Saturday, May 05, 2007
For those who noticed a lighter gray colour to the weblog's layout, worry not, your monitor does not need an adjustment. Under the advice of Chris Blosser who offered me an "asthetic critique" of my weblog, I decided to implement a suggestion from him to go with a slightly lighter gray colour to make some of the lighter fonts used on occasion easier to read. I took the suggestion a step further and made all gray parts of the template lighter for a greater uniformity as well but the end result is a more aesthetically pleasing appearance and for that Chris deserves the credit.
In evenings when I have a bit of time, I am reading a military history of the United States which is in some respects quite iconoclastic. Among the theses{1} that the author seeks to sustain include the following ones (taken from the jacket of the book itself):
• Did America win its independence because British generals were too busy canoodling with their mistresses?
• Should America have annexed Mexico—all of it—and Cuba too?
• Did 1776 justify Southern secession in the nineteenth century?
• Should Patton have been promoted over Eisenhower?
• Did the U.S. military win—and Congress lose—the Vietnam War?
• Was it right to depose Saddam Hussein—and is it wrong to worry about a possible Iraqi civil war?
I went into this book agnostic on the first thesis, strongly inclined towards concurring with the second, not agreeing with the third thesis, pondering the fourth one but inclined against it{2}, concurring with the fifth thesis, and concurring with at least the first half of the sixth. As I read the book, I am willing to give more credence than I was before to the first thesis as probable{3}, definitely concur with the second thesis now{4}, still do not agree with the third thesis{5}, and as I am through the book up to November of 1941, have not read the parts of the book advancing the fourth and subsequent theses yet.
But I would be remiss if I did not note that H. W. Crocker III in this volume has written a magnificent work thus far and one which in the current climate should be given due consideration by those who are ignorant of the US military history. I was by no means ignorant in these areas before but the book has filled in a few gaps for me. It also revisited stuff I already knew and gave me some food for thought in other areas where I may not have considered certain other factors before. And it did all of this in an enjoyable and rather entertaining fashion for a subject which by its very nature involves matters of the most serious of import. I look forward to completing the volume as time allows for it in the coming week and recommend it to everyone reading this post.
Notes:
{1} A good way of looking at this in the current context is to view a thesis as "an abstract principle or proposition to be advanced and maintained by argument"... [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa January 14, 2004)]
{2} This is said despite the fact that General Patton has long been one of our favourite generals.
{3} Certainly the British underestimated the colonialists but the author writes this book from a loyalist perspective to some extent; ergo I believe his take on this point may be a bit too biased even if he does make a good case for it (which he certainly does).
{4} If ever there was any lingering doubts in my mind on the matter which there may have been.
{5} To the credit of the author, he gives a strong argument in favour of the third thesis -and of particular interest is what is written about the bravery and tenacity of the Confederacy during the War Between the States and the genius of General Robert E. Lee which from any objective measurement is inarguable. (Crocker does this while not denigrating the Federalists generally speaking which is something that many who write from a pro-Confederacy standpoint do not succeed in doing.)
However, those points aside, I cannot accept the thesis due to my rock solid position on the fundamental rights of man (most recently synthesized and reiterated anew in this posting on common law and abortion) and how chattel slavery is such an intrinsic violation of said rights no matter how you slice it.
• Did America win its independence because British generals were too busy canoodling with their mistresses?
• Should America have annexed Mexico—all of it—and Cuba too?
• Did 1776 justify Southern secession in the nineteenth century?
• Should Patton have been promoted over Eisenhower?
• Did the U.S. military win—and Congress lose—the Vietnam War?
• Was it right to depose Saddam Hussein—and is it wrong to worry about a possible Iraqi civil war?
I went into this book agnostic on the first thesis, strongly inclined towards concurring with the second, not agreeing with the third thesis, pondering the fourth one but inclined against it{2}, concurring with the fifth thesis, and concurring with at least the first half of the sixth. As I read the book, I am willing to give more credence than I was before to the first thesis as probable{3}, definitely concur with the second thesis now{4}, still do not agree with the third thesis{5}, and as I am through the book up to November of 1941, have not read the parts of the book advancing the fourth and subsequent theses yet.
But I would be remiss if I did not note that H. W. Crocker III in this volume has written a magnificent work thus far and one which in the current climate should be given due consideration by those who are ignorant of the US military history. I was by no means ignorant in these areas before but the book has filled in a few gaps for me. It also revisited stuff I already knew and gave me some food for thought in other areas where I may not have considered certain other factors before. And it did all of this in an enjoyable and rather entertaining fashion for a subject which by its very nature involves matters of the most serious of import. I look forward to completing the volume as time allows for it in the coming week and recommend it to everyone reading this post.
Notes:
{1} A good way of looking at this in the current context is to view a thesis as "an abstract principle or proposition to be advanced and maintained by argument"... [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa January 14, 2004)]
{2} This is said despite the fact that General Patton has long been one of our favourite generals.
{3} Certainly the British underestimated the colonialists but the author writes this book from a loyalist perspective to some extent; ergo I believe his take on this point may be a bit too biased even if he does make a good case for it (which he certainly does).
{4} If ever there was any lingering doubts in my mind on the matter which there may have been.
{5} To the credit of the author, he gives a strong argument in favour of the third thesis -and of particular interest is what is written about the bravery and tenacity of the Confederacy during the War Between the States and the genius of General Robert E. Lee which from any objective measurement is inarguable. (Crocker does this while not denigrating the Federalists generally speaking which is something that many who write from a pro-Confederacy standpoint do not succeed in doing.)
However, those points aside, I cannot accept the thesis due to my rock solid position on the fundamental rights of man (most recently synthesized and reiterated anew in this posting on common law and abortion) and how chattel slavery is such an intrinsic violation of said rights no matter how you slice it.
On Sedition and What It Consists Of:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Longtime readers of this weblog going back to early 2003 may recall that your host had no problem with certain kinds of public opinion prior to the definitive decision to go into Iraq{1} but began taking a less irenic stance both in the hours before March 19, 2003{2} and then after the date in question things tightened up considerably.{3} The reason for this should be obvious but some who give pretensions towards intelligence apparently do not get it. Therefore, it seems appropriate to summarize the principle in question by recalling a points to ponder thread from earlier this year which cited a US Supreme Court case which upheld the US Sedition Act in the following words:
When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. [Schenck v. United States (circa 1919)]
The common knowledge involved here should be obvious but many do not get it and some of them have expressed anger at being referred to by us as poster children for why we need another sedition act in a time of war.{4} But before this position as recently enunciated by us is viewed as shocking, let us revisit anew what sedition does and does not consist of.
A definition of the term can come from any source but for the sake of convenience, let us consider what Wikipedia had to say on the matter as of earlier today:{5}
Sedition is a term of law to refer to convert conduct such as speech and organization that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel.
Because sedition is typically considered a subversive act, the overt acts that may be prosecutable under sedition laws vary from one legal code to another. Where those legal codes have a traceable history, there is also a record of the change of definition for what constituted sedition at certain points in history. This overview has served to develop a sociological persecution.
The difference between sedition and treason consists primarily in the subjective ultimate object of the violation to the public peace. Sedition does not consist of levying war against a government nor of adhering to its enemies, giving enemies aid, and giving enemies comfort. Nor does it consist, in most representative democracies, of peaceful protest against a government, nor of attempting to change the government by democratic means (such as direct democracy or constitutional convention).
Put simply, sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Treason is the violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or state and has to do with giving aid to enemies or levying war. Sedition is more about encouraging the people to rebel, when treason is actually betraying the country. [From the Wikipedia Article Sedition]
From there, let us consider what constitutes seditions libel by the same source:
Seditious libel is a criminal offence under English common law. Sedition is the offence of speaking seditious words with seditious intent: if the statement is in writing or some other permanent form it is seditious libel. A statement is seditious if it "brings into hatred or contempt" the Queen or her heirs, or the government and constitution, or either House of Parliament, or the administration of justice, or if it incites people to attempt to change any matter of Church or State established by law (except by lawful means), or if it promotes discontent among or hostility between British subjects. A person is only guilty of the offence if they intend any of the above outcomes. Proving that the statement is true is not a defence. It is punishable with life imprisonment. [From the Wikipedia Article Seditious Libel]
By logical extension, since President Bush is the leader of the United States or the civil authority in question, his name can be replaced for that of the word "Queen" in the above citation as can the word "American" for the word "British." Now with that lens for viewing the matter in question, readers can consider if anyone this writer has said or inferred was engaging in sedition really did or did not do this. Frankly, the verdict here is such a slam dunk in a couple of cases that it is not even funny. For that reason, those persons ought to pray every night that there is not another sedition act in place right now though for the record, we at Rerum Novarum believe there is a need for one. History shows that wars can be lost if national resolve is compromised even if militarily they are successful.{6} This is why anyone who in any way whatsoever has contributed to such a situation as this is properly considered a seditionist and their words to be seditious libel.
By noting this, we have in mind a number of people here but in particular a so-called "apologist" who cannot keep their trap shut on matter of which they know so little and who has engaged in a weekly (if not worse) regurgitation of stuff on their weblog which by any objective standard{7} constitutes seditious libel and thus acts of sedition. As shocking as this may appear, let us clarify that not all criticisms of the president and the administration would properly constitute sedition. However, any criticisms that would bring into contempt the president, the lawfully elected government, or disrupt just public order and the common good of society during a time of war are properly viewed as seditious.
Readers can judge by the criticisms of certain parties if this criteria is met or not but one thing is certain: as much as President Bush has pissed us off at times, we have never been critical of him in a way that would fall under the criteria as denoted above. Would that many others could make a similar claim but that is their problem not ours and does not change our views on this matter an iota.
Notes:
{1} [A]fter the Presidents speech, my friends our path is now clear war-wise. And since war is now inevitable (barring Hussein's going into exile in the next 48 hours) we are no longer in the realm of speculation. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 17, 2003)]
{2} Though I sought to note conclusively in my stated position as detailed in early February that any attack by us would not be a new war but the legitimate resumption of the old Gulf War (as the terms of the ceasefire as spelled out by the UN have never been followed by Iraq), it does not appear to me that President Bush is for the most part approaching this from the angle that I suggested.
[W]hile [Pope John Paul II] appears to be personally opposed to this war, barring him making it a part of his magisterium, we are not bound to his judgment on the matter. And for those who in good conscience side with the pope on the matter, that is fine as I see it so long as they are in our corner when the war begins. And it will begin - barring extraordinary and unforseen diplomatic progress -within a few days in about thirty three hours from when this post is published. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 18, 2003)]
{3} Reflected most evidently in our posting on the subject of sedition from March 29, 2003 after observing some of the inexcuable actions of the msm on the subject in question. To wit (after quoting from the old US Sedition Act of 1917):
Is the major media in this country guilty of sedition??? When major news networks give away coordinates of where our military is stationed, relays information such as "the troops in my company are down to one meal a day because supplies are tight", or relates information such as "the troops have had to cannibalize their equipment for parts because there are problems with out supply lines", does anyone want to claim that this is not aiding and abetting the enemy??? Other examples could be listed but these are adequate to make the case I believe. If such reports continue I believe the government will need to cut off not only Al Jazeera's news broadcast but also the American media. (Or at the very least limit the access of the media and give everyone the same story to report.) I am sick and tired of reporters who would sell the security of our troops for a "news scoop". How this is not a form of the world's oldest profession is a mystery to me. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 29, 2003)]
{4} Some of these sorts have angrily claimed that we referred to them as traitors when in fact we did not. There is a difference between sedition and treason whereas one gives the tools whereas the other acts it out.
{5} We are aware that Wikipedia can be edited by others; ergo our qualification as noted above.
{6} For example, the Vietnam War.
{7} On the Difference Between Objective Meaning and Subjective Intention (circa February 27, 2007)
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Longtime readers of this weblog going back to early 2003 may recall that your host had no problem with certain kinds of public opinion prior to the definitive decision to go into Iraq{1} but began taking a less irenic stance both in the hours before March 19, 2003{2} and then after the date in question things tightened up considerably.{3} The reason for this should be obvious but some who give pretensions towards intelligence apparently do not get it. Therefore, it seems appropriate to summarize the principle in question by recalling a points to ponder thread from earlier this year which cited a US Supreme Court case which upheld the US Sedition Act in the following words:
When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. [Schenck v. United States (circa 1919)]
The common knowledge involved here should be obvious but many do not get it and some of them have expressed anger at being referred to by us as poster children for why we need another sedition act in a time of war.{4} But before this position as recently enunciated by us is viewed as shocking, let us revisit anew what sedition does and does not consist of.
