Points to Ponder:
(From Benjamin Franklin)
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.
As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Those disputing, contradicting, and confuting people are generally unfortunate in their affairs. They get victory, sometimes, but they never get good will, which would be of more use to them.
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Miscellaneous Notes:
Three bits briefly before calling it a night...
--Having tired recently of seeing that stupid "cost of the war in Iraq" price ticker, I am curious to know if any readers of this weblog know where there may be a ticker tallying the cost of the war on poverty. I know it is around seven trillion which dwarfs any cost to the war in Iraq and would like to have a copy of it to put in the side margin of this weblog.
--Apparently a previously posted assumption about audioblogger not having access to previously recorded audioposts was quite possibly wrong. I was unable to make them work for some time but the other day, they worked. So I am not sure if I was mistaken or if it was the technology of the computers I tried them on previously as to what the problem was. Either way, I will assume the worst and make a mea culpa here on the matter.
--I have on the drafting table and about seventy percent done a review of the Bush Administration through the first half of 2007. It should be completed and ready for posting if not this weekend than sometime next week.
Three bits briefly before calling it a night...
--Having tired recently of seeing that stupid "cost of the war in Iraq" price ticker, I am curious to know if any readers of this weblog know where there may be a ticker tallying the cost of the war on poverty. I know it is around seven trillion which dwarfs any cost to the war in Iraq and would like to have a copy of it to put in the side margin of this weblog.
--Apparently a previously posted assumption about audioblogger not having access to previously recorded audioposts was quite possibly wrong. I was unable to make them work for some time but the other day, they worked. So I am not sure if I was mistaken or if it was the technology of the computers I tried them on previously as to what the problem was. Either way, I will assume the worst and make a mea culpa here on the matter.
--I have on the drafting table and about seventy percent done a review of the Bush Administration through the first half of 2007. It should be completed and ready for posting if not this weekend than sometime next week.
Friday, July 06, 2007
What the president ought to have done yesterday (Greg Krehbiel)
I cannot say I disagree with Greg's analysis in the above thread.
I cannot say I disagree with Greg's analysis in the above thread.
Points to Ponder:
(On Conscientious Objectors)
I have no quarrel with men who absent themselves from war, or combat in war, due to reasons of conscience clearly stated so long as they take their lumps in the public arena. That is crucial, for an individual conscience is worthy of respect only to the extent it's honestly directed at the right ordering of society. The acid test of that direction is a man's willingness to suffer at the hands of the community whose right ordering he supposedly desires. Christ took that test, and passed it, not least because He wanted to show us how necessary and expensive a conscience can be. So we should judge Eugene Debs an honorable man, whether or not we think he was right to oppose World War I, because Debs went to jail for opposing it. [Ian Mclean (circa April 26, 2006)]
(On Conscientious Objectors)
I have no quarrel with men who absent themselves from war, or combat in war, due to reasons of conscience clearly stated so long as they take their lumps in the public arena. That is crucial, for an individual conscience is worthy of respect only to the extent it's honestly directed at the right ordering of society. The acid test of that direction is a man's willingness to suffer at the hands of the community whose right ordering he supposedly desires. Christ took that test, and passed it, not least because He wanted to show us how necessary and expensive a conscience can be. So we should judge Eugene Debs an honorable man, whether or not we think he was right to oppose World War I, because Debs went to jail for opposing it. [Ian Mclean (circa April 26, 2006)]
Amnesty’s Fall (National Catholic Register)
I have taken a mixed view of Amnesty International over the years -mainly because it so often comes across as wanting to focus its blame for "human rights violations" on the countries with better overall human rights records and ignore or downplay the actions of the most blatant offenders.{1} This kind of hypocrisy does not sit well with me but recently AI went beyond even this degree of hypocrisy and has moved to endorsing the taking of life: a blatant contradiction of their stated aim.
At least previously, one could point to the mission statement of sorts from AI and note where they were being inconsistent and chalk it up to them simply falling short of their stated intentions. But they have now endorsed murder{2} so they cannot be taken even remotely seriously anymore.
Those who have invested their time and efforts in promoting AI lo these many years now have to wipe a good chunk of egg off of their faces. And while I have not given them much thought of a positive nature over the years, they have now insured that I will think of them only in a negative fashion until they come to see the error of their ways and the absurdity of claiming to speak out for "human rights" when they endorse a violation of one of the most fundamental rights imaginable: the right to life.
Notes:
{1} Or to reference Moynihan's Law codified by the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan:
"The amount of violations of human rights in a country is always an inverse function of the amount of complaints about human rights violations heard from there. The greater the number of complaints being aired, the better protected are human rights in that country."
{2} I go over the issue of abortion most recently as it pertains to the fundamental rights of man in this weblog posting:
On Fundamental Rights, Common Law Principles, and Abortion (circa February 1, 2007)
I have taken a mixed view of Amnesty International over the years -mainly because it so often comes across as wanting to focus its blame for "human rights violations" on the countries with better overall human rights records and ignore or downplay the actions of the most blatant offenders.{1} This kind of hypocrisy does not sit well with me but recently AI went beyond even this degree of hypocrisy and has moved to endorsing the taking of life: a blatant contradiction of their stated aim.
At least previously, one could point to the mission statement of sorts from AI and note where they were being inconsistent and chalk it up to them simply falling short of their stated intentions. But they have now endorsed murder{2} so they cannot be taken even remotely seriously anymore.
Those who have invested their time and efforts in promoting AI lo these many years now have to wipe a good chunk of egg off of their faces. And while I have not given them much thought of a positive nature over the years, they have now insured that I will think of them only in a negative fashion until they come to see the error of their ways and the absurdity of claiming to speak out for "human rights" when they endorse a violation of one of the most fundamental rights imaginable: the right to life.
Notes:
{1} Or to reference Moynihan's Law codified by the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan:
"The amount of violations of human rights in a country is always an inverse function of the amount of complaints about human rights violations heard from there. The greater the number of complaints being aired, the better protected are human rights in that country."
