhinney, I have the proof and you and everyone in the apologetics world is going to be rocked by the proof I will provide. It will be iron-clad and only those living in the Zionist fool's paradise will be able to ignore it. It will be completed soon and only then will the world see whether you are a buffoon and coward. Will you have the guts to print it, Mr. McElhinney? Will you have the fortitude to be Catholic?
These are the questions to be answered.
Henrik Hassen
In short, no proof yet from "Mr. Hassen" so we must wait a bit longer it seems. I wonder if Mr. Hassen realizes that the whole idea of "cliffhangers" be it in books, television shows, or whatever is an invention of the Zionists to distract people from reality and fixate their attention on unimportant minutiae while the cabal of semitic globalists move their agenda for world domination along outside of the public eye. Or perhaps he has not gotten that far along in the "conspiracy theorist manual"??? ;-) We shall see I suppose...
To be Continued...
(With no apologies to Gary Allen)
With that title, we have a resumption of a thread started here and a followup note from someone accusing me of "zionist complicity: or whatever. I will let them explain it in their own words so here goes...
Mr. McElhinney,
One could only wish that you were as concerned about the heinous Zionist influence in the Catholic apologetics community and Church in general as you are about the spelling of your name! But I will at least give you credit for putting up my letter. I did not think you had the guts to do it. Maybe you are not completely brainwashed, a mind-numbed robot working for the Zionists in their filthy drive to rebuild the insane profanity known as the "Jewish Temple". We shall see.
But rest assured, Mr. McElhinney, I have the proof and you and everyone in the apologetics world is going to be rocked by the proof I will provide. It will be iron-clad and only those living in the Zionist fool's paradise will be able to ignore it. It will be completed soon and only then will the world see whether you are a buffoon and coward. Will you have the guts to print it, Mr. McElhinney? Will you have the fortitude to be Catholic?
These are the questions to be answered.
Henrik Hassen
In short, no proof yet from "Mr. Hassen" so we must wait a bit longer it seems. I wonder if Mr. Hassen realizes that the whole idea of "cliffhangers" be it in books, television shows, or whatever is an invention of the Zionists to distract people from reality and fixate their attention on unimportant minutiae while the cabal of semitic globalists move their agenda for world domination along outside of the public eye. Or perhaps he has not gotten that far along in the "conspiracy theorist manual"??? ;-) We shall see I suppose...
To be Continued...
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Note of an Upcoming Weblog Posting:
As it sits at the present time, the previously mentioned election review and analysis is on pace to be published on November 22nd of this month. Whether that timeframe is achieved or not depends on finding the time to finish and format it but that is where we are at with it at the present time.
As it sits at the present time, the previously mentioned election review and analysis is on pace to be published on November 22nd of this month. Whether that timeframe is achieved or not depends on finding the time to finish and format it but that is where we are at with it at the present time.
The Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG has been updated!!!
The new entry is a definition for the word "torture" since thus far no one I am aware of has shown an interest in doing that.
The new entry is a definition for the word "torture" since thus far no one I am aware of has shown an interest in doing that.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
"None Dare Call It A Zionist Conspiracy" Dept.
(With no apologies to Gary Allen)
The emailers words will be in dark red font.
Mr. McIlhenny,
I am aware that you and others like you are either in a deep state of denial about the Jewish conspiracies that abound world-wide or you are yourselves directly cooperating in them.
Now, before you cut me off as a lunatic, I insist that you hear me out. I have proof that Jews are basically into EVERYTHING and that you and your friends are all pawns and dupes (at best). There are even some among you who are masquerading as gentiles, while I have come into the possession of irrefutable evidence that some are Jews. One of your colleagues even has ties to the Israeli Mossad.
I am dead serious, Mr. McIlhenny and I will be coming forth with the evidence shortly. I must insist that you publish it, unless your pro-Jew, pro-Zionist sycophancy will not allow it.
We will all see, Mr. McIlhenny and the world will know whether you tried to cover this up or not.
Sincerely,
Henrik Hassen
Why do people continue to think I am related to the Avery Island crowd of tabasco makers??? Look, it is not as if my name is absent this site or any other that I run so at the very least, my name should be spelled correctly. That minor issue aside, I am left wondering where people presume somehow that I am so "pro-Zionist" but I will get to that in a moment too.
My remarkable consistency over the years{1} includes a constant trackrecord of expecting at a minimum that those who either disagree with me or who kvetch about some issue over and over again that they (i) be reasonably civil and not not act like a pompous asshole, (ii) define their terms, (iii) make viable arguments, and (iv) document their sources. I have little patience with those who cannot meet this minimal threshold by my own admission.{2} But I am accustomed to being called a panopoly of names from "modernist" to "liberal" to "fascist" to "neo-con" to "Bush sycophant"{3} to "Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde", to "Satan's bedfellow", etc over the years. This is done (of course) by a consortium of carping cowards who demonstrate in their own words that they are intellectually dependent sorts who cannot meet the minimal requirements for a proper dialogue grounded in logic and reason as I noted above.