A definition of the term can come from any source but for the sake of convenience, let us consider what Wikipedia had to say on the matter as of earlier today:{5}
Sedition is a term of law to refer to convert conduct such as speech and organization that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel.
Because sedition is typically considered a subversive act, the overt acts that may be prosecutable under sedition laws vary from one legal code to another. Where those legal codes have a traceable history, there is also a record of the change of definition for what constituted sedition at certain points in history. This overview has served to develop a sociological persecution.
The difference between sedition and treason consists primarily in the subjective ultimate object of the violation to the public peace. Sedition does not consist of levying war against a government nor of adhering to its enemies, giving enemies aid, and giving enemies comfort. Nor does it consist, in most representative democracies, of peaceful protest against a government, nor of attempting to change the government by democratic means (such as direct democracy or constitutional convention).
Put simply, sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Treason is the violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or state and has to do with giving aid to enemies or levying war. Sedition is more about encouraging the people to rebel, when treason is actually betraying the country. [From the Wikipedia Article Sedition]
From there, let us consider what constitutes seditions libel by the same source:
Seditious libel is a criminal offence under English common law. Sedition is the offence of speaking seditious words with seditious intent: if the statement is in writing or some other permanent form it is seditious libel. A statement is seditious if it "brings into hatred or contempt" the Queen or her heirs, or the government and constitution, or either House of Parliament, or the administration of justice, or if it incites people to attempt to change any matter of Church or State established by law (except by lawful means), or if it promotes discontent among or hostility between British subjects. A person is only guilty of the offence if they intend any of the above outcomes. Proving that the statement is true is not a defence. It is punishable with life imprisonment. [From the Wikipedia Article Seditious Libel]
By logical extension, since President Bush is the leader of the United States or the civil authority in question, his name can be replaced for that of the word "Queen" in the above citation as can the word "American" for the word "British." Now with that lens for viewing the matter in question, readers can consider if anyone this writer has said or inferred was engaging in sedition really did or did not do this. Frankly, the verdict here is such a slam dunk in a couple of cases that it is not even funny. For that reason, those persons ought to pray every night that there is not another sedition act in place right now though for the record, we at Rerum Novarum believe there is a need for one. History shows that wars can be lost if national resolve is compromised even if militarily they are successful.{6} This is why anyone who in any way whatsoever has contributed to such a situation as this is properly considered a seditionist and their words to be seditious libel.
By noting this, we have in mind a number of people here but in particular a so-called "apologist" who cannot keep their trap shut on matter of which they know so little and who has engaged in a weekly (if not worse) regurgitation of stuff on their weblog which by any objective standard{7} constitutes seditious libel and thus acts of sedition. As shocking as this may appear, let us clarify that not all criticisms of the president and the administration would properly constitute sedition. However, any criticisms that would bring into contempt the president, the lawfully elected government, or disrupt just public order and the common good of society during a time of war are properly viewed as seditious.
Readers can judge by the criticisms of certain parties if this criteria is met or not but one thing is certain: as much as President Bush has pissed us off at times, we have never been critical of him in a way that would fall under the criteria as denoted above. Would that many others could make a similar claim but that is their problem not ours and does not change our views on this matter an iota.
Notes:
{1} [A]fter the Presidents speech, my friends our path is now clear war-wise. And since war is now inevitable (barring Hussein's going into exile in the next 48 hours) we are no longer in the realm of speculation. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 17, 2003)]
{2} Though I sought to note conclusively in my stated position as detailed in early February that any attack by us would not be a new war but the legitimate resumption of the old Gulf War (as the terms of the ceasefire as spelled out by the UN have never been followed by Iraq), it does not appear to me that President Bush is for the most part approaching this from the angle that I suggested.
[W]hile [Pope John Paul II] appears to be personally opposed to this war, barring him making it a part of his magisterium, we are not bound to his judgment on the matter. And for those who in good conscience side with the pope on the matter, that is fine as I see it so long as they are in our corner when the war begins. And it will begin - barring extraordinary and unforseen diplomatic progress -
{3} Reflected most evidently in our posting on the subject of sedition from March 29, 2003 after observing some of the inexcuable actions of the msm on the subject in question. To wit (after quoting from the old US Sedition Act of 1917):
Is the major media in this country guilty of sedition??? When major news networks give away coordinates of where our military is stationed, relays information such as "the troops in my company are down to one meal a day because supplies are tight", or relates information such as "the troops have had to cannibalize their equipment for parts because there are problems with out supply lines", does anyone want to claim that this is not aiding and abetting the enemy??? Other examples could be listed but these are adequate to make the case I believe. If such reports continue I believe the government will need to cut off not only Al Jazeera's news broadcast but also the American media. (Or at the very least limit the access of the media and give everyone the same story to report.) I am sick and tired of reporters who would sell the security of our troops for a "news scoop". How this is not a form of the world's oldest profession is a mystery to me. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 29, 2003)]
{4} Some of these sorts have angrily claimed that we referred to them as traitors when in fact we did not. There is a difference between sedition and treason whereas one gives the tools whereas the other acts it out.
{5} We are aware that Wikipedia can be edited by others; ergo our qualification as noted above.
{6} For example, the Vietnam War.
{7} On the Difference Between Objective Meaning and Subjective Intention (circa February 27, 2007)
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Points to Ponder:
(On Legitimate Differences of Opinion)
The Catholic Church, of course, leaves many questions open to the discussion of theologians. She does this to the extent that matters are not absolutely certain. Far from jeopardizing the Church's unity, controversies, as a noted English author, John Henry Cardinal Newman, has remarked, can actually pave the way for its attainment. For discussion can lead to fuller and deeper understanding of religious truths; when one idea strikes against another, there may be a spark. [Pope John XXIII: Encyclical Letter Ad Petri Cathedram §71 (circa June 29, 1959)]
(On Legitimate Differences of Opinion)
The Catholic Church, of course, leaves many questions open to the discussion of theologians. She does this to the extent that matters are not absolutely certain. Far from jeopardizing the Church's unity, controversies, as a noted English author, John Henry Cardinal Newman, has remarked, can actually pave the way for its attainment. For discussion can lead to fuller and deeper understanding of religious truths; when one idea strikes against another, there may be a spark. [Pope John XXIII: Encyclical Letter Ad Petri Cathedram §71 (circa June 29, 1959)]
Miscellaneous Musings:
Briefly on each as time is short...
--I must give credit where credit is due to the Seattle Mariners who thus far have performed above expectations. I am aware that it is early and not even a quarter of the way through the season but five years of crappy ballplaying on their part has me optimistic that this year they will make the playoffs again. I hesitate to say more than that in light of how poor my sports prognosticating has historically been.{1}
--I must admit that the idea of Barry Bonds breaking Hank Aaron's record does not sit well with me for one reason: he is a fraud. Whatever excuses one wants to make for Hank Aaron and whatever one wants to say about how great Babe Ruth was{2}, the bottom line is, Aaron broke Ruth's alltime record. Furthermore, he did it with style and class and he did not have to cheat to do it. When Bonds passes Aaron, the record will be held by a fraud and a cheater and that will sully baseball. Anyway, those are my opinions on the matter and all I intend to say at this time.
--In light of how the Congress is trying to play politics by attaching a bunch of riders to the Iraq funding bill, it seems appropriate to remind readers of what your host set forth over three years ago in the area of a rider reform proposal. Look for that before Monday if we have time as it seems opportune to revisit that subject anew in lieu of current circumstances.
Notes:
{1} It is basically the converse of my geopolitical track record over the years. In fact, so bad is my sports picking trackrecord that when I went 2-1 in the NFL Playoffs earlier this year, in the semifinals, I was so shocked that I wrote a post on the subject and titled it "Signs of the Apocalypse." Later on, my fourth prediction panned also and it was 3-1 but I digress.
{2} Babe Ruth being unquestionably and by any reasonable measurement the greatest baseball player in history: something I will brook no dissent on whatsoever so do not even try.
Briefly on each as time is short...
--I must give credit where credit is due to the Seattle Mariners who thus far have performed above expectations. I am aware that it is early and not even a quarter of the way through the season but five years of crappy ballplaying on their part has me optimistic that this year they will make the playoffs again. I hesitate to say more than that in light of how poor my sports prognosticating has historically been.{1}
--I must admit that the idea of Barry Bonds breaking Hank Aaron's record does not sit well with me for one reason: he is a fraud. Whatever excuses one wants to make for Hank Aaron and whatever one wants to say about how great Babe Ruth was{2}, the bottom line is, Aaron broke Ruth's alltime record. Furthermore, he did it with style and class and he did not have to cheat to do it. When Bonds passes Aaron, the record will be held by a fraud and a cheater and that will sully baseball. Anyway, those are my opinions on the matter and all I intend to say at this time.
--In light of how the Congress is trying to play politics by attaching a bunch of riders to the Iraq funding bill, it seems appropriate to remind readers of what your host set forth over three years ago in the area of a rider reform proposal. Look for that before Monday if we have time as it seems opportune to revisit that subject anew in lieu of current circumstances.
Notes:
{1} It is basically the converse of my geopolitical track record over the years. In fact, so bad is my sports picking trackrecord that when I went 2-1 in the NFL Playoffs earlier this year, in the semifinals, I was so shocked that I wrote a post on the subject and titled it "Signs of the Apocalypse." Later on, my fourth prediction panned also and it was 3-1 but I digress.
{2} Babe Ruth being unquestionably and by any reasonable measurement the greatest baseball player in history: something I will brook no dissent on whatsoever so do not even try.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Prayer Requests:
The following was sent to my email yesterday...
I would ask for prayers for the soul of 17 year-old Brittany Salzano and her family...she was hit by a car last weekend and killed instantly.
God rest the soul of Brittany Salzano and may she rest in peace with all the souls of the faithfully departed.
Please also pray for the driver who hit her. Thanks.
I will and hope that readers of this weblog will be so kind as to remember them in their prayers as well.
The following was sent to my email yesterday...
I would ask for prayers for the soul of 17 year-old Brittany Salzano and her family...she was hit by a car last weekend and killed instantly.
God rest the soul of Brittany Salzano and may she rest in peace with all the souls of the faithfully departed.
Please also pray for the driver who hit her. Thanks.
I will and hope that readers of this weblog will be so kind as to remember them in their prayers as well.
Guest Editorial Revisiting Catholic Apologetics and Cult-Style Deadagenting Tactics in the Twilight Zone:
(Written by Rod Serling)
For those who do not know, this is a followup to an earlier guest editorial sent to us which was posted on January 9, 2007. Without further ado...
#########
CATHOLIC APOLOGETICS IN THE TWILIGHT ZONE, REVISITED
By Rod Serling
Last time, we explored the relationship between Catholic apologist Mark Shea and free-lance writer Joseph D'Hippolito, who are at such loggerheads that they probably disagree vehemently about what time it is. Our exploration included comments from newspaper editor Victor Morton about Mr. Shea's obsessively stalking Mr. D'Hippolito on various Catholic blogs for about three years.
It now appears that Mr. D'Hippolito is not the only target of Mr. Shea's venal obsessiveness.
Submitted for your approval: This post from Mr. Shea's blog concerning another blog that specializes in criticizing Rod Dreher, a commentary editor for the Dallas Morning News. Mr. Dreher vehemently criticized the Catholic bishops' response to the sex-abuse scandal that broke in Boston in 2002. In the process, he received tremendous vitriol from a wide variety of Catholics. Mr. Dreher was so sickened by the bishops' lack of concern for the innocent that he converted from Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy.
Here's what Mr. Shea said about the anti-Dreher blog:
I never felt a need to found an entire blog simply and solely devoted to reiterating again and again and again why Crunchy Con thinking is all wrong, to enumerating Rod's faults, to gabbing with fellow Rod despisers about his latest faults, sins, gaffes, and whatnot, to plunging back into his site for fresh reasons to complain about him, and to regroup at my obsessostalker site for a new round of the Same Old Complaints, followed by gleeful speculations in the comboxes of this calibre...
Yessirree. All perfectly normal there. Nothing malicious and creepy about that sort of stuff. They're all about serious intellectual criticism.