{2} I go over the issue of abortion most recently as it pertains to the fundamental rights of man in this weblog posting:
On Fundamental Rights, Common Law Principles, and Abortion (circa February 1, 2007)
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
I was going to write on the Founding Fathers and on Claude Frederic Bastiat but as it is, I was made aware of an article on the founders written by Rush Limbaugh. This is not the same Rush Limbaugh who has the radio show but is the latter's father. It is a marvelous speech which outlined just what sacrifices were made so that we could live in a free nation and can serve as a reminder for those who balk at the idea of real sacrifice in pursuit of one's principles -not the rabble of modern day pseudo-"peacemakers" who would trade liberty for the "security" of slavery.{1}
Oh and for those who want to play the "founding fathers were slave owners so nothing they did is worthy of admiration" card, I will link to something written on this weblog which outlines some of the intellectual and ethical bankruptcy of that view with an eye towards the realities of their time.{2} But without further ado, here is the thread on the Founding Fathers noted above followed by the thread by Dr. Walter E. Williams on Claude Frederic Bastiat which we have posted to this site before on more than one occasion. Enjoy them and from all of us here at Rerum Novarum, we wish you all a splendid Fourth of July!!!
Notes:
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Points to Ponder:
(On Perversion of the Law)
Today would have been the birthday of arguably history's greatest advocates of liberty. We at Rerum Novarum will write more on this later on when there is time. In the meantime though, the occasion is commemorated by a "points to ponder" excerpt from his magnum opus The Law -a text which has has no small degree of influence on us over the years. Without further ado:
(On Perversion of the Law)
Today would have been the birthday of arguably history's greatest advocates of liberty. We at Rerum Novarum will write more on this later on when there is time. In the meantime though, the occasion is commemorated by a "points to ponder" excerpt from his magnum opus The Law -a text which has has no small degree of influence on us over the years. Without further ado:
It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.
What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. Thus we must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking.
In the first place, it erases from everyone's conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.
No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.
The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are "just" because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions, and monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: From The Law (circa 1850)]
Miscellaneous Musings:
The first bit to cover is from the war on terror front:
--Two Bombs Were Set To Blow In London (Sky News Courtesy of Drudge)
Here are a few bits from the article:
Police have confirmed that not one, but two massive car bombs were set to explode in the heart of London's West End.
The first, in Haymarket, was defused after police were alerted by an ambulance crew called to an incident at a nearby nightclub.
The second was in a car that was illegally parked nearby and towed to the Park Lane car pound...
The device, which contained 60 litres of petrol, a large amount of nails and several gas canisters, was found in the Mercedes early this morning.
Police had received reports of a suspicious vehicle close to the Tiger Tiger nightclub in Piccadilly shortly before 2am.
An ambulance crew, who treated a person in the club in an unrelated incident, reported that there was smoke inside the car.
The second device is believed to have been found by police in a blue hybrid Mercedes that was illegally parked in the West End and was towed away to the Park Lane car pound in the early hours of the morning.
I hope the British take these matters seriously and do not act like many of the useful idiot sorts for Al Queda. The latter tend towards hyping abstract idealist notions of fighting a casualty-less war where the enemies who want to either convert us to their twisted notion of what "God" is or kill us will somehow magically (without coercion) tell us everything we need to find out about how to stop their plans for our destruction.
Such pseudo-"peacemaker" sorts usually defend their termite-like undermining of just public order and the common good of society (part of which involves the right to self-defense both individually as well as communally) by claiming they are for "human rights" but this is functionally not true. In reality, they favour a kind of anecdotal human rights spiel which by logical extension downplays fundamental God-given rights of man{1} at various points.{2}
Unfortunately, many of these useful idiots will only find out the error of their moronic advocacy when it is their head being sawed off by a dull knife while chants to "God" are uttered in Arabic by turban-wearing cowards who deserve a fate befitting the rabid disease-infested animals they are.{3} But enough on the useful idiots and their anecdotal human rights spiel for now.
--Today would have been the birthday of Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, the sort of journalist we do not have nearly enough of in this world anymore. Tomorrow would be the birthday of arguably history's greatest advocate of liberty Claude Frederic Bastiat. As this posting was started in the morning today and not completed for posting until very late, it is unlikely that I will post anything tomorrow of a significant nature about Bastiat except (perhaps) quote from his magnum opus The Law in a "points to ponder" installment to this humble weblog. I will however do some kind of combined tribute to him and America's founding on or around the Fourth of July this year since the core underlying theme of both is the same. Moving on...
--If the first part of this posting appears to put me in an ornery mood today, the truth is anything but that. I would however be remiss when noting the stupidity of the anecdotal human rights crowd (AHRD for short) just how livid their obtuseness makes me. But enough on that as I noted earlier, today legislatively is a good day so without further ado and as an old BB King song aptly put it:
No matter whether rainy weather
Birds of a feather gotta stick together
So get yourself under control
Go out and get together and let the good times roll
Today after all is the day after the day the immigration bill died. Of course I am not going to presume that this thing will stay dead but it is at the very least dead until after the next presidential election. Readers who were angry that this absurdity was even contemplated should press the presidential candidates on it and refuse to support any presidential candidate that would support amnesty for illegal aliens.
--Court Ruling Likely to Further Segregate Schools, Educators Say (Washington Post)
I of course have no problem with this ruling though I am sure that many of the contemporary ignorant will read into that statement presumptions of my view which are not correct. The bottom line for my stance is a simple one: there is no civil right properly speaking{4} to desegregated schools. It is about time the Supreme Court got away from activist agendas and got back to doing what it is supposed to do and the latter involves interpreting the Constitution not inventing out of whole cloth penumbra of a penumbra kind of bull crap and passing it off as "constitutional." Or absurd "right to privacy"{5} schtick and claiming that such things are "constitutional." But enough on that matter for now.
Notes:
{1} We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life -- physical, intellectual, and moral life.
But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.
Life, faculties, production--in other words, individuality, liberty, property -- this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.
Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa October 3, 2002)]
{2} They are so much like marxists methodologically that it is disturbing but that is a subject for another time perhaps.
{3} Wake up you self-anointed "activists" with your blind and irrational hatred of George Walker Bush. Your position is not only illogical but further: it is idiotic and plays Russian roulette with this nation's national security. You would compromise the safety of American citizens for the sake of political advantage in an election. For that, I spit on you!!! ...