Now certainly, I have had no problems dispatching with such people's pitiful excuses for "arguments" with the only challenge being finding the time to do such things amidst my constantly-insufficient extra time for these matters. So in that respect, I see little different from this letter except the person involved actually claims they have "irrefutable proof" of their position. So for that reason (and despite no small degree of profound misgivings I have about what I am about to do), I will play along here and see what this Henrik Hassen fellow has to offer in the weeks ahead (if anything).
To be Continued...
Notes:
{1} Modesty aside for a moment.
{2} It reminds me of those who think I am some kiss up to the Bush Administration when I mention an area or three where I agree with them at least to a macro extent. For every agreement I can think of with the Bush Administration, there is a disagreement if not two and I have not been shy in pointing many of them out over the years here at Rerum Novarum. Of course to actually have the integrity to admit to this is something that the contingent of carping cowards and intellectually dependent sorts cannot do lest they admit that they are lying like a carpet about what they say about me. But that is neither here nor there.
{3} And (of course) those who make arguments will have what they offer scrutinized and those who provide documentation of positions they take can expect to have their sources fact-checked. If the work is shoddy, I will not mince words or irenic tonalities saying so -particularly if it is someone whom I know can probably do a better job.
(With no apologies to Gary Allen)
The emailers words will be in dark red font.
Mr. McIlhenny,
I am aware that you and others like you are either in a deep state of denial about the Jewish conspiracies that abound world-wide or you are yourselves directly cooperating in them.
Now, before you cut me off as a lunatic, I insist that you hear me out. I have proof that Jews are basically into EVERYTHING and that you and your friends are all pawns and dupes (at best). There are even some among you who are masquerading as gentiles, while I have come into the possession of irrefutable evidence that some are Jews. One of your colleagues even has ties to the Israeli Mossad.
I am dead serious, Mr. McIlhenny and I will be coming forth with the evidence shortly. I must insist that you publish it, unless your pro-Jew, pro-Zionist sycophancy will not allow it.
We will all see, Mr. McIlhenny and the world will know whether you tried to cover this up or not.
Sincerely,
Henrik Hassen
Why do people continue to think I am related to the Avery Island crowd of tabasco makers??? Look, it is not as if my name is absent this site or any other that I run so at the very least, my name should be spelled correctly. That minor issue aside, I am left wondering where people presume somehow that I am so "pro-Zionist" but I will get to that in a moment too.
My remarkable consistency over the years{1} includes a constant trackrecord of expecting at a minimum that those who either disagree with me or who kvetch about some issue over and over again that they (i) be reasonably civil and not not act like a pompous asshole, (ii) define their terms, (iii) make viable arguments, and (iv) document their sources. I have little patience with those who cannot meet this minimal threshold by my own admission.{2} But I am accustomed to being called a panopoly of names from "modernist" to "liberal" to "fascist" to "neo-con" to "Bush sycophant"{3} to "Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde", to "Satan's bedfellow", etc over the years. This is done (of course) by a consortium of carping cowards who demonstrate in their own words that they are intellectually dependent sorts who cannot meet the minimal requirements for a proper dialogue grounded in logic and reason as I noted above.
Now certainly, I have had no problems dispatching with such people's pitiful excuses for "arguments" with the only challenge being finding the time to do such things amidst my constantly-insufficient extra time for these matters. So in that respect, I see little different from this letter except the person involved actually claims they have "irrefutable proof" of their position. So for that reason (and despite no small degree of profound misgivings I have about what I am about to do), I will play along here and see what this Henrik Hassen fellow has to offer in the weeks ahead (if anything).
To be Continued...
Notes:
{1} Modesty aside for a moment.
{2} It reminds me of those who think I am some kiss up to the Bush Administration when I mention an area or three where I agree with them at least to a macro extent. For every agreement I can think of with the Bush Administration, there is a disagreement if not two and I have not been shy in pointing many of them out over the years here at Rerum Novarum. Of course to actually have the integrity to admit to this is something that the contingent of carping cowards and intellectually dependent sorts cannot do lest they admit that they are lying like a carpet about what they say about me. But that is neither here nor there.