The folks at (We Really, Really, Really Despise Rod Dreher).com made their point about the problems in Dreher's thinking in about the first three posts of their blog. Dreher has a tendency to let his passions rule his judgment at times. Crunchy Connery can sometimes be an unwarranted elevation of aesthetic choice to moral principle. Dreher is way too hard on the Catholic Church and his reasons for becoming Orthodox are not very coherent. Rod, unlike, say, Kathleen Reilly, can sometimes be tart in his replies to critics. Duly noted. I have noted such things myself when the occasion has warranted it.
But normal people *move on.* Would that the folks at WRRRDRD.com would do likewise. Surely there is *something* else to talk about than the latest way Rod Dreher has made a jackass of himself (as you all agree in your Combox Star Chamber) for failing to like a TV show you like or enjoying bread that you don't enjoy.
Get a life!
To review, here are Mr. Morton's comments about Mr. Shea:Let us stipulate that Joseph's comments about nuking Mecca et al are something less than orthodox (they are not insane or Satanic, because, as I once repeatedly and without answer pointed out to Mr. Shea, the Church does not condemn any possession of nuclear weapons as a sin, which means SOME uses of them have to be moral despite the unquestionable fact they kill civilians en masse). Joseph did not attempt to engage Mr. Shea, did not attempt to hijack his blog, did not refer to him. So it's rather unconvincing to hear "I've spent a great deal of time avoiding you. You're like a bad penny. ... I keep running into your obnoxious and abusive crap on blogs I regularly read." Everybody has some people they don't like, or can't imagine engaging even for the sake of collegial disagreement, someone at St. Blogs whose orthodoxy they question. Tough titty.
Mr. Shea's disagreement (he is not a bishop and has no real authority in these matters, so nothing he says can ever rise above that) is not an excuse to try to destroy somebody's reputation by repetitively injecting himself wherever Joseph may go, talking about whatever subject Joseph may, and calling him Osama bin Laden or a mass murder advocate. This was NOT disagreement with somebody, but an attempt to demonize a human being, to make him anathema as such, to pursue him like a stalking siren. And Joseph is right to protest it.
Please keep both sets of comments in mind when you read this response to Mr. Shea posted on the anti-Dreher blog by "Bubba" the blog moderator:
When on his own blog Shea highlights, in bold lettering and mid-space, a purposely innocuous exchange between myself and a commenter from our blog, and claims that in it we make dire analyses of his buddy Dreher --- well, let's just say that with friends like Shea, Dreher needs no contras. It's also clear that Shea pores over this blog with great care, since he venomously spits back random bits with what is becoming frightening regularity. Which can only be the point of his reading it -- to cultivate his own anger. (Unless, on some level he doesn't wish to acknowledge, he's, um "enjoying it").
Shea wishes to silence us, of course, by implying -- no, proclaiming -- that we're the crazies. He loves to call us "obsessostalkers" which is interesting, because it seems to me Shea has done a great deal of obsessing and stalking of us. Shea has even christened our blog with his very own nickname, and even given that nickname an acronym. cute!
I'm still amused that Mark Shea runs a blog called Catholic and Enjoying It. I guess he is catholic, and in some perverse way enjoying "it", but I can assure him that other catholics -- in particular those who value sanity -- don't enjoy it, and for myriad reasons. Has it dawned on him that other catholics don't appreciate his fondness for vitriol and flame-throwing? Or the fact that Shea indulgently cultivates his anger while he simultaneously sells his services as a professional catholic apologist? It's not really that great for catholicism when the catholic apologist on TV calls to mind Michael Douglas with a crewcut, horn-rims, and an automatic weapon.
...the suggestion to "get a life" is essentially to tell us to shut the hell up...
The comments, presented in sequence from the comments thread, poke even more holes in Mr. Shea's self-righteous facade (All references to Mr. Dreher will be edited out, since he is not the subject of our current study): The first is from a woman named Diane...
I could not agree more with the following:
the suggestion to "get a life" is essentially to tell us to shut the hell up
Exactly. What the Marks ... want is the power to censor opposing views out of their own comboxes (which is their prerogative, of course) PLUS the power to censor those same views in other venues. Who the hay-ell do such folks think they are? If they won't tolerate dissent in their own comboxes (which, again, is their preogative), fine. But they certainly cannot expect the folks they have silenced there to docilely shut up everywhere else. It's a free Internet. Freedom of expression is enjoyed equally by all of us. It is not the exclusive preserve of a self-anointed few. Not on the Internet, anyway.
Mark's efforts to silence dissent even on other people's blogs is so transparently control-freaky that we shouldn't even bother taking it seriously, methinks. The Internet is for everyone, not just for would-be thought police. And there ain't nuthin' the control freaks can do about it.
Diane continues in a separate box:
Apparently, one is not allowed to disagree with ... Mark anywhere--either on (his) blogs or anywhere else. If one is censored off their blogs and then has recourse to one's own venue, then one is accused of "hatred"--even if one is simply discussing the issues...
Here are more comments from another thread on the same subject on the anti-Dreher blog, again, in sequence:
The following is a comment I posted to Mr. Shea's blog as Thomas a'Becket. I did this because I did not want him to discount my views outright as he always has.
Mr. Shea:
Let us say we follow your advice and move on. Who holds Mr. Dreher and his colleagues in the MSM accountable for what they say or do? They are great about holding Bishop X or Cardinal Y accountable for their actions. Why cant they hold the same standard for themselves? For instance, last year CNN aired video of Iraqi Snipers killing American soldiers which they obtained from the Insurgents. Talk about an advertisement for Liberal media bias. Do you know what Mr. Dreher and his colleagues said about that? Nada! Also, why is it no one covered the ethical lapses in the Democratic congress? Examples would be John Murtha of Abscam or how William Jefferson of Louisiana was elected even with $90,000 in his freezer? Yes people get carried away on the blog. However, people would not have the need if some balanced coverage was applied to the media.
Thomas a' Becket
To which Mark Shea reportedly responded to Jonathan as follows:
Jonathan:
Your stupid fake names are a pain in the ass, as are you. Feel free to hold Dreher accountable all you like. But for cryin' out loud, use your real name and learn how to separate the wheat from the chaff. Also, try getting some perspective. You give me (and others) the creeps with your Dreher obsession.
Yes, this man sounds like a "Catholic and Enjoying It" doesn't he?
A woman named Kathleen chimed in with the following observations:
oh, that's a charming new thread on mark shea's blog, i see. still obsessing about us mark? obsessostalking in fact?
whatever beef you have with the quoted exchange between myself and demoslider is most certainly in the eye of the beholder. apparently, you too have some suspicions about dreher, or else you would wonder what the heck we are talking about. a soul as pure as the driven snow, clearly you are not.
talk about obsessostalkers getting "creepy".
To which Jonathan Carpenter responded as follows:
Kathleen:
It is not just smart women he does not like. It is more people who do not role in his same clique. It is like in High School if you are not with the "Cool Kids" (Mark, Rod, Dom B etc) you are a nobody.
Kathleen again, responding to Bubba, the blog's moderator:
Bubba, Shea displays a "tremendous amount of class"? tremendous? not quite. sorry, but i disagree. his tone and vitriol create the kind of atmosphere that egg-on sycophantic comboxers to make such threats in the first place. when it's a toss up whether or not Shea will approve of, tacitly approve of, or reject, such threats, then one has to put part of the blame on his blog-hosting.
Andy Nowicki enters the conversation and submits a link to a piece he wrote about Mr. Shea, to which one commentator said, everybody here should read Andy's great piece on his own "banishment"
Some excerpts:
Shea often reacts to intellectual challenges with prickly defensiveness. He is prone to what I have categorized elsewhere as the "How Dare You" approach to debate, wherein one starts from the premise that one's opponent can't be anything but evil or disingenuous. Thus his responses to defenders of torture, the war in Iraq, and other neocon staples often take on an ugly, smarmy tone, rife with question-begging evasions and snarky indulgences in ad hominem rhetoric.
Such was my assessment until recently. Now I realize I didn't know the half of it. I was little aware of the extent of Shea's smarm, snarkiness, and sanctimony until I (along with my identical friends, me and myself) was virtually arrested, and convicted, on the charge of being a member of a uniquely evil species, the "holocaust denier."
Of course, it wasn't and it isn't true. None of the separate identities jostling for control inside my head have ever doubted that Hitler and the Nazis murdered millions of Jews, among others. Nor do we, as adherents of the same Christian morality that (presumably) animates Shea, condone murder, much less mass murder. Yet Shea knows otherwise, because � like so many others burning to sniff out un-PC heretics and thus prove their own worth these days � he knows how to "read between the lines." ... If one pays attention to what I actually wrote, however, as opposed to what I was presumed to have "meant," no such conclusion could logically be drawn. But who needs logic when you're fired with hatred at those deemed to be "haters"?
Mark Shea's presumptuous arrogance and ungracious behavior, however, is hardly the most disheartening aspect of my experiences at his blogsite. Instead, it is the almost monolithic, sheeplike conformity of his "Catholic and Enjoying It!" fellow travelers. Of all the other posters on the board, only one brave and hardy soul, a man with the handle of "Seamus," questioned Shea's ham-fisted tactics and hinted, subtly, that some hypocrisy was on display:
Far be it from me to expose myself to accusations of defending the defenders of Holocaust deniers, but is it really the case that the man who quoted C.S. Lewis back in October on the subject of thinking your enemies as bad as possible (and being reluctant to entertain the possibility that they might not be as bad as initially thought) now holds that people can be banned, not just for questioning the Holocaust, but also for entertaining the possibility Holocaust deniers might merely be mistaken whackjobs (along the lines of those who believe the Apollo moon landings were all faked or that O.J. Simpson was innocent) rather than evil? And even conceding that Holocaust deniers are indeed evil rather than merely mistaken, must we now conclude that those who entertain a contrary view must themselves be evil rather than mistaken? If so, then we've certainly come a long way from October.
Shea never answered Seamus, of course. Why should he, when most of his readers appeared to be solidly in his corner?
Here are the comments from one of those who read it:
Whew. The Nowicki piece is indeed illuminating. Apparently reason and nuance count for nothing; one is condemned merely for suggesting that a whackjob may not be utterly evil, even if one does not personally share the whackjob's wacky views. Whew.
I will never understand people who hate, despise, insult, name-call, and take petty vengeance upon others in the name of opposing "hate." E.g., this lovely line: "Your stupid fake names are a pain in the ass, as are you." Gosh. I can just feel the love.
And a woman whom Shea insulted tries to reason with him:
But Mark, may I ask you one simple question? :
Can you honestly not see why someone might object to being called nasty names?
I repeat:
Can you honestly not see why someone might object to being called nasty names?
Please try to understand, Mark. You may feel like name-calling's justified, but I assure you it isn't. It is unChristian. When wielded against women, it is also ungentlemanly and unchivalrous. It is also potentially deeply hurtful (not everyone on the Internet is thick-skinned). And it is immature. It is the favorite tactic employed by playground bullies in middle school.
Why, why, why is this so hard to understand? Why do you also, lately, do nothing but accuse and vilify, refusing to acknowledge that perhaps Jonathan Carpenter is a human being and not merely a whipping-boy object of your insults and name-calling?
Why can you, Mark, and Rod not see what is so obvious to so many (and not just to some of the comboxers here): The name-calling is the issue.Mr. Shea never responded to the woman's question.
In summary, a man who claims to detest obsessive stalking engages in it when it suits his purposes. A man who claims to defend a religion based upon the teachings of Jesus Christ effectively rejects those teachings when it suits his purposes.
Such are the obtuse twists and turns of the mind of one hypocritical Catholic apologist in the Twilight Zone....
(du-du-du-du, du-du-du-du)
#########
(Written by Rod Serling)
For those who do not know, this is a followup to an earlier guest editorial sent to us which was posted on January 9, 2007. Without further ado...
#########
CATHOLIC APOLOGETICS IN THE TWILIGHT ZONE, REVISITED
By Rod Serling
Last time, we explored the relationship between Catholic apologist Mark Shea and free-lance writer Joseph D'Hippolito, who are at such loggerheads that they probably disagree vehemently about what time it is. Our exploration included comments from newspaper editor Victor Morton about Mr. Shea's obsessively stalking Mr. D'Hippolito on various Catholic blogs for about three years.
It now appears that Mr. D'Hippolito is not the only target of Mr. Shea's venal obsessiveness.