[I]f the savage beheading of American civilians by rabid infested subhuman debris is not enough to get self-styled "activists" to wake from their pathetic Vietnam-era pretensions and face reality, I have to wonder what it will take. And if they think people like me will wait around for them to finally "get it", I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell them. That is all for now. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 18, 2004)]
{4} I went over the subject of specifically what is and is not a civil right properly speaking a few times in the past -most recently (to my recollection) here.
{5} I cannot recall if I have said this on the weblog in the past or not (as I cannot find anything in a quick archive search) but I am not opposed in principle to the idea of a federal right to privacy. The problem is, there is no constitutional foundation for such a position; ergo those who want to see one should do what they can to amend the Constitution to reflect that right. Otherwise, they should have the decency to admit that they do not give a damn about the Constitution at all.
I had a few stray minutes here and there throughout the day to compile some tidbits so here goes...
The first bit to cover is from the war on terror front:
--Two Bombs Were Set To Blow In London (Sky News Courtesy of Drudge)
Here are a few bits from the article:
Police have confirmed that not one, but two massive car bombs were set to explode in the heart of London's West End.
The first, in Haymarket, was defused after police were alerted by an ambulance crew called to an incident at a nearby nightclub.
The second was in a car that was illegally parked nearby and towed to the Park Lane car pound...
The device, which contained 60 litres of petrol, a large amount of nails and several gas canisters, was found in the Mercedes early this morning.
Police had received reports of a suspicious vehicle close to the Tiger Tiger nightclub in Piccadilly shortly before 2am.
An ambulance crew, who treated a person in the club in an unrelated incident, reported that there was smoke inside the car.
The second device is believed to have been found by police in a blue hybrid Mercedes that was illegally parked in the West End and was towed away to the Park Lane car pound in the early hours of the morning.
I hope the British take these matters seriously and do not act like many of the useful idiot sorts for Al Queda. The latter tend towards hyping abstract idealist notions of fighting a casualty-less war where the enemies who want to either convert us to their twisted notion of what "God" is or kill us will somehow magically (without coercion) tell us everything we need to find out about how to stop their plans for our destruction.
Such pseudo-"peacemaker" sorts usually defend their termite-like undermining of just public order and the common good of society (part of which involves the right to self-defense both individually as well as communally) by claiming they are for "human rights" but this is functionally not true. In reality, they favour a kind of anecdotal human rights spiel which by logical extension downplays fundamental God-given rights of man{1} at various points.{2}
Unfortunately, many of these useful idiots will only find out the error of their moronic advocacy when it is their head being sawed off by a dull knife while chants to "God" are uttered in Arabic by turban-wearing cowards who deserve a fate befitting the rabid disease-infested animals they are.{3} But enough on the useful idiots and their anecdotal human rights spiel for now.
--Today would have been the birthday of Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, the sort of journalist we do not have nearly enough of in this world anymore. Tomorrow would be the birthday of arguably history's greatest advocate of liberty Claude Frederic Bastiat. As this posting was started in the morning today and not completed for posting until very late, it is unlikely that I will post anything tomorrow of a significant nature about Bastiat except (perhaps) quote from his magnum opus The Law in a "points to ponder" installment to this humble weblog. I will however do some kind of combined tribute to him and America's founding on or around the Fourth of July this year since the core underlying theme of both is the same. Moving on...
--If the first part of this posting appears to put me in an ornery mood today, the truth is anything but that. I would however be remiss when noting the stupidity of the anecdotal human rights crowd (AHRD for short) just how livid their obtuseness makes me. But enough on that as I noted earlier, today legislatively is a good day so without further ado and as an old BB King song aptly put it:
No matter whether rainy weather
Birds of a feather gotta stick together
So get yourself under control
Go out and get together and let the good times roll
Today after all is the day after the day the immigration bill died. Of course I am not going to presume that this thing will stay dead but it is at the very least dead until after the next presidential election. Readers who were angry that this absurdity was even contemplated should press the presidential candidates on it and refuse to support any presidential candidate that would support amnesty for illegal aliens.
--Court Ruling Likely to Further Segregate Schools, Educators Say (Washington Post)
I of course have no problem with this ruling though I am sure that many of the contemporary ignorant will read into that statement presumptions of my view which are not correct. The bottom line for my stance is a simple one: there is no civil right properly speaking{4} to desegregated schools. It is about time the Supreme Court got away from activist agendas and got back to doing what it is supposed to do and the latter involves interpreting the Constitution not inventing out of whole cloth penumbra of a penumbra kind of bull crap and passing it off as "constitutional." Or absurd "right to privacy"{5} schtick and claiming that such things are "constitutional." But enough on that matter for now.
Notes:
{1} We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life -- physical, intellectual, and moral life.
But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.
Life, faculties, production--in other words, individuality, liberty, property -- this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.
Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa October 3, 2002)]
{2} They are so much like marxists methodologically that it is disturbing but that is a subject for another time perhaps.
{3} Wake up you self-anointed "activists" with your blind and irrational hatred of George Walker Bush. Your position is not only illogical but further: it is idiotic and plays Russian roulette with this nation's national security. You would compromise the safety of American citizens for the sake of political advantage in an election. For that, I spit on you!!! ...
[I]f the savage beheading of American civilians by rabid infested subhuman debris is not enough to get self-styled "activists" to wake from their pathetic Vietnam-era pretensions and face reality, I have to wonder what it will take. And if they think people like me will wait around for them to finally "get it", I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell them. That is all for now. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 18, 2004)]
{4} I went over the subject of specifically what is and is not a civil right properly speaking a few times in the past -most recently (to my recollection) here.
{5} I cannot recall if I have said this on the weblog in the past or not (as I cannot find anything in a quick archive search) but I am not opposed in principle to the idea of a federal right to privacy. The problem is, there is no constitutional foundation for such a position; ergo those who want to see one should do what they can to amend the Constitution to reflect that right. Otherwise, they should have the decency to admit that they do not give a damn about the Constitution at all.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
On a Tree Fallen Across the Road:
(To hear us talk)
The tree the tempest with a crash of wood
Throws down in front of us is not bar
Our passage to our journey's end for good,
But just to ask us who we think we are
Insisting always on our own way so.
She likes to halt us in our runner tracks,
And make us get down in a foot of snow
Debating what to do without an ax.