{3} And (of course) those who make arguments will have what they offer scrutinized and those who provide documentation of positions they take can expect to have their sources fact-checked. If the work is shoddy, I will not mince words or irenic tonalities saying so -particularly if it is someone whom I know can probably do a better job.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
On the Blues and Painting a Lyrical Picture of Reality:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
When listening to the blues Monday night on the car radio while enjoying a very fine Don Tomas Maduro, I decided on a whim to call a good friend of mine{1} whom I had not spoken to in a couple of months. As it was, he happened to be listening to the blues also at that exact same time. (What are the odds of that???) We discussed a number of subjects as we always do including on this occasion the subjects of honesty and integrity and how we both find these things in such short supply today by many persons whom would give the appearance of being pious or otherwise honourable. "Is it a coincidence" my friend asked "that the one sin that Jesus was most angry about was the sin of hypocrisy???" Frankly, I think not and after our conversation, I resumed listening to the blues CD I was listening to and a song came up which reminded me of what my friend and I were discussing. Here are the lyrics as composed by Don Nix and sung by Albert King circa 1970:
Ev'rybody wants to laugh
Ah, but nobody wants to cry
I say ev'rybody wants to laugh
But nobody wants to cry
Ev'rybody wants to go to heaven
But nobody wants to die
Ev'rybody wanna hear the truth
But yet, ev'rybody wants to tell a lie
I say ev'rybody wants to hear the truth
But still they all wanna tell a lie
Oh ev'rybody wants to go to heaven
But nobody wants to die
Ev'rybody wanna know the reason
Without even askin' why
Oh, ev'rybody wanna know the reason
Oh, without even askin' why
You know ev'rybody wanna go to heaven
But nobody wants to die
What more really needs to be said{2} than that???
Notes:
{1} I refer here to my good friend Albert Cipriani -someone with whom I have a long history of passionate disagreements with but who never (despite those disagreements) has sought to go the route of showing disrespect for reason and logic. Nor was he at any time a public hypocrite. Insofar as sin makes everyone a hypocrite at least privately, I will not go there. However, there is the integrity required to admit to mistakes and do so to the extent they have been made -a point I have discussed more than once on this weblog over the years including here. Where it counts, Albert has always stood on principles and I have always appreciated that. Would that more friends (past and present) would have acted in like manner but I digress.
{2} Basically, that gets to the crux of it really: people want things they are not willing to do what is needed to get. They want to laugh but do not want to cry as if you can have one without the other. They want to hear the truth but they want to (and do) tell lies. And when it comes to things that happen, they want to know the reasons without asking why things happen as they do.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
When listening to the blues Monday night on the car radio while enjoying a very fine Don Tomas Maduro, I decided on a whim to call a good friend of mine{1} whom I had not spoken to in a couple of months. As it was, he happened to be listening to the blues also at that exact same time. (What are the odds of that???) We discussed a number of subjects as we always do including on this occasion the subjects of honesty and integrity and how we both find these things in such short supply today by many persons whom would give the appearance of being pious or otherwise honourable. "Is it a coincidence" my friend asked "that the one sin that Jesus was most angry about was the sin of hypocrisy???" Frankly, I think not and after our conversation, I resumed listening to the blues CD I was listening to and a song came up which reminded me of what my friend and I were discussing. Here are the lyrics as composed by Don Nix and sung by Albert King circa 1970:
Ev'rybody wants to laugh
Ah, but nobody wants to cry
I say ev'rybody wants to laugh
But nobody wants to cry
Ev'rybody wants to go to heaven
But nobody wants to die
Ev'rybody wanna hear the truth
But yet, ev'rybody wants to tell a lie
I say ev'rybody wants to hear the truth
But still they all wanna tell a lie
Oh ev'rybody wants to go to heaven
But nobody wants to die
Ev'rybody wanna know the reason
Without even askin' why
Oh, ev'rybody wanna know the reason
Oh, without even askin' why
You know ev'rybody wanna go to heaven
But nobody wants to die
What more really needs to be said{2} than that???
Notes:
{1} I refer here to my good friend Albert Cipriani -someone with whom I have a long history of passionate disagreements with but who never (despite those disagreements) has sought to go the route of showing disrespect for reason and logic. Nor was he at any time a public hypocrite. Insofar as sin makes everyone a hypocrite at least privately, I will not go there. However, there is the integrity required to admit to mistakes and do so to the extent they have been made -a point I have discussed more than once on this weblog over the years including here. Where it counts, Albert has always stood on principles and I have always appreciated that. Would that more friends (past and present) would have acted in like manner but I digress.
{2} Basically, that gets to the crux of it really: people want things they are not willing to do what is needed to get. They want to laugh but do not want to cry as if you can have one without the other. They want to hear the truth but they want to (and do) tell lies. And when it comes to things that happen, they want to know the reasons without asking why things happen as they do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)