Submitted for your approval: This post from Mr. Shea's blog concerning another blog that specializes in criticizing Rod Dreher, a commentary editor for the Dallas Morning News. Mr. Dreher vehemently criticized the Catholic bishops' response to the sex-abuse scandal that broke in Boston in 2002. In the process, he received tremendous vitriol from a wide variety of Catholics. Mr. Dreher was so sickened by the bishops' lack of concern for the innocent that he converted from Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy.
Here's what Mr. Shea said about the anti-Dreher blog:
I never felt a need to found an entire blog simply and solely devoted to reiterating again and again and again why Crunchy Con thinking is all wrong, to enumerating Rod's faults, to gabbing with fellow Rod despisers about his latest faults, sins, gaffes, and whatnot, to plunging back into his site for fresh reasons to complain about him, and to regroup at my obsessostalker site for a new round of the Same Old Complaints, followed by gleeful speculations in the comboxes of this calibre...
Yessirree. All perfectly normal there. Nothing malicious and creepy about that sort of stuff. They're all about serious intellectual criticism.
The folks at (We Really, Really, Really Despise Rod Dreher).com made their point about the problems in Dreher's thinking in about the first three posts of their blog. Dreher has a tendency to let his passions rule his judgment at times. Crunchy Connery can sometimes be an unwarranted elevation of aesthetic choice to moral principle. Dreher is way too hard on the Catholic Church and his reasons for becoming Orthodox are not very coherent. Rod, unlike, say, Kathleen Reilly, can sometimes be tart in his replies to critics. Duly noted. I have noted such things myself when the occasion has warranted it.
But normal people *move on.* Would that the folks at WRRRDRD.com would do likewise. Surely there is *something* else to talk about than the latest way Rod Dreher has made a jackass of himself (as you all agree in your Combox Star Chamber) for failing to like a TV show you like or enjoying bread that you don't enjoy.
Get a life!
To review, here are Mr. Morton's comments about Mr. Shea:Let us stipulate that Joseph's comments about nuking Mecca et al are something less than orthodox (they are not insane or Satanic, because, as I once repeatedly and without answer pointed out to Mr. Shea, the Church does not condemn any possession of nuclear weapons as a sin, which means SOME uses of them have to be moral despite the unquestionable fact they kill civilians en masse). Joseph did not attempt to engage Mr. Shea, did not attempt to hijack his blog, did not refer to him. So it's rather unconvincing to hear "I've spent a great deal of time avoiding you. You're like a bad penny. ... I keep running into your obnoxious and abusive crap on blogs I regularly read." Everybody has some people they don't like, or can't imagine engaging even for the sake of collegial disagreement, someone at St. Blogs whose orthodoxy they question. Tough titty.
Mr. Shea's disagreement (he is not a bishop and has no real authority in these matters, so nothing he says can ever rise above that) is not an excuse to try to destroy somebody's reputation by repetitively injecting himself wherever Joseph may go, talking about whatever subject Joseph may, and calling him Osama bin Laden or a mass murder advocate. This was NOT disagreement with somebody, but an attempt to demonize a human being, to make him anathema as such, to pursue him like a stalking siren. And Joseph is right to protest it.
Please keep both sets of comments in mind when you read this response to Mr. Shea posted on the anti-Dreher blog by "Bubba" the blog moderator:
When on his own blog Shea highlights, in bold lettering and mid-space, a purposely innocuous exchange between myself and a commenter from our blog, and claims that in it we make dire analyses of his buddy Dreher --- well, let's just say that with friends like Shea, Dreher needs no contras. It's also clear that Shea pores over this blog with great care, since he venomously spits back random bits with what is becoming frightening regularity. Which can only be the point of his reading it -- to cultivate his own anger. (Unless, on some level he doesn't wish to acknowledge, he's, um "enjoying it").
Shea wishes to silence us, of course, by implying -- no, proclaiming -- that we're the crazies. He loves to call us "obsessostalkers" which is interesting, because it seems to me Shea has done a great deal of obsessing and stalking of us. Shea has even christened our blog with his very own nickname, and even given that nickname an acronym. cute!
I'm still amused that Mark Shea runs a blog called Catholic and Enjoying It. I guess he is catholic, and in some perverse way enjoying "it", but I can assure him that other catholics -- in particular those who value sanity -- don't enjoy it, and for myriad reasons. Has it dawned on him that other catholics don't appreciate his fondness for vitriol and flame-throwing? Or the fact that Shea indulgently cultivates his anger while he simultaneously sells his services as a professional catholic apologist? It's not really that great for catholicism when the catholic apologist on TV calls to mind Michael Douglas with a crewcut, horn-rims, and an automatic weapon.
...the suggestion to "get a life" is essentially to tell us to shut the hell up...
The comments, presented in sequence from the comments thread, poke even more holes in Mr. Shea's self-righteous facade (All references to Mr. Dreher will be edited out, since he is not the subject of our current study): The first is from a woman named Diane...
I could not agree more with the following:
the suggestion to "get a life" is essentially to tell us to shut the hell up
Exactly. What the Marks ... want is the power to censor opposing views out of their own comboxes (which is their prerogative, of course) PLUS the power to censor those same views in other venues. Who the hay-ell do such folks think they are? If they won't tolerate dissent in their own comboxes (which, again, is their preogative), fine. But they certainly cannot expect the folks they have silenced there to docilely shut up everywhere else. It's a free Internet. Freedom of expression is enjoyed equally by all of us. It is not the exclusive preserve of a self-anointed few. Not on the Internet, anyway.
Mark's efforts to silence dissent even on other people's blogs is so transparently control-freaky that we shouldn't even bother taking it seriously, methinks. The Internet is for everyone, not just for would-be thought police. And there ain't nuthin' the control freaks can do about it.
Diane continues in a separate box:
Apparently, one is not allowed to disagree with ... Mark anywhere--either on (his) blogs or anywhere else. If one is censored off their blogs and then has recourse to one's own venue, then one is accused of "hatred"--even if one is simply discussing the issues...
Here are more comments from another thread on the same subject on the anti-Dreher blog, again, in sequence:
The following is a comment I posted to Mr. Shea's blog as Thomas a'Becket. I did this because I did not want him to discount my views outright as he always has.
Mr. Shea:
Let us say we follow your advice and move on. Who holds Mr. Dreher and his colleagues in the MSM accountable for what they say or do? They are great about holding Bishop X or Cardinal Y accountable for their actions. Why cant they hold the same standard for themselves? For instance, last year CNN aired video of Iraqi Snipers killing American soldiers which they obtained from the Insurgents. Talk about an advertisement for Liberal media bias. Do you know what Mr. Dreher and his colleagues said about that? Nada! Also, why is it no one covered the ethical lapses in the Democratic congress? Examples would be John Murtha of Abscam or how William Jefferson of Louisiana was elected even with $90,000 in his freezer? Yes people get carried away on the blog. However, people would not have the need if some balanced coverage was applied to the media.
Thomas a' Becket
To which Mark Shea reportedly responded to Jonathan as follows:
Jonathan:
Your stupid fake names are a pain in the ass, as are you. Feel free to hold Dreher accountable all you like. But for cryin' out loud, use your real name and learn how to separate the wheat from the chaff. Also, try getting some perspective. You give me (and others) the creeps with your Dreher obsession.
Yes, this man sounds like a "Catholic and Enjoying It" doesn't he?
A woman named Kathleen chimed in with the following observations:
oh, that's a charming new thread on mark shea's blog, i see. still obsessing about us mark? obsessostalking in fact?
whatever beef you have with the quoted exchange between myself and demoslider is most certainly in the eye of the beholder. apparently, you too have some suspicions about dreher, or else you would wonder what the heck we are talking about. a soul as pure as the driven snow, clearly you are not.
talk about obsessostalkers getting "creepy".
To which Jonathan Carpenter responded as follows:
Kathleen:
It is not just smart women he does not like. It is more people who do not role in his same clique. It is like in High School if you are not with the "Cool Kids" (Mark, Rod, Dom B etc) you are a nobody.
Kathleen again, responding to Bubba, the blog's moderator:
Bubba, Shea displays a "tremendous amount of class"? tremendous? not quite. sorry, but i disagree. his tone and vitriol create the kind of atmosphere that egg-on sycophantic comboxers to make such threats in the first place. when it's a toss up whether or not Shea will approve of, tacitly approve of, or reject, such threats, then one has to put part of the blame on his blog-hosting.
Andy Nowicki enters the conversation and submits a link to a piece he wrote about Mr. Shea, to which one commentator said, everybody here should read Andy's great piece on his own "banishment"
Some excerpts:
Shea often reacts to intellectual challenges with prickly defensiveness. He is prone to what I have categorized elsewhere as the "How Dare You" approach to debate, wherein one starts from the premise that one's opponent can't be anything but evil or disingenuous. Thus his responses to defenders of torture, the war in Iraq, and other neocon staples often take on an ugly, smarmy tone, rife with question-begging evasions and snarky indulgences in ad hominem rhetoric.
Such was my assessment until recently. Now I realize I didn't know the half of it. I was little aware of the extent of Shea's smarm, snarkiness, and sanctimony until I (along with my identical friends, me and myself) was virtually arrested, and convicted, on the charge of being a member of a uniquely evil species, the "holocaust denier."
Of course, it wasn't and it isn't true. None of the separate identities jostling for control inside my head have ever doubted that Hitler and the Nazis murdered millions of Jews, among others. Nor do we, as adherents of the same Christian morality that (presumably) animates Shea, condone murder, much less mass murder. Yet Shea knows otherwise, because � like so many others burning to sniff out un-PC heretics and thus prove their own worth these days � he knows how to "read between the lines." ... If one pays attention to what I actually wrote, however, as opposed to what I was presumed to have "meant," no such conclusion could logically be drawn. But who needs logic when you're fired with hatred at those deemed to be "haters"?
Mark Shea's presumptuous arrogance and ungracious behavior, however, is hardly the most disheartening aspect of my experiences at his blogsite. Instead, it is the almost monolithic, sheeplike conformity of his "Catholic and Enjoying It!" fellow travelers. Of all the other posters on the board, only one brave and hardy soul, a man with the handle of "Seamus," questioned Shea's ham-fisted tactics and hinted, subtly, that some hypocrisy was on display:
Far be it from me to expose myself to accusations of defending the defenders of Holocaust deniers, but is it really the case that the man who quoted C.S. Lewis back in October on the subject of thinking your enemies as bad as possible (and being reluctant to entertain the possibility that they might not be as bad as initially thought) now holds that people can be banned, not just for questioning the Holocaust, but also for entertaining the possibility Holocaust deniers might merely be mistaken whackjobs (along the lines of those who believe the Apollo moon landings were all faked or that O.J. Simpson was innocent) rather than evil? And even conceding that Holocaust deniers are indeed evil rather than merely mistaken, must we now conclude that those who entertain a contrary view must themselves be evil rather than mistaken? If so, then we've certainly come a long way from October.
Shea never answered Seamus, of course. Why should he, when most of his readers appeared to be solidly in his corner?
Here are the comments from one of those who read it:
Whew. The Nowicki piece is indeed illuminating. Apparently reason and nuance count for nothing; one is condemned merely for suggesting that a whackjob may not be utterly evil, even if one does not personally share the whackjob's wacky views. Whew.
I will never understand people who hate, despise, insult, name-call, and take petty vengeance upon others in the name of opposing "hate." E.g., this lovely line: "Your stupid fake names are a pain in the ass, as are you." Gosh. I can just feel the love.
And a woman whom Shea insulted tries to reason with him:
But Mark, may I ask you one simple question? :
Can you honestly not see why someone might object to being called nasty names?
I repeat:
Can you honestly not see why someone might object to being called nasty names?
Please try to understand, Mark. You may feel like name-calling's justified, but I assure you it isn't. It is unChristian. When wielded against women, it is also ungentlemanly and unchivalrous. It is also potentially deeply hurtful (not everyone on the Internet is thick-skinned). And it is immature. It is the favorite tactic employed by playground bullies in middle school.
Why, why, why is this so hard to understand? Why do you also, lately, do nothing but accuse and vilify, refusing to acknowledge that perhaps Jonathan Carpenter is a human being and not merely a whipping-boy object of your insults and name-calling?
Why can you, Mark, and Rod not see what is so obvious to so many (and not just to some of the comboxers here): The name-calling is the issue.Mr. Shea never responded to the woman's question.