And yet she knows obstruction is in vain:
We will not be put off the final goal
We have it hidden in us to attain,
Not though we have to seize earth by the pole
And, tired of aimless circling in one place,
Steer straight off after something into space.
[Robert Frost]
(To hear us talk)
The tree the tempest with a crash of wood
Throws down in front of us is not bar
Our passage to our journey's end for good,
But just to ask us who we think we are
Insisting always on our own way so.
She likes to halt us in our runner tracks,
And make us get down in a foot of snow
Debating what to do without an ax.
And yet she knows obstruction is in vain:
We will not be put off the final goal
We have it hidden in us to attain,
Not though we have to seize earth by the pole
And, tired of aimless circling in one place,
Steer straight off after something into space.
[Robert Frost]
In reviewing some unpublished drafts to this weblog today, I ran across a link to a Crisis Magazine review of a book I noted earlier in the year I was reading: H. W. Crocker III's United States military history Don't Tread On Me. For those interested in what I noted as I was about 60% through the book{1}, my assessment of the book did not change as I finished it. After finishing the work, I found an review of it published in Crisis Magazine and forgot about that thread until now. Here is the aforementioned review:
Soldiering On (Scott Belliveau)
I assessed the contents of that review once again and find my own position on the merits of the book substantially outlined to at least a macro extent. For that reason, I want to at this time note that book for readers of this humble weblog with the recommendation that they obtain and digest its contents. It is not a perfect work and I do not agree with all of the author's views but he makes a compelling case for every position he takes and the work itself reads very smoothly unlike a lot of other military history tomes. (Which is certainly something well worth pointing out for those hesitant to want to read anything pertaining to military history.)
Note:
{1} My Initial Assessment of H. W. Crocker III's Don't Tread On Me (circa May 5, 2007)
Soldiering On (Scott Belliveau)
I assessed the contents of that review once again and find my own position on the merits of the book substantially outlined to at least a macro extent. For that reason, I want to at this time note that book for readers of this humble weblog with the recommendation that they obtain and digest its contents. It is not a perfect work and I do not agree with all of the author's views but he makes a compelling case for every position he takes and the work itself reads very smoothly unlike a lot of other military history tomes. (Which is certainly something well worth pointing out for those hesitant to want to read anything pertaining to military history.)
Note:
{1} My Initial Assessment of H. W. Crocker III's Don't Tread On Me (circa May 5, 2007)
Another solid reason why Justice John Roberts is an excellent Chef Justice of the United States Supreme Court
And also another reason why my friend Kevin Tierney has more crow to eat on that judicial pick -and knowing him he will do so willingly but that is neither here nor there.
I am aware of how some might view the above aside comment which is why I want to take this moment to briefly note my reason for referring to it. The example of Kevin's geopolitical miscue is noted here{1} not to gloat because I was right and he was wrong. The reason I note it is to point out that Kevin has been so forthright in admitting to making a mistake -indeed he was the one this morning who pointed me to this link and reminded me of his miscalculations in 2005 on the Roberts pick.{2}
I just happened to find a bit in the archives after he mentioned it but it goes to show an important element of character that is often lacking today: the willingness to admit to actual mistakes rather than merely make some generalized statement on "everyone makes mistakes" or something akin to it in the absence of particulars. This is what so many people{3} have a very bad habit doing when they are not engaging in an attempt to revise the historical record to appear to be more correct than they really were{4} of course.
Also, before ending this post, I wanted to note that I have with this posting inaugurated another subsidiary category for tagging postings to this weblog; namely the one that reads The John Roberts Court. That subsidiary tag{5} has also been retroactively applied to the posting noted in footnote one.
Notes:
{1} One of the benefits of the old blog being nowhere around, unless I say so, nobody is able to verify me opposing Roberts. :) [Kevin Tierney as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa March 7, 2006)]
{2} While not the only miscalculation Kevin made on the Roberts nomination, this is all I am going to note at the present time about it.
{3} Particularly those of a particular geopolitical weltanschauung but they are not the only apologist sorts to have this problem.
{4} This is the hallmark of apologist sorts of various persuasions -particularly pseudo-"progressivists" or pseudo-"peacemakers" who so often are marxists who do not have the guts to admit to what they really are. (The latter is something I have written on before at sundry times and in divers manners.)
{5} To remind readers of the differences between primary and secondary blog tag categories, the whole subject was covered rather thoroughly in this thread from mid May of this year.
And also another reason why my friend Kevin Tierney has more crow to eat on that judicial pick -and knowing him he will do so willingly but that is neither here nor there.
I am aware of how some might view the above aside comment which is why I want to take this moment to briefly note my reason for referring to it. The example of Kevin's geopolitical miscue is noted here{1} not to gloat because I was right and he was wrong. The reason I note it is to point out that Kevin has been so forthright in admitting to making a mistake -indeed he was the one this morning who pointed me to this link and reminded me of his miscalculations in 2005 on the Roberts pick.{2}
I just happened to find a bit in the archives after he mentioned it but it goes to show an important element of character that is often lacking today: the willingness to admit to actual mistakes rather than merely make some generalized statement on "everyone makes mistakes" or something akin to it in the absence of particulars. This is what so many people{3} have a very bad habit doing when they are not engaging in an attempt to revise the historical record to appear to be more correct than they really were{4} of course.
Also, before ending this post, I wanted to note that I have with this posting inaugurated another subsidiary category for tagging postings to this weblog; namely the one that reads The John Roberts Court. That subsidiary tag{5} has also been retroactively applied to the posting noted in footnote one.
Notes:
{1} One of the benefits of the old blog being nowhere around, unless I say so, nobody is able to verify me opposing Roberts. :) [Kevin Tierney as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa March 7, 2006)]
{2} While not the only miscalculation Kevin made on the Roberts nomination, this is all I am going to note at the present time about it.
{3} Particularly those of a particular geopolitical weltanschauung but they are not the only apologist sorts to have this problem.
{4} This is the hallmark of apologist sorts of various persuasions -particularly pseudo-"progressivists" or pseudo-"peacemakers" who so often are marxists who do not have the guts to admit to what they really are. (The latter is something I have written on before at sundry times and in divers manners.)