In summary, a man who claims to detest obsessive stalking engages in it when it suits his purposes. A man who claims to defend a religion based upon the teachings of Jesus Christ effectively rejects those teachings when it suits his purposes.
Such are the obtuse twists and turns of the mind of one hypocritical Catholic apologist in the Twilight Zone....
(du-du-du-du, du-du-du-du)
#########
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Miscellaneous Musings:
I want to touch on two points briefly so here goes...
--Readers of this humble weblog may have noticed the labels on the bottom of the page of many of the blog posts. I have been in recent weeks taking a few minutes here and there and adding labels to various posts by subject. This is an arduous process but thankfully, I know some shortcuts that have enabled me to get a significant jump on it.{1} I should have that project done by summertime which means that the first weblog update of 2007 will not take place for quite a while. As it is, most of the posts for the past two years have at least one subject tag on them as of this writing -many of them more than one tag in fact. And there are some categories I have not even gotten to which will have a number of posts put into them when I get around to adding those categories. Suffice to say, this will take a while and when the project is completed, I will be able to significantly reduce the number of links in the side margin of my weblog and post there only the categories themselves whatever the total number of them ends up being.{2}
--I have not commented on the Virginia Tech incident because I did not find myself in the mood to. All I will say on it in passing is that anyone who used this tragedy to try and score cheap political points is a disgrace. I have in mind those who are going to try and shill for "gun control" as if somehow the criminal has no choice in the matter if not for the gun making him commit the crime. I suppose (to paraphrase Larry the cable Guy) I should blame my pens and pencils for causing me to misspell words. The latter is about as logical as those who blame guns for crime.
Notes:
{1} Such as certain words to search for in the archives on various subjects, certain phrases, etc.
{2} Right now there is twenty-nine of them and I have at least four more in mind at the moment which will be included as well -and will probably incorporate more than that when it is all said and done.
I want to touch on two points briefly so here goes...
--Readers of this humble weblog may have noticed the labels on the bottom of the page of many of the blog posts. I have been in recent weeks taking a few minutes here and there and adding labels to various posts by subject. This is an arduous process but thankfully, I know some shortcuts that have enabled me to get a significant jump on it.{1} I should have that project done by summertime which means that the first weblog update of 2007 will not take place for quite a while. As it is, most of the posts for the past two years have at least one subject tag on them as of this writing -many of them more than one tag in fact. And there are some categories I have not even gotten to which will have a number of posts put into them when I get around to adding those categories. Suffice to say, this will take a while and when the project is completed, I will be able to significantly reduce the number of links in the side margin of my weblog and post there only the categories themselves whatever the total number of them ends up being.{2}
--I have not commented on the Virginia Tech incident because I did not find myself in the mood to. All I will say on it in passing is that anyone who used this tragedy to try and score cheap political points is a disgrace. I have in mind those who are going to try and shill for "gun control" as if somehow the criminal has no choice in the matter if not for the gun making him commit the crime. I suppose (to paraphrase Larry the cable Guy) I should blame my pens and pencils for causing me to misspell words. The latter is about as logical as those who blame guns for crime.
Notes:
{1} Such as certain words to search for in the archives on various subjects, certain phrases, etc.
{2} Right now there is twenty-nine of them and I have at least four more in mind at the moment which will be included as well -and will probably incorporate more than that when it is all said and done.
Friday, April 27, 2007
"Dogmatic Theology Five Cents, The Doctor is In" Dept.
(On General Norms of Theological Interpretation Revisited)
[Prefatory Note: This text was primarily thrown together about ten days ago and slightly expanded (and formatted into third person tense) for the present posting. -ISM]
It is really irritating when an experienced apologist such as Mark Shea makes the kinds of mistakes he does and on such a regular basis. We at Rerum Novarum will dispatch with these inanities briefly and in the process remind readers why a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Furthermore, Mark utilizes a classic argumentation fallacy{1} to try and confuse matters like an old parlour magician. Unfortunately for him, your host is not one to fall for such matters and after calling him on the matter, Mark responded as follows (his words in appropriately dark yellow font).
Shawn:
I was unaware that when a Council teaches that "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation" it is not the Church's teaching. I learn something new every day.
Mark of course makes a lot of presumptions in how he applies that passage. Furthermore, he also does not bother considering what Gaudium et Spes says about the theological qualifications of its own text.{2} If he did, he would not make such absurd statements.
I'm aware of the common game of "Simon says" which apologists for nuking civilians enjoy playing. The rules of the game are "If the Pope does not say "We declare, say, pronounce, and define that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of butchery and they should be pilgrimage sites where men can contemplate the self-destruction of mankind" why then it's just a "sneeze" and we can completely ignore them.
The fact that your host does not plan to discuss this issue again until it is relevant aside for a moment{3}, Mark makes the same presumptions that theologically radical so-called "traditionalist Catholics" do on their pet issues. Much as they take an elastic application of Pope Pius X's encyclical Pascendi and try to apply its condemnations wholesale to the Second Vatican Council and the subsequent popes, Mark does the same here with his own pet subjects.
Anyone even remotely familiar with general norms of theological interpretation{4} knows that condemnations are by their very nature very precise and are intended only in the sense intended, not every sense that a casual reader of a text applies to them. This is why none of the condemnations in Pascendi apply to Vatican II or to the popes since Pope Pius XII. A casual and careless reading of Pascendi or Pius XII's Humani Generis presents no small degree of problems. Those texts as indeed any text have to be read carefully and in accordance with general norms of theological interpretation if the reader is to avoid the kinds of misinterpretations which are sadly not uncommon. And whether Mark or anyone else likes it, there are no magisterial condemnations of the atomic bombings. Period, end of discussion, the rest is commentary. But then again, if Mark took time to look into these matters before opening his mouth on matters of which he knows so little, he would know this.
Furthermore, your host has never said that anything short of a dogmatic definition is up for grabs -indeed in years past he wrote more on the authority of the ordinary magisterium and the proper sense of magisterial infallibility than any Catholic in cyberspace. But he is not now nor will he ever ascribe more to a statement of the pope or a council authority-wise than it actually contains. That is not "minimalist" however much Mark may want to misrepresent it but instead is a proper recognition of where the Church has spoken and where she has not.
Only the absolute bare minimum daily adult requirement of teaching from the Church's shepherds need be heeded. Any attempt to pay attention to what they say beyond this is ultra-montanism.
Any attempt to ascribe to magisterial status things which are not makes Mark no different in principle than those nineteenth century neo-ultramontaines who ascribed infallibility to every sneeze of Pope Pius IX. Except in Mark's case it is every statement is a defacto magisterial judgment. Theology is not that simple however much Mark may wish it was.
I'm likewise familiar with the fact that you, like so many Torture Apologists,
Maybe we should start calling Mark an Al Queda Apologist. It would be far more accurate than applying Markmoud AhmadinaShea's label to your host. (Gee, namecalling is fun is it not???)
still labor under the impression that I never defined torture when, in fact, I defined it repeatedly, just never to the satisfaction of those who wanted to remain confused.
Mark referred to dictionary definitions which themselves are not precise. Your host asked him numerous times in private "what is torture Mark" and he were as silent as a whore in church in response.
I also pointed out that the teaching (not the "sneeze") of the Church does not stop with "Don't torture".
Again, if Mark does not define the term before he uses it, the present writer has no reason to take anything he says on the matter seriously. Nor for that matter does anyone else.
It also says that prisoners are to be treated humanely--not merely "not exactly precisely technically tortured".
We reprise anew what was asked of Mark in private and to which he never responded:
--Would any and all attempts to coerce someone to reveal information they may not want to reveal when dealing with captured prisoners of war in a time of war be categorized as "torture"???
The question should be answered by Mark if he wants anything he says on these matters to be given any review whatsoever.
All this seems to elude you as it eludes others, which is why I continue to think you major in minors, Shawn.
Again, if Mark does not define a term and give someone a workable template to assess every public utterance he make on these matters to assess his consistency (or lack thereof), then why should anyone take him seriously??? Far from being a "major[ing] in minors" definitions are essential for rational discourse. They are the tools of thought and those who refuse to provide them should never be taken seriously when they deign to pontificate on issues where there is a greater complexity than the conventional wisdom Readers Digest Condensed Books accounts often convey.
Thanks again for your valiant defense of American political realities against all the impositions of our shepherds.
Thanks for reminding us of why we need another Sedition Act in this country during a time of war Markmoud. Based on the way Mark has griped about matters such as these as well as his ahistorical approach to indefinite detainment of aliens during a time of war, perhaps "Al Sheada" is a more appropriate moniker for him.
Notes:
{1} To summarize this fallacy in a short blurb, the fallacy of red herring is one where a subject not relevant to the original issue being discussed is raised in order to divert attention away from the latter subject.
{2} This subject was covered in the following posting for those who are interested:
"Dogmatic Theology Five Cents, the Doctor Is In" Dept. (circa February 4, 2006)
{3} Which basically means not until the anniversaries of that event if we discuss them at all this year.
{4} Of which Mark would not recognize even if it was a twelve story general norm of interpretation with magnificent entrance hall, carpetting throughout, 24 hour portage, and an enormous sign on the roof saying "This Is A General Norm of Theological Interpretation." (The above analogy was shamelessly ripped off from the main character of your host's favourite show of all time and tweaked a bit to fit the current situation.)
(On General Norms of Theological Interpretation Revisited)
[Prefatory Note: This text was primarily thrown together about ten days ago and slightly expanded (and formatted into third person tense) for the present posting. -ISM]
It is really irritating when an experienced apologist such as Mark Shea makes the kinds of mistakes he does and on such a regular basis. We at Rerum Novarum will dispatch with these inanities briefly and in the process remind readers why a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Furthermore, Mark utilizes a classic argumentation fallacy{1} to try and confuse matters like an old parlour magician. Unfortunately for him, your host is not one to fall for such matters and after calling him on the matter, Mark responded as follows (his words in appropriately dark yellow font).
Shawn:
I was unaware that when a Council teaches that "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation" it is not the Church's teaching. I learn something new every day.
Mark of course makes a lot of presumptions in how he applies that passage. Furthermore, he also does not bother considering what Gaudium et Spes says about the theological qualifications of its own text.{2} If he did, he would not make such absurd statements.
I'm aware of the common game of "Simon says" which apologists for nuking civilians enjoy playing. The rules of the game are "If the Pope does not say "We declare, say, pronounce, and define that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of butchery and they should be pilgrimage sites where men can contemplate the self-destruction of mankind" why then it's just a "sneeze" and we can completely ignore them.
The fact that your host does not plan to discuss this issue again until it is relevant aside for a moment{3}, Mark makes the same presumptions that theologically radical so-called "traditionalist Catholics" do on their pet issues. Much as they take an elastic application of Pope Pius X's encyclical Pascendi and try to apply its condemnations wholesale to the Second Vatican Council and the subsequent popes, Mark does the same here with his own pet subjects.
Anyone even remotely familiar with general norms of theological interpretation{4} knows that condemnations are by their very nature very precise and are intended only in the sense intended, not every sense that a casual reader of a text applies to them. This is why none of the condemnations in Pascendi apply to Vatican II or to the popes since Pope Pius XII. A casual and careless reading of Pascendi or Pius XII's Humani Generis presents no small degree of problems. Those texts as indeed any text have to be read carefully and in accordance with general norms of theological interpretation if the reader is to avoid the kinds of misinterpretations which are sadly not uncommon. And whether Mark or anyone else likes it, there are no magisterial condemnations of the atomic bombings. Period, end of discussion, the rest is commentary. But then again, if Mark took time to look into these matters before opening his mouth on matters of which he knows so little, he would know this.
Furthermore, your host has never said that anything short of a dogmatic definition is up for grabs -indeed in years past he wrote more on the authority of the ordinary magisterium and the proper sense of magisterial infallibility than any Catholic in cyberspace. But he is not now nor will he ever ascribe more to a statement of the pope or a council authority-wise than it actually contains. That is not "minimalist" however much Mark may want to misrepresent it but instead is a proper recognition of where the Church has spoken and where she has not.
Only the absolute bare minimum daily adult requirement of teaching from the Church's shepherds need be heeded. Any attempt to pay attention to what they say beyond this is ultra-montanism.
Any attempt to ascribe to magisterial status things which are not makes Mark no different in principle than those nineteenth century neo-ultramontaines who ascribed infallibility to every sneeze of Pope Pius IX. Except in Mark's case it is every statement is a defacto magisterial judgment. Theology is not that simple however much Mark may wish it was.
I'm likewise familiar with the fact that you, like so many Torture Apologists,
Maybe we should start calling Mark an Al Queda Apologist. It would be far more accurate than applying Markmoud AhmadinaShea's label to your host. (Gee, namecalling is fun is it not???)
still labor under the impression that I never defined torture when, in fact, I defined it repeatedly, just never to the satisfaction of those who wanted to remain confused.
Mark referred to dictionary definitions which themselves are not precise. Your host asked him numerous times in private "what is torture Mark" and he were as silent as a whore in church in response.
I also pointed out that the teaching (not the "sneeze") of the Church does not stop with "Don't torture".
Again, if Mark does not define the term before he uses it, the present writer has no reason to take anything he says on the matter seriously. Nor for that matter does anyone else.
It also says that prisoners are to be treated humanely--not merely "not exactly precisely technically tortured".
We reprise anew what was asked of Mark in private and to which he never responded:
--Would any and all attempts to coerce someone to reveal information they may not want to reveal when dealing with captured prisoners of war in a time of war be categorized as "torture"???
The question should be answered by Mark if he wants anything he says on these matters to be given any review whatsoever.
All this seems to elude you as it eludes others, which is why I continue to think you major in minors, Shawn.
Again, if Mark does not define a term and give someone a workable template to assess every public utterance he make on these matters to assess his consistency (or lack thereof), then why should anyone take him seriously??? Far from being a "major[ing] in minors" definitions are essential for rational discourse. They are the tools of thought and those who refuse to provide them should never be taken seriously when they deign to pontificate on issues where there is a greater complexity than the conventional wisdom Readers Digest Condensed Books accounts often convey.
Thanks again for your valiant defense of American political realities against all the impositions of our shepherds.
Thanks for reminding us of why we need another Sedition Act in this country during a time of war Markmoud. Based on the way Mark has griped about matters such as these as well as his ahistorical approach to indefinite detainment of aliens during a time of war, perhaps "Al Sheada" is a more appropriate moniker for him.
Notes:
{1} To summarize this fallacy in a short blurb, the fallacy of red herring is one where a subject not relevant to the original issue being discussed is raised in order to divert attention away from the latter subject.
{2} This subject was covered in the following posting for those who are interested:
"Dogmatic Theology Five Cents, the Doctor Is In" Dept. (circa February 4, 2006)
{3} Which basically means not until the anniversaries of that event if we discuss them at all this year.
{4} Of which Mark would not recognize even if it was a twelve story general norm of interpretation with magnificent entrance hall, carpetting throughout, 24 hour portage, and an enormous sign on the roof saying "This Is A General Norm of Theological Interpretation." (The above analogy was shamelessly ripped off from the main character of your host's favourite show of all time and tweaked a bit to fit the current situation.)
Monday, April 23, 2007
As today would have been the 84th birthday of Albert King -a man who was one of the greatest innovators and influences in postwar electric blues, I want to recognize this event with posting a video from YouTube. In this video is Albert, his greatest disciple Stevie Ray Vaughan, and Paul Butterfield of the Paul Butterfield Blues Band fame playing an Elmore James classic The Sky is Crying.
The Sky is Crying
May all three of them rest in peace.
The Sky is Crying
May all three of them rest in peace.
Friday, April 20, 2007
We are just about to pass the 8100 mark of those who have been murdered by the proponents of the "religion of peace" since September 11, 2001 (the total as of this writing is 8099). Just thought I would let the readers of this weblog know since so many in the MSM and even a number of those irresponsible sorts in the alternative media seem so amazingly obtuse to the true nature of the threat we are facing. But I digress.
Someone emailed your host today with the following thread which because of the subject matter at hand will be passed on at this time without comment except to say read the thread below and mull over its contents.
Venezuela Under Socialism: An Interview with Manny Lopez
Venezuela Under Socialism: An Interview with Manny Lopez
Thursday, April 19, 2007
More on Al Queda and the Geneva Conventions:
This is in reference to the blog posting from April 1, 2007. My interlocuter's words will be in darkgreen font and the references to "he" in the words below refer to your humble servant. Without further ado...
It appears that he is referring, not to "an annex to the Geneva Conventions promulgated at the Hague on October 18, 1907," but to an annex to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907, signed at (wait for it . . .) The Hague on October 18, 1907. (Articles 1, 2, and 3 of that annex are cited in the 1929 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which may be the source of Mr. McIlhenny's confusion.)
But Mr. McIlhenny's citation cannot claim to give the whole picture if it fails to take into account the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Article 4 of Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to Treatment of Prisoners of War (August 12, 1949) states that persons meeting the four criteria quoted from the 1907 Hague Convention are to be regarded as prisoners of war. Article 5, however, states that "[s]hould any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
On the first part, the interlocuter may be right. The text used was obtained from a website run by the International Committee of the Red Cross. But whether it is from 1907 or 1929 is academic at this point as the intention was to outline what the criteria by Geneva was for those who would be signatories to the convention protocols.
As far as noting the section from 1949 that says that those who meet the requirements outlined in the previous posting to this weblog were to be treated as prisoners of war, it is a non-sequitur because the point I made was that Al Queda operatives do not meet any of them.
As far as the fifth article claiming that if there is any doubt about persons belonging to the categories so outlined were to be treated as prisoners of war, here is the reason why it is not a factor in this case in a nutshell:
--The Geneva protocols are for those who are signatories to Geneva and no one not a signatory can properly be said to have valid recourse to them thereof.
But let us suppose for a moment that Al Queda was a signatory to Geneva. In that case, the fact that they do not fulfill any of the four criteria noted in the previous posting would mean they would still be disqualified from being treated under the Geneval protocols!!!
That is all which will be noted on that matter at the present time as it is sufficient to deal with the matter in question.
This is in reference to the blog posting from April 1, 2007. My interlocuter's words will be in darkgreen font and the references to "he" in the words below refer to your humble servant. Without further ado...
It appears that he is referring, not to "an annex to the Geneva Conventions promulgated at the Hague on October 18, 1907," but to an annex to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907, signed at (wait for it . . .) The Hague on October 18, 1907. (Articles 1, 2, and 3 of that annex are cited in the 1929 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which may be the source of Mr. McIlhenny's confusion.)
But Mr. McIlhenny's citation cannot claim to give the whole picture if it fails to take into account the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Article 4 of Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to Treatment of Prisoners of War (August 12, 1949) states that persons meeting the four criteria quoted from the 1907 Hague Convention are to be regarded as prisoners of war. Article 5, however, states that "[s]hould any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
On the first part, the interlocuter may be right. The text used was obtained from a website run by the International Committee of the Red Cross. But whether it is from 1907 or 1929 is academic at this point as the intention was to outline what the criteria by Geneva was for those who would be signatories to the convention protocols.
As far as noting the section from 1949 that says that those who meet the requirements outlined in the previous posting to this weblog were to be treated as prisoners of war, it is a non-sequitur because the point I made was that Al Queda operatives do not meet any of them.
As far as the fifth article claiming that if there is any doubt about persons belonging to the categories so outlined were to be treated as prisoners of war, here is the reason why it is not a factor in this case in a nutshell:
--The Geneva protocols are for those who are signatories to Geneva and no one not a signatory can properly be said to have valid recourse to them thereof.
But let us suppose for a moment that Al Queda was a signatory to Geneva. In that case, the fact that they do not fulfill any of the four criteria noted in the previous posting would mean they would still be disqualified from being treated under the Geneval protocols!!!
That is all which will be noted on that matter at the present time as it is sufficient to deal with the matter in question.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
On the "Indefinite Detainment" Complaint:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
There have been some public agitators who have whined about the issue of indefinite detainment of persons in the current war we are involved in. The purpose of this posting is to respond to that issue but first, here is a recap of one of the arguments made along these lines before your host responds to it.
It appears nobody is actually going to address the issue of man who has been in jail for a year without any charges being brought against him and who stands entirely at the mercies of Leviathan.
Weird.
To start with, the authority whereby President Bush has detained Bilal Hussein is the same one that was used to detain Mahar Arar. It is the Alien Enemies Act passed by the Congress and signed into law by President John Adams back in 1798 during The Quasi-War. It was one of four acts passed by both houses of Congress signed by President Adams along with an Enemy Alien Act, a Sedition Act, and a Naturalization Act -the latter extending the length of time for naturalization from five to fourteen years. The Naturalization Act did not have an expiration date but was repealed in 1802 by President Jefferson. The Sedition Act was enacted with an expiration date of March 3, 1801 before Jefferson took office and was never renewed in that form.{1} The Alien Friends Act enabled the president to deport "resident alien considered "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States." It was enacted June 25, 1798 with a two year expiration date and allowed to lapse.
The Alien Enemies Act was enacted on July 6, 1798 and empowered the president to apprehend and deport aliens whose home countries were at war with the United States. This is why Mahar Arar was deported to Syria -the latter is his home country and the latter has been involved in the war in Iraq by supporting the insurgency for the benefit of some of these sorts who seem to forget that. Likewise, Bilal Hussein is detained in Iraq because -guess why??? Guess his country of origin can you??? The answer of course is Iraq where he happens to be detained.
The Alien Enemies Act has never been rescinded and thus remains in force. Among the Founding Fathers who approved of it based on either public support for it or no known public opposition to it were (besides President Adams) a number of those who were involved in the creation of the US Constitution. (President George Washington, Gouvernor Morris, Rufus King, and Alexander Hamilton to mention just a few.) Unlike a lot of the other acts, the Alien Enemies Act had broad support of Federalists and Republicans{2} as it was a measure specifically aimed at wartime which is what was anticipated at that time was to happen with France.
The measure was was opposed by the exceedingly pro-French Thomas Jefferson and also by James Madison -the latter to his credit changing his mind on the matter{3} later on. These measures were enacted during a time of war and are wartime measures which again is what we are involved in here. While most of these acts never came before the US Supreme Court -as they expired before the establishment of judicial review in Marbury vs. Madison in 1803- it has been a standard of sorts to bemoan these matters in peacetime but recognize in wartime that the freedoms we take for granted in peacetime are not and indeed cannot be as extensive as they are when at war.{4}
This is why the principle behind President Lincoln suspending habeas corpus during the War Between the States{5} was by American law valid. This is why whatever one thinks about World War I and President Woodrow Wilson, there was enacted in 1917 a US Sedition Act and a US Espionage Act and these nattering nincompoops should thank their lucky stars we do not have those acts enacted today or else they could well be behind bars themselves as a threat to national security.{6} Unlike the Sedition Act signed by President Adams which did expire, the one signed by President Wilson came before the Supreme Court in 1919 and was wisely upheld in the following words:
When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. [Schenck v. United States (circa 1919)]
In a world of great mobility and where we are fighting wars not on our own soil, this is a prism for viewing the issue of indefinite detainment. Or should I say that would be my argument if not for having the act in its totality at my fingertips and knowing of the existence of section two of the act which reads as follows:
And be it further enacted, That after any proclamation shall be made as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the several courts of the United States, and of each state, having criminal jurisdiction, and of the several judges and justices of the courts of the United States, and they shall be, and are hereby respectively, authorized upon complaint, against any alien or alien enemies, as aforesaid, who shall be resident and at large within such jurisdiction or district, to the danger of the public peace or safety, and contrary to the tenor or intent of such proclamation, or other regulations which the President of the United States shall and may establish in the premises, to cause such alien or aliens to be duly apprehended and convened before such court, judge or justice; and after a full examination and hearing on such complaint. and sufficient cause therefor appearing, shall and may order such alien or aliens to be removed out of the territory of the United States, or to give sureties of their good behaviour, or to be otherwise restrained, conformably to the proclamation or regulations which shall and may be established as aforesaid, and may imprison, or otherwise secure such alien or aliens, until the order which shall and may be made, as aforesaid, shall be performed. [Alien Enemies Act Section 2 (signed into law by President John Adams on July 6, 1798)]
This was of course written in an era where people were not able to be mobile to the extent they are now. While on the books for over two hundred years, this has only been enacted during times of war.{7} And (of course) this is the authority that President Franklin Roosevelt was able to use to issue an Executive Order interning the Japanese-Americans and also Americans of Italian and German descent during World War II. Later on, the Congress passed legislation in 1950 and again in 1952 giving the attorney general the authority to hold an alien in custody without bail.