{5} To remind readers of the differences between primary and secondary blog tag categories, the whole subject was covered rather thoroughly in this thread from mid May of this year.
Points to Ponder:
(On the Proper Function of the Law)
Can the law — which necessarily requires the use of force — rationally be used for anything except protecting the rights of everyone? I defy anyone to extend it beyond this purpose without perverting it and, consequently, turning might against right. This is the most fatal and most illogical social perversion that can possibly be imagined. It must be admitted that the true solution — so long searched for in the area of social relationships — is contained in these simple words: Law is organized justice. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: From The Law (circa 1850)]
(On the Proper Function of the Law)
Can the law — which necessarily requires the use of force — rationally be used for anything except protecting the rights of everyone? I defy anyone to extend it beyond this purpose without perverting it and, consequently, turning might against right. This is the most fatal and most illogical social perversion that can possibly be imagined. It must be admitted that the true solution — so long searched for in the area of social relationships — is contained in these simple words: Law is organized justice. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: From The Law (circa 1850)]
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Briefly on President Bush and the Southern Border:
(Aka "Mexicali Blues" Dept.)
The text below excluding the footnote was part of something I posted during lunch back on June 11, 2007. My interlocuter's words will be in red font.
In 2000 he states the Southwest of the USA belongs to Mexico he said that while speaking to a large group of Latin Americans, I have the audio of it to back it up.
Can you post this please??? We bought portions of the southwest from Mexico and also beat them in a war for the rest. They signed a peace treaty which ceded the southwest to us and we bought a strip closer to the border for building a railroad track through. But as for the southwest portion of the United States, I quote from the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo signed by the Mexican government and by the President of the United States after the Senate ratified it. To wit (all emphasis is mine):
[The boundary line between the two Republics shall commence in the Gulf of Mexico, three leagues from land, opposite the mouth of the Rio Grande, otherwise called Rio Bravo del Norte, or Opposite the mouth of its deepest branch, if it should have more than one branch emptying directly into the sea; from thence up the middle of that river, following the deepest channel, where it has more than one, to the point where it strikes the southern boundary of New Mexico; thence, westwardly, along the whole southern boundary of New Mexico (which runs north of the town called Paso) to its western termination; thence, northward, along the western line of New Mexico, until it intersects the first branch of the river Gila; (or if it should not intersect any branch of that river, then to the point on the said line nearest to such branch, and thence in a direct line to the same); thence down the middle of the said branch and of the said river, until it empties into the Rio Colorado; thence across the Rio Colorado, following the division line between Upper and Lower California, to the Pacific Ocean.
The southern and western limits of New Mexico, mentioned in the article, are those laid down in the map entitled "Map of the United Mexican States, as organized and defined by various acts of the Congress of said republic, and constructed according to the best authorities. Revised edition. Published at New York, in 1847, by J. Disturnell," of which map a copy is added to this treaty, bearing the signatures and seals of the undersigned Plenipotentiaries,. And, in order to preclude all difficulty in tracing upon the ground the limit separating Upper from Lower California, it is agreed that the said limit shall consist of a straight line drawn from the middle of the Rio Gila, where it unites with the Colorado, to a point on the coast of the Pacific Ocean, distant one marine league due south of the southernmost point of the port of San Diego, according to the plan of said port made in the year 1782 by Don Juan Pantoja, second sailing-master of the Spanish fleet, and published at Madrid in the year 1802, in the atlas to the voyage of the schooners Sutil and Mexicana; of which plan a copy is hereunto added, signed and sealed by the respective Plenipotentiaries.
In order to designate the boundary line with due precision, upon authoritative maps, and to establish upon the ground land-marks which shall show the limits of both republics, as described in the present article, the two Governments shall each appoint a commissioner and a surveyor, who, before the expiration of one year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, shall meet at the port of San Diego, and proceed to run and mark the said boundary in its whole course to the mouth of the Rio Bravo del Norte. They shall keep journals and make out plans of their operations; and the result agreed upon by them shall be deemed a part of this treaty, and shall have the same force as if it were inserted therein. The two Governments will amicably agree regarding what may be necessary to these persons, and also as to their respective escorts, should such be necessary.
The boundary line established by this article shall be religiously respected by each of the two republics, and no change shall ever be made therein, except by the express and free consent of both nations, lawfully given by the General Government of each, in conformity with its own constitution. (LINK)]
That is pretty straight forward stuff really. Frankly, if anything the Mexicans should be fortunate that we did not annex their entire country. But if Bush said what you claim, this may well explain at least part of why he is so lax on the whole border issue.
Addendum:
While I did not note it at the time the text above was first written, if Bush said what this person is claiming, then it makes a good case for the hypothesis that he has been lax on the southern border because he is placing personal interests over and above national security. And as I noted recently, this could well constitute an impeachable offense{1} and that is the bottom line really.
Note:
{1} I have had on the drafting table for quite a while a planned post responding to twenty-five so-called "arguments" for impeaching President Bush. Most of those objections have been refuted in the draft as it is written now but the reason I am not likely to finish it anytime soon is this:
--I am inclining towards the view that the immigration policy President Bush wants to undertake is itself a potentially impeachable offense!!!
I do not intend to set forth the full panopoly of arguments to explain this at the present time. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 8, 2007)]
(Aka "Mexicali Blues" Dept.)
The text below excluding the footnote was part of something I posted during lunch back on June 11, 2007. My interlocuter's words will be in red font.
In 2000 he states the Southwest of the USA belongs to Mexico he said that while speaking to a large group of Latin Americans, I have the audio of it to back it up.
Can you post this please??? We bought portions of the southwest from Mexico and also beat them in a war for the rest. They signed a peace treaty which ceded the southwest to us and we bought a strip closer to the border for building a railroad track through. But as for the southwest portion of the United States, I quote from the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo signed by the Mexican government and by the President of the United States after the Senate ratified it. To wit (all emphasis is mine):
[The boundary line between the two Republics shall commence in the Gulf of Mexico, three leagues from land, opposite the mouth of the Rio Grande, otherwise called Rio Bravo del Norte, or Opposite the mouth of its deepest branch, if it should have more than one branch emptying directly into the sea; from thence up the middle of that river, following the deepest channel, where it has more than one, to the point where it strikes the southern boundary of New Mexico; thence, westwardly, along the whole southern boundary of New Mexico (which runs north of the town called Paso) to its western termination; thence, northward, along the western line of New Mexico, until it intersects the first branch of the river Gila; (or if it should not intersect any branch of that river, then to the point on the said line nearest to such branch, and thence in a direct line to the same); thence down the middle of the said branch and of the said river, until it empties into the Rio Colorado; thence across the Rio Colorado, following the division line between Upper and Lower California, to the Pacific Ocean.
The southern and western limits of New Mexico, mentioned in the article, are those laid down in the map entitled "Map of the United Mexican States, as organized and defined by various acts of the Congress of said republic, and constructed according to the best authorities. Revised edition. Published at New York, in 1847, by J. Disturnell," of which map a copy is added to this treaty, bearing the signatures and seals of the undersigned Plenipotentiaries,. And, in order to preclude all difficulty in tracing upon the ground the limit separating Upper from Lower California, it is agreed that the said limit shall consist of a straight line drawn from the middle of the Rio Gila, where it unites with the Colorado, to a point on the coast of the Pacific Ocean, distant one marine league due south of the southernmost point of the port of San Diego, according to the plan of said port made in the year 1782 by Don Juan Pantoja, second sailing-master of the Spanish fleet, and published at Madrid in the year 1802, in the atlas to the voyage of the schooners Sutil and Mexicana; of which plan a copy is hereunto added, signed and sealed by the respective Plenipotentiaries.
In order to designate the boundary line with due precision, upon authoritative maps, and to establish upon the ground land-marks which shall show the limits of both republics, as described in the present article, the two Governments shall each appoint a commissioner and a surveyor, who, before the expiration of one year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, shall meet at the port of San Diego, and proceed to run and mark the said boundary in its whole course to the mouth of the Rio Bravo del Norte. They shall keep journals and make out plans of their operations; and the result agreed upon by them shall be deemed a part of this treaty, and shall have the same force as if it were inserted therein. The two Governments will amicably agree regarding what may be necessary to these persons, and also as to their respective escorts, should such be necessary.
The boundary line established by this article shall be religiously respected by each of the two republics, and no change shall ever be made therein, except by the express and free consent of both nations, lawfully given by the General Government of each, in conformity with its own constitution. (LINK)]
That is pretty straight forward stuff really. Frankly, if anything the Mexicans should be fortunate that we did not annex their entire country. But if Bush said what you claim, this may well explain at least part of why he is so lax on the whole border issue.
Addendum:
While I did not note it at the time the text above was first written, if Bush said what this person is claiming, then it makes a good case for the hypothesis that he has been lax on the southern border because he is placing personal interests over and above national security. And as I noted recently, this could well constitute an impeachable offense{1} and that is the bottom line really.
Note:
{1} I have had on the drafting table for quite a while a planned post responding to twenty-five so-called "arguments" for impeaching President Bush. Most of those objections have been refuted in the draft as it is written now but the reason I am not likely to finish it anytime soon is this:
--I am inclining towards the view that the immigration policy President Bush wants to undertake is itself a potentially impeachable offense!!!
I do not intend to set forth the full panopoly of arguments to explain this at the present time. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 8, 2007)]
Friday, June 22, 2007
Miscellaneous Threads Worth Noting:
Briefly on each article...
Creating Effective Incentives (Walter E. Williams)
The article starts off with the following line:
What should our response be if terrorists set off a nuclear explosion, or some other weapon of mass destruction, in one of our cities?
I cannot say I see anything rationally askew in Professor Williams' musings in the article above -it is well worth a read as his stuff so often is. Moving on...
Villains and the Immigration Debate (Jonah Goldberg)
A small taste to whet the appetite:
The beauty of a democratic system is that it depends on democratic arguments. Even if every partisan is a villain, he has to make his case in a way that will convince people. And it's those arguments we're supposed to be dealing with. It's very easy for me to say that while my opponent may say X that he secretly believes Y because he is a member of a supersecret Satanic cabal or because his fern is speaking to him through his dental fillings. But unless I have proof, debate should be confined to X.
The foundation of that position is one that we at Rerum Novarum have applied countless times to a variety of subjects over the years.{1}
And of course I would be remiss if I did not admit that I have used the last line of the article a few times as sarcasm to make a point since I first read it. Moving on...
Allied Angst (Oliver North)
To quote from the first paragraph of the above article:
There was a time when American military leaders worried about whether wobbly allies would rally to us when it came time to stand up to the Soviets. Now it's our allies who worry about us.
Those who approach the US military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq with the idea that we should pull out and go home would do well to review the above thread and think long and hard about the message such an action would send to our allies around the world. And finally...
Schooling Michael Moore (Michelle Malkin/Bryan Preston)
It has been ages since either a Michelle Malkin or Bryan Preston thread graced this humble weblog. In the above thread, Michelle has a YouTube clip on the latest Moore crockumentary{2} and Bryan attended a screening of it and posted his observations in print. Based on their observations, it would appear that Moore has jumped the shark. Say what you will about Fahrenheit 9/11 but at the very least he got a lot of people conned into watching it. The same cannot be said for his latest crapsterpiece.
Notes:
{1} To note a couple of examples that come to mind offhand from the archives:
Unlike the lions share of people from various outlooks who set forth opinions in the public square, the present writer does not expect anyone to accept any of his statements as some kind of arbitrary out of context injunction simply because he says it. This would base the veracity or lack thereof of his statements on a subjectivist context and would imply that truth does not objectively exist.
If you learn to think in principles you learn to think logically. Principles make thinking a lot easier. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 30, 2006)]
And again:
[A] refutation or confutation of an argument must involve objective proof by rational argumentation that said theories or viewpoints or assertions are false or otherwise erroneous. Many who write self-styled "refutations" make references to what they believe to be a refutation or some equivalent which is actually an out of context injunction on their part and properly classified as normative argumentation and thus subjective. This will never do because a refutation properly speaking is non-normative and requires therefore objective criteria for being able to be accurately assessed as to its veracity or lack thereof. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 17, 2006)]
{2} To note a definition of crockumentary, I reference the sometimes-reliable Urban Dictionary which defines it here. For those with a sensitivity to certain words, I will abridge the text at that link and provide the following expletive-free version:
crockumentary
The Michael Moore style of filmmaking.