So for all the public bitching about these matters by the historically ignorant, they happen to be matters of United States law and some of these provisions go back over two hundred years including the very Alien Enemies Act that gave President Bush the authority to deport and detain both Mahar Arar and Bilal Hussein.
Of course if certain persons knew their history better, they perhaps would not make such misinformed statements. But apparently, lacking knowledge on issues is not an impediment to them pontificating on them so do not expect to see a secession of their own accord on these matters. If anything they will probably just shout louder as if that somehow covers for their egregious ignorance on these matters but I have said all I plan to on this issue for the time being.
Notes:
{1} I say "in that form" because there was a Sedition Act enacted at a later date -a point I touched on earlier in the thread above.
{2} This is what the party of Jefferson and Madison originally called themselves. It functioned as a party from 1792 until 1824 when there was a party schism. (One branch of that schism was led by Andrew Jackson and is the start of the party today that goes by the name Democratic Party.)
{3} Indeed. the very same James Madison who opposed this act during the Adams administration supported it when he was president during the War of 1812. Hopefully the "Allah Bless Al Queda" contingent is starting to notice a pattern here. James Madison recognized when he was president the same thing that John Adams did before him and it is this: freedom of speech in a time of war has to have its limits.
{4} And yes, much as these pontificating peons cannot seem to fathom it, we are at war right now whether they like it or not.
{5} And he was right to do so during the War Between the States.
{6} By their defacto giving aid and comfort to the enemy they would be eminently qualified for being jailed.
{7} And it is wholly appropriate for reasons spelled out by the Supreme Court in Shenck vs. the United States even though the act being contested there was the US Sedition Act (which was repealed in 1921) and not the still-intact Alien Enemies Act.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
There have been some public agitators who have whined about the issue of indefinite detainment of persons in the current war we are involved in. The purpose of this posting is to respond to that issue but first, here is a recap of one of the arguments made along these lines before your host responds to it.
It appears nobody is actually going to address the issue of man who has been in jail for a year without any charges being brought against him and who stands entirely at the mercies of Leviathan.
Weird.
To start with, the authority whereby President Bush has detained Bilal Hussein is the same one that was used to detain Mahar Arar. It is the Alien Enemies Act passed by the Congress and signed into law by President John Adams back in 1798 during The Quasi-War. It was one of four acts passed by both houses of Congress signed by President Adams along with an Enemy Alien Act, a Sedition Act, and a Naturalization Act -the latter extending the length of time for naturalization from five to fourteen years. The Naturalization Act did not have an expiration date but was repealed in 1802 by President Jefferson. The Sedition Act was enacted with an expiration date of March 3, 1801 before Jefferson took office and was never renewed in that form.{1} The Alien Friends Act enabled the president to deport "resident alien considered "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States." It was enacted June 25, 1798 with a two year expiration date and allowed to lapse.
The Alien Enemies Act was enacted on July 6, 1798 and empowered the president to apprehend and deport aliens whose home countries were at war with the United States. This is why Mahar Arar was deported to Syria -the latter is his home country and the latter has been involved in the war in Iraq by supporting the insurgency for the benefit of some of these sorts who seem to forget that. Likewise, Bilal Hussein is detained in Iraq because -guess why??? Guess his country of origin can you??? The answer of course is Iraq where he happens to be detained.
The Alien Enemies Act has never been rescinded and thus remains in force. Among the Founding Fathers who approved of it based on either public support for it or no known public opposition to it were (besides President Adams) a number of those who were involved in the creation of the US Constitution. (President George Washington, Gouvernor Morris, Rufus King, and Alexander Hamilton to mention just a few.) Unlike a lot of the other acts, the Alien Enemies Act had broad support of Federalists and Republicans{2} as it was a measure specifically aimed at wartime which is what was anticipated at that time was to happen with France.
The measure was was opposed by the exceedingly pro-French Thomas Jefferson and also by James Madison -the latter to his credit changing his mind on the matter{3} later on. These measures were enacted during a time of war and are wartime measures which again is what we are involved in here. While most of these acts never came before the US Supreme Court -as they expired before the establishment of judicial review in Marbury vs. Madison in 1803- it has been a standard of sorts to bemoan these matters in peacetime but recognize in wartime that the freedoms we take for granted in peacetime are not and indeed cannot be as extensive as they are when at war.{4}
This is why the principle behind President Lincoln suspending habeas corpus during the War Between the States{5} was by American law valid. This is why whatever one thinks about World War I and President Woodrow Wilson, there was enacted in 1917 a US Sedition Act and a US Espionage Act and these nattering nincompoops should thank their lucky stars we do not have those acts enacted today or else they could well be behind bars themselves as a threat to national security.{6} Unlike the Sedition Act signed by President Adams which did expire, the one signed by President Wilson came before the Supreme Court in 1919 and was wisely upheld in the following words:
When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. [Schenck v. United States (circa 1919)]
In a world of great mobility and where we are fighting wars not on our own soil, this is a prism for viewing the issue of indefinite detainment. Or should I say that would be my argument if not for having the act in its totality at my fingertips and knowing of the existence of section two of the act which reads as follows:
And be it further enacted, That after any proclamation shall be made as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the several courts of the United States, and of each state, having criminal jurisdiction, and of the several judges and justices of the courts of the United States, and they shall be, and are hereby respectively, authorized upon complaint, against any alien or alien enemies, as aforesaid, who shall be resident and at large within such jurisdiction or district, to the danger of the public peace or safety, and contrary to the tenor or intent of such proclamation, or other regulations which the President of the United States shall and may establish in the premises, to cause such alien or aliens to be duly apprehended and convened before such court, judge or justice; and after a full examination and hearing on such complaint. and sufficient cause therefor appearing, shall and may order such alien or aliens to be removed out of the territory of the United States, or to give sureties of their good behaviour, or to be otherwise restrained, conformably to the proclamation or regulations which shall and may be established as aforesaid, and may imprison, or otherwise secure such alien or aliens, until the order which shall and may be made, as aforesaid, shall be performed. [Alien Enemies Act Section 2 (signed into law by President John Adams on July 6, 1798)]
This was of course written in an era where people were not able to be mobile to the extent they are now. While on the books for over two hundred years, this has only been enacted during times of war.{7} And (of course) this is the authority that President Franklin Roosevelt was able to use to issue an Executive Order interning the Japanese-Americans and also Americans of Italian and German descent during World War II. Later on, the Congress passed legislation in 1950 and again in 1952 giving the attorney general the authority to hold an alien in custody without bail.
So for all the public bitching about these matters by the historically ignorant, they happen to be matters of United States law and some of these provisions go back over two hundred years including the very Alien Enemies Act that gave President Bush the authority to deport and detain both Mahar Arar and Bilal Hussein.
Of course if certain persons knew their history better, they perhaps would not make such misinformed statements. But apparently, lacking knowledge on issues is not an impediment to them pontificating on them so do not expect to see a secession of their own accord on these matters. If anything they will probably just shout louder as if that somehow covers for their egregious ignorance on these matters but I have said all I plan to on this issue for the time being.
Notes:
{1} I say "in that form" because there was a Sedition Act enacted at a later date -a point I touched on earlier in the thread above.
{2} This is what the party of Jefferson and Madison originally called themselves. It functioned as a party from 1792 until 1824 when there was a party schism. (One branch of that schism was led by Andrew Jackson and is the start of the party today that goes by the name Democratic Party.)
{3} Indeed. the very same James Madison who opposed this act during the Adams administration supported it when he was president during the War of 1812. Hopefully the "Allah Bless Al Queda" contingent is starting to notice a pattern here. James Madison recognized when he was president the same thing that John Adams did before him and it is this: freedom of speech in a time of war has to have its limits.
{4} And yes, much as these pontificating peons cannot seem to fathom it, we are at war right now whether they like it or not.
{5} And he was right to do so during the War Between the States.
{6} By their defacto giving aid and comfort to the enemy they would be eminently qualified for being jailed.
{7} And it is wholly appropriate for reasons spelled out by the Supreme Court in Shenck vs. the United States even though the act being contested there was the US Sedition Act (which was repealed in 1921) and not the still-intact Alien Enemies Act.
On Slavery and the Founding Fathers of America - Prelude to an Upcoming Project:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
With the election on the horizon for 2008 and wanting to avoid for the sake of his own sanity too much focus on those issues beyond what is necessary to do, it seems appropriate to write as time allows on some of the systems and principles that shaped the outlooks of the Founding Fathers of the United States.{1} Part of the reason for this decision is because there is a significant imbalance in politics today and we want to propose a remedy for the common problems inherent in the political approaches of both major parties.{2} However, before doing this, it is important to refute briefly one annoying approach many who try to dismiss the significance of these men, what they did, and what they stood for inexorably involve themselves in. This would of course be the issue of slavery.
Let it be noted at the outset that the present writer has no patience whatsoever for those who whine about the toleration of slavery by the Founding Fathers when such people support abominations of their own. I refer of course to the abomination of abortion. And even amongst those who are opposed to both slavery and abortion, there are some who are promoters of that noxious weed called socialism that is nothing but communism in a lesser developed form.{3} In other words, not a few who are critical of the Founding Fathers have their own advocacy or toleration of heinous evils which they need to tend to before having the temerity of reading the Founding Fathers out of court because of an evil of their time which was tolerated.
Imagine if you will what would happen if future people reading about America since 1973 took the approach that since abortion was legal that it meant that people today were all "supporters of abortion" or some similarly ludicrous statement. An informed historian would respond by saying that while yes, permission to have abortions was viewed as the law of the land{4}, there were many people who opposed it and who sought to initiate movements against the practice. Well, the same can be said for slavery in the days of the Founding Fathers.
There was a fight on this issue early in the history of the US Republic and even at the Constitutional Convention where slavery was an issue which was basically spoken about and fought over mostly in code by Founders of various views on the matter in question. There were many Founders who abhorred slavery on principles which we would laud today -among them Gouvernor Morris, Alexander Hamilton, George Mason, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, etc. come to mind. None of them except Franklin ever owned slaves.{5}
Among even some of the Founders who owned slaves there was also abhorrence of the system -particularly amongst the Virginians George Washington and James Madison who struggled in conscience with these matters and (as a result of various factors too complex to go into here) treated their slaves very humanely -almost some have said like family. Thomas Jefferson also struggled with the ownership of slaves and the principles he espoused which did not countenance the system. Nor was there a unanimous concurrence in the southern states for slavery either.
What the Founders recognized was that the system was too entrenched to be easily uprooted however. Most of these recognized rightly that a secure and strong government properly constituted would contain within it the means capable of overcoming this system without the kinds of anarchy which would have led to the dissolution of the union and under which the condition of the slaves would have been even worse than it was at the time.{6}
It is important to remember that the United States was the only nation ever founded on principles and the only nation to ever have had a Revolution that rather than disintegrating into anarchy and then totalitarianism instead led to greater order and stability of government while providing for a maximum of personal freedom. Whatever problems there were in the application of these principles consistently, at the very least a system was in place which would enable an abolition of slavery even though this took longer than many of the Founding Fathers who wanted to see slavery ended could have anticipated.{7} But certainly those who berate the Founding Fathers for this moral weakness of their time should get the beam out of their own eyes and consider what abominations they either support or at the very least tacitly endorse{8} before they dare to cast stones at those men who were on the whole and for their times very good men (and sometime great men).
Notes:
{1} In part to fill in for the reams of ignorance on these matters which are prevalent today as a result of historical revisionism and in part to better explain some of what we need to regain in the political and social fabric of this currently-very-polarized nation.
{2} It is worse in one party than the other but that will be written on later as time allows for it.
{3} The confutation of socialism in its earliest stages is about the only kind of "abortion" supported by your host -in this case the abortion of the fetus of fascism/communism. And yes, the two are logically on the same side of the spectrum as your host noted a few years ago:
The notion that two totalitarian systems (i.e. communism and fascism) could be polar opposites philosophically speaking is an example of Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction being violated in spades. Think about it for a moment:
---If Communism represents totalitarian control over every sphere of a society, the opposite of total control is no control. Thus, the converse of communism is not fascism but anarchy.
Fascism is nothing except a slightly more palatable form of socialism than communism. Oh and do not even bring up Nazi Germany as an "opposite" of communism. Communism is totalitarian socialism and the Nazis were the National Socialist German Workers Party. Unless the entire political spectrum is socialist, the notion that fascism or naziism could be the political "opposite" of communism is ludicrous on its face. Yet notice how many anointed "experts" trot out this false notion of political opposites. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 16, 2004)]
{4} Now is not the time to go into the subject of what the proper role of law in a just society is and how a law such as this is a perversion of law at its very foundation.
{5} Franklin at one point owned two.
{6} This was by no means a universal factor as there were slave owners who treated their slaves almost like members of the family (i.e. George Washington and James Madison who in principle abhorred slavery). But such examples were not the rule unfortunately.
{7} On this matter there are too many factors to go into here at the present time.
{8} In a spectrum running from abortion and euthanasia supporters to those who in various unconscionable ways give aid and comfort to Al Qaeda supporters during the current war (to name a few examples offhand).
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
With the election on the horizon for 2008 and wanting to avoid for the sake of his own sanity too much focus on those issues beyond what is necessary to do, it seems appropriate to write as time allows on some of the systems and principles that shaped the outlooks of the Founding Fathers of the United States.{1} Part of the reason for this decision is because there is a significant imbalance in politics today and we want to propose a remedy for the common problems inherent in the political approaches of both major parties.{2} However, before doing this, it is important to refute briefly one annoying approach many who try to dismiss the significance of these men, what they did, and what they stood for inexorably involve themselves in. This would of course be the issue of slavery.
Let it be noted at the outset that the present writer has no patience whatsoever for those who whine about the toleration of slavery by the Founding Fathers when such people support abominations of their own. I refer of course to the abomination of abortion. And even amongst those who are opposed to both slavery and abortion, there are some who are promoters of that noxious weed called socialism that is nothing but communism in a lesser developed form.{3} In other words, not a few who are critical of the Founding Fathers have their own advocacy or toleration of heinous evils which they need to tend to before having the temerity of reading the Founding Fathers out of court because of an evil of their time which was tolerated.
Imagine if you will what would happen if future people reading about America since 1973 took the approach that since abortion was legal that it meant that people today were all "supporters of abortion" or some similarly ludicrous statement. An informed historian would respond by saying that while yes, permission to have abortions was viewed as the law of the land{4}, there were many people who opposed it and who sought to initiate movements against the practice. Well, the same can be said for slavery in the days of the Founding Fathers.
There was a fight on this issue early in the history of the US Republic and even at the Constitutional Convention where slavery was an issue which was basically spoken about and fought over mostly in code by Founders of various views on the matter in question. There were many Founders who abhorred slavery on principles which we would laud today -among them Gouvernor Morris, Alexander Hamilton, George Mason, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, etc. come to mind. None of them except Franklin ever owned slaves.{5}
Among even some of the Founders who owned slaves there was also abhorrence of the system -particularly amongst the Virginians George Washington and James Madison who struggled in conscience with these matters and (as a result of various factors too complex to go into here) treated their slaves very humanely -almost some have said like family. Thomas Jefferson also struggled with the ownership of slaves and the principles he espoused which did not countenance the system. Nor was there a unanimous concurrence in the southern states for slavery either.
What the Founders recognized was that the system was too entrenched to be easily uprooted however. Most of these recognized rightly that a secure and strong government properly constituted would contain within it the means capable of overcoming this system without the kinds of anarchy which would have led to the dissolution of the union and under which the condition of the slaves would have been even worse than it was at the time.{6}
It is important to remember that the United States was the only nation ever founded on principles and the only nation to ever have had a Revolution that rather than disintegrating into anarchy and then totalitarianism instead led to greater order and stability of government while providing for a maximum of personal freedom. Whatever problems there were in the application of these principles consistently, at the very least a system was in place which would enable an abolition of slavery even though this took longer than many of the Founding Fathers who wanted to see slavery ended could have anticipated.{7} But certainly those who berate the Founding Fathers for this moral weakness of their time should get the beam out of their own eyes and consider what abominations they either support or at the very least tacitly endorse{8} before they dare to cast stones at those men who were on the whole and for their times very good men (and sometime great men).
Notes:
{1} In part to fill in for the reams of ignorance on these matters which are prevalent today as a result of historical revisionism and in part to better explain some of what we need to regain in the political and social fabric of this currently-very-polarized nation.
{2} It is worse in one party than the other but that will be written on later as time allows for it.
{3} The confutation of socialism in its earliest stages is about the only kind of "abortion" supported by your host -in this case the abortion of the fetus of fascism/communism. And yes, the two are logically on the same side of the spectrum as your host noted a few years ago:
The notion that two totalitarian systems (i.e. communism and fascism) could be polar opposites philosophically speaking is an example of Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction being violated in spades. Think about it for a moment:
---If Communism represents totalitarian control over every sphere of a society, the opposite of total control is no control. Thus, the converse of communism is not fascism but anarchy.
Fascism is nothing except a slightly more palatable form of socialism than communism. Oh and do not even bring up Nazi Germany as an "opposite" of communism. Communism is totalitarian socialism and the Nazis were the National Socialist German Workers Party. Unless the entire political spectrum is socialist, the notion that fascism or naziism could be the political "opposite" of communism is ludicrous on its face. Yet notice how many anointed "experts" trot out this false notion of political opposites. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 16, 2004)]
{4} Now is not the time to go into the subject of what the proper role of law in a just society is and how a law such as this is a perversion of law at its very foundation.
{5} Franklin at one point owned two.
{6} This was by no means a universal factor as there were slave owners who treated their slaves almost like members of the family (i.e. George Washington and James Madison who in principle abhorred slavery). But such examples were not the rule unfortunately.
{7} On this matter there are too many factors to go into here at the present time.
{8} In a spectrum running from abortion and euthanasia supporters to those who in various unconscionable ways give aid and comfort to Al Qaeda supporters during the current war (to name a few examples offhand).
On the 2008 Election and Early Candidate Campaigning:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Prefatory Note: The text below was written three weeks ago in response to a colleague who has made their weblog the "all Tancredo all the time" weblog claiming that Tancredo is the "only real conservative in the race." -ISM]
What about Duncan Hunter??? At least he is near the top of the current straw polls being taken -winning the January straw poll in McCain's" home state (Romney placed second), and placed second to Rudy Guiliani in the South Carolina straw poll a month ago beating out McCain, Romney, and the others. This was before he formally declared his candidacy which happened yesterday and despite being outspent about twenty to one.
While one could make a solid case for Tancredo's immigration position being the best of the candidates running, Hunter is nonetheless not weak in that area. I plan to do an examination of the positions of the three candidates I am most in favour of (Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and Tommy Thompson) in the coming weeks as time allows across an entire spectrum of issues. I admit going in that I do not believe Tancredo is as complete a candidate as Hunter on the issues and he does not have Thompson's executive experience. But I am open to being persuaded differently on this if the evidence is there to substantiate it. And I intend to compare these three candidates in twenty-four specific areas position-wise so that the picture painted is as complete as we can possibly have going in.{1}
But even if Tancredo would come out on top in such an examination, there is the issue of if he is electable and that is no minor bagatelle either. And while it is quite early, I am afraid I do not see much in the way of pre-announcement momentum for him. Considering that Tancredo made it reasonably clear he would seek the presidency back in February of 2005 -and more explicitly so in July of 2005- his lack of momentum in the two years since does not give me confidence that anything is going to change here. At least in Hunter's case, he has obvious pre-announcement momentum and that is important for anyone who makes it clear they are "exploring the possibility" of election.{2}
There is also the military issue and while Tommy Thompson has executive experience that Hunter and Tancredo lack, at the same time, Hunter is a former Vietnam veteran serving with the 173rd Airborne and 75th Army Rangers. He therefore has a better idea of what is involved on the ground in military operations and his son served as a Marine in the Iraq theatre in Fallujah. I believe he is therefore less inclined to play politics with the war in Iraq than either of the other two or to make any decisions that would hamper our mission in Iraq.
Notes:
{1} I should have that project done sometime this summer.
{2} We all know those kinds of statements are intended to see if there is a groundswell of solid support for such endeavours.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Prefatory Note: The text below was written three weeks ago in response to a colleague who has made their weblog the "all Tancredo all the time" weblog claiming that Tancredo is the "only real conservative in the race." -ISM]
What about Duncan Hunter??? At least he is near the top of the current straw polls being taken -winning the January straw poll in McCain's" home state (Romney placed second), and placed second to Rudy Guiliani in the South Carolina straw poll a month ago beating out McCain, Romney, and the others. This was before he formally declared his candidacy which happened yesterday and despite being outspent about twenty to one.
While one could make a solid case for Tancredo's immigration position being the best of the candidates running, Hunter is nonetheless not weak in that area. I plan to do an examination of the positions of the three candidates I am most in favour of (Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and Tommy Thompson) in the coming weeks as time allows across an entire spectrum of issues. I admit going in that I do not believe Tancredo is as complete a candidate as Hunter on the issues and he does not have Thompson's executive experience. But I am open to being persuaded differently on this if the evidence is there to substantiate it. And I intend to compare these three candidates in twenty-four specific areas position-wise so that the picture painted is as complete as we can possibly have going in.{1}
But even if Tancredo would come out on top in such an examination, there is the issue of if he is electable and that is no minor bagatelle either. And while it is quite early, I am afraid I do not see much in the way of pre-announcement momentum for him. Considering that Tancredo made it reasonably clear he would seek the presidency back in February of 2005 -and more explicitly so in July of 2005- his lack of momentum in the two years since does not give me confidence that anything is going to change here. At least in Hunter's case, he has obvious pre-announcement momentum and that is important for anyone who makes it clear they are "exploring the possibility" of election.{2}
There is also the military issue and while Tommy Thompson has executive experience that Hunter and Tancredo lack, at the same time, Hunter is a former Vietnam veteran serving with the 173rd Airborne and 75th Army Rangers. He therefore has a better idea of what is involved on the ground in military operations and his son served as a Marine in the Iraq theatre in Fallujah. I believe he is therefore less inclined to play politics with the war in Iraq than either of the other two or to make any decisions that would hamper our mission in Iraq.
Notes:
{1} I should have that project done sometime this summer.
{2} We all know those kinds of statements are intended to see if there is a groundswell of solid support for such endeavours.
Miscellaneous Musings:
Two brief bits from a recent news event:
--On the whole Don Imus situation, I find it quite hypocritical that those who sought to castigate Imus for his comments have no problem defending as "free speech" the same and worse statements made in music videos, on cable programming, etc. If Imus deserved to be fired for those comments because of the comments themselves, then half of the mainstream media-sponsored programming out there deserves to be thrown off the air.
Now I am not going to say much more than that about Imus as I have never liked the fellow much at all. However, the issue of principles{1} makes defending Imus on this matter necessary since
--As far as Al Sharpton goes{2}, I do not give two rats testicles about anything the man has to say. And whenever anyone tries to make Al Sharpton sound like a credible person, all I can think of is two words: Tawana Brawley. When Al Sharpton actually apologizes for his involvement in that race-hustling sham, then I might consider anything he says to be worth listening to. But not until then.
Notes:
{1} [I]s asking for people to not engage in double standards simply too much to ask for anymore??? [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 27, 2007)]
{2} For those who do not know, Imus appeared on Al Sharpton's radio program; ergo my mention of Sharpton in these musings.
Two brief bits from a recent news event:
--On the whole Don Imus situation, I find it quite hypocritical that those who sought to castigate Imus for his comments have no problem defending as "free speech" the same and worse statements made in music videos, on cable programming, etc. If Imus deserved to be fired for those comments because of the comments themselves, then half of the mainstream media-sponsored programming out there deserves to be thrown off the air.
Now I am not going to say much more than that about Imus as I have never liked the fellow much at all. However, the issue of principles{1} makes defending Imus on this matter necessary since
--As far as Al Sharpton goes{2}, I do not give two rats testicles about anything the man has to say. And whenever anyone tries to make Al Sharpton sound like a credible person, all I can think of is two words: Tawana Brawley. When Al Sharpton actually apologizes for his involvement in that race-hustling sham, then I might consider anything he says to be worth listening to. But not until then.
Notes:
{1} [I]s asking for people to not engage in double standards simply too much to ask for anymore??? [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 27, 2007)]
{2} For those who do not know, Imus appeared on Al Sharpton's radio program; ergo my mention of Sharpton in these musings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)