It involves trying to pass off a complete crock...as the truth. Then brazenly calling it a "documentary" when you know...that it's [not.]
Briefly on each article...
Creating Effective Incentives (Walter E. Williams)
The article starts off with the following line:
What should our response be if terrorists set off a nuclear explosion, or some other weapon of mass destruction, in one of our cities?
I cannot say I see anything rationally askew in Professor Williams' musings in the article above -it is well worth a read as his stuff so often is. Moving on...
Villains and the Immigration Debate (Jonah Goldberg)
A small taste to whet the appetite:
The beauty of a democratic system is that it depends on democratic arguments. Even if every partisan is a villain, he has to make his case in a way that will convince people. And it's those arguments we're supposed to be dealing with. It's very easy for me to say that while my opponent may say X that he secretly believes Y because he is a member of a supersecret Satanic cabal or because his fern is speaking to him through his dental fillings. But unless I have proof, debate should be confined to X.
The foundation of that position is one that we at Rerum Novarum have applied countless times to a variety of subjects over the years.{1}
And of course I would be remiss if I did not admit that I have used the last line of the article a few times as sarcasm to make a point since I first read it. Moving on...
Allied Angst (Oliver North)
To quote from the first paragraph of the above article:
There was a time when American military leaders worried about whether wobbly allies would rally to us when it came time to stand up to the Soviets. Now it's our allies who worry about us.
Those who approach the US military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq with the idea that we should pull out and go home would do well to review the above thread and think long and hard about the message such an action would send to our allies around the world. And finally...
Schooling Michael Moore (Michelle Malkin/Bryan Preston)
It has been ages since either a Michelle Malkin or Bryan Preston thread graced this humble weblog. In the above thread, Michelle has a YouTube clip on the latest Moore crockumentary{2} and Bryan attended a screening of it and posted his observations in print. Based on their observations, it would appear that Moore has jumped the shark. Say what you will about Fahrenheit 9/11 but at the very least he got a lot of people conned into watching it. The same cannot be said for his latest crapsterpiece.
Notes:
{1} To note a couple of examples that come to mind offhand from the archives:
Unlike the lions share of people from various outlooks who set forth opinions in the public square, the present writer does not expect anyone to accept any of his statements as some kind of arbitrary out of context injunction simply because he says it. This would base the veracity or lack thereof of his statements on a subjectivist context and would imply that truth does not objectively exist.
If you learn to think in principles you learn to think logically. Principles make thinking a lot easier. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 30, 2006)]
And again:
[A] refutation or confutation of an argument must involve objective proof by rational argumentation that said theories or viewpoints or assertions are false or otherwise erroneous. Many who write self-styled "refutations" make references to what they believe to be a refutation or some equivalent which is actually an out of context injunction on their part and properly classified as normative argumentation and thus subjective. This will never do because a refutation properly speaking is non-normative and requires therefore objective criteria for being able to be accurately assessed as to its veracity or lack thereof. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 17, 2006)]
{2} To note a definition of crockumentary, I reference the sometimes-reliable Urban Dictionary which defines it here. For those with a sensitivity to certain words, I will abridge the text at that link and provide the following expletive-free version:
crockumentary
The Michael Moore style of filmmaking.
It involves trying to pass off a complete crock...as the truth. Then brazenly calling it a "documentary" when you know...that it's [not.]
Thursday, June 21, 2007
I have shelved what I planned to blog at this time after getting a call from my mother about another family member passing on today. If I could ask for prayers for the eternal repose of the soul of Sharon Colson at this time, it would be most appreciated. (And those who do not believe in the efficacy of prayers for the dead to please pray for her family.)
Lord please remember Sharon Colson. In baptism she died with Christ: may she also share his resurrection, when Christ will raise our mortal bodies and make them like his own in glory. [Roman Missal: Eucharistic Prayer III From Masses for the Dead]
Lord please remember Sharon Colson. In baptism she died with Christ: may she also share his resurrection, when Christ will raise our mortal bodies and make them like his own in glory. [Roman Missal: Eucharistic Prayer III From Masses for the Dead]
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
More on the 2008 Election and Early Candidate Selections:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
To note briefly something I said back in April about a project I had in mind doing for the summer:
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. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 17, 2007)]
Since writing those words, my views on this have changed significantly and that project --if it is ever gotten to-- will involve different names than the ones noted above. Duncan Hunter is still my preferred candidate of choice but the other two have fallen by the wayside. In the case of Tommy Thompson, I still like him but I do not view him as presidential. Furthermore, I cannot see him winning the nomination and if he did, I cannot see him campaigning hard enough to win in the general election. As far as Tom Tancredo goes, he nixed his chances with me when he opposed not just illegal immigration but even legal immigration.{1} This stance sunk his chances further when those views were aired and I did not think he could win the nomination before.{2}
Currently, my top three are Hunter, Fred Thompson, and third is a tossup between Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback. I like Rudy Guiliani as Director of the FBI or as Attorney General but not as president. I like John McCain as Secretary of Defense but not as president. My problem with Mitt Romney is not his Mormonism but his flip flopping on issues: the last thing the Republicans need is their own version of John Kerry. Romney would make a good vice president but not president.
Of course in all the cases above about preferences, if one of them gets nominated, I will have to do a reassessment and things move to a more pragmatic approach over a purely principled one.{3} One thing is sure, there is no way I would vote for either that ambulance chasing fraud John Edwards or Hillary Clinton. As far as Barak Obama goes, I have not ruled him out of the mix completely but the Republicans would really have to nominate some lower-tiered fella{4} before that selection would be a probable one for me.
Notes:
{1} That tells me he is a xenophobe and I am not going to support such a person.
{2} [E]ven 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. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 17, 2007)]
{3} Though I would want as much of the latter involved as possible of course.
{4} For example, if Ron Paul won the nomination and was opposing Obama, I would almost certainly vote for Obama.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
To note briefly something I said back in April about a project I had in mind doing for the summer:
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. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 17, 2007)]
Since writing those words, my views on this have changed significantly and that project --if it is ever gotten to-- will involve different names than the ones noted above. Duncan Hunter is still my preferred candidate of choice but the other two have fallen by the wayside. In the case of Tommy Thompson, I still like him but I do not view him as presidential. Furthermore, I cannot see him winning the nomination and if he did, I cannot see him campaigning hard enough to win in the general election. As far as Tom Tancredo goes, he nixed his chances with me when he opposed not just illegal immigration but even legal immigration.{1} This stance sunk his chances further when those views were aired and I did not think he could win the nomination before.{2}
Currently, my top three are Hunter, Fred Thompson, and third is a tossup between Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback. I like Rudy Guiliani as Director of the FBI or as Attorney General but not as president. I like John McCain as Secretary of Defense but not as president. My problem with Mitt Romney is not his Mormonism but his flip flopping on issues: the last thing the Republicans need is their own version of John Kerry. Romney would make a good vice president but not president.
Of course in all the cases above about preferences, if one of them gets nominated, I will have to do a reassessment and things move to a more pragmatic approach over a purely principled one.{3} One thing is sure, there is no way I would vote for either that ambulance chasing fraud John Edwards or Hillary Clinton. As far as Barak Obama goes, I have not ruled him out of the mix completely but the Republicans would really have to nominate some lower-tiered fella{4} before that selection would be a probable one for me.
Notes:
{1} That tells me he is a xenophobe and I am not going to support such a person.
{2} [E]ven 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. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 17, 2007)]
{3} Though I would want as much of the latter involved as possible of course.
{4} For example, if Ron Paul won the nomination and was opposing Obama, I would almost certainly vote for Obama.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
The Subject of the Death Penalty Revisited:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Update: The text below was tweaked a bit to read differently than what was originally posted this morning. -ISM 6/14/07 4:40pm]
This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end
Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end
No safety or surprise, the end
I'll never look into your eyes...again
Readers of some time to this humble weblog are aware of your host's position on the death penalty. In doing a quick scan of the archives though, it does not appear that we have said anything in depth on the matter for a long time{1} so new readers may not be so familiar with it. To state it bluntly: I support it in some circumstances. I am not one generally inclined as a rule to quote statistics to support my positions even when the latter are favourable.{2} There have been for a while a few favourable studies on the benefits of the death penalty for preserving innocent lives that we have not mentioned before on this weblog.{3} However, rules admit of exceptions and I am going to depart from normal protocol here for reasons I hope to make manifestly evident in this posting.
As a societal issue of contemporary relevance, the disputes over whether or not the death penalty should be used have a predictable pattern to them. While not indicative of an absolute on either side, generally speaking those who favour it tend to make arguments based on reason and logic and those opposed tend to do so on an emotional basis to which they add unconvincing arguments and manifest a kind of "faith" that their position is correct.
At some point though, one has to recognize in the interest of both ethics as well as out of principle when these matters reach what could be called "critical mass." And in recent days, it is the judgment of your host that critical mass has been reached on the matter of the death penalty and whether or not it (i) acts as a deterrent against further murders and (ii) whether or not as a deterrent it saves more innocent lives than it takes from those who are convicted of the crime of murder.
In the last five odd years there have now been documented about twelve different studies all of which reach the same core verdict: the death penalty saves lives. Anyway, as CBS News the other day published an article on the subject, it seems opportune to revisit this subject anew so here goes:
Death Penalty Deters Murders, Studies Say (CBS News circa June 11, 2007)
Of particular interest to me is this part of the text:
"Science does really draw a conclusion. It did. There is no question about it," said Naci Mocan, an economics professor at the University of Colorado at Denver. "The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect."
A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. "The results are robust, they don't really go away," he said. "I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) — what am I going to do, hide them?"
Statistical studies like his are among a dozen papers since 2001 that capital punishment has deterrent effects. They all explore the same basic theory — if the cost of something (be it the purchase of an apple or the act of killing someone) becomes too high, people will change their behavior (forego apples or shy away from murder).
To explore the question, they look at executions and homicides, by year and by state or county, trying to tease out the impact of the death penalty on homicides by accounting for other factors, such as unemployment data and per capita income, the probabilities of arrest and conviction, and more.
Among the conclusions:
Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14). The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional homicides over four years following, according to a 2006 study by professors at the University of Houston.
Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor.
This should be common sense frankly but with too many people, they are deaf to this either because they do not possess common sense or because they place faith in certain authorities{4} who themselves are misinformed. Let us however go with the lowest figure given: that each execution rather than saving eighteen, fourteen, or even five innocent lives only saves three. If the trade off for executing one convicted murderer means that three innocent people will not be killed, how is such a usage of the death penalty not a protection of the common good of society and just public order???
As I noted already, I am not one normally to have recourse to statistics when rational arguments themselves are adequate to make a point. However, among many people there is an irrational kind of "faith" on this matter which is seemingly adverse to reasonable persuasion. And this is not one study we are talking about here but a dozen in the past six years -all of which reach the same core conclusion: the death penalty saves lives.
What is also noted in the above quote (and underlined for emphasis) is that one of those conducting a study (a Mr. Naci Mocan) and who double checked its data a second time was opposed personally to the death penalty. However, despite his personal views on the issue, Mr. Mocan out of principle will not bury the findings simply because said findings do not countenance his presuppositions. Nor is he the only one either as the CBS article speaks of another honest person who is not a fan of the death penalty when confronted with these evidences:
The studies' conclusions drew a philosophical response from a well-known liberal law professor, University of Chicago's Cass Sunstein. A critic of the death penalty, in 2005 he co-authored a paper titled "Is capital punishment morally required?"
"If it's the case that executing murderers prevents the execution of innocents by murderers, then the moral evaluation is not simple," he told The Associated Press. "Abolitionists or others, like me, who are skeptical about the death penalty haven't given adequate consideration to the possibility that innocent life is saved by the death penalty."
Indeed, most of the abolitionist crowd has not thought this through adequately and the moral evaluation is not as simple as many have casually presumed it is. And while more could be noted than that, I will close at this time with the statement that it appears to be much more probable that those who support the use of the death penalty against murderers are on the side of protecting innocent lives unlike those who are calling for the abolishment of the death penalty (however noble the intentions of those opposed to the death penalty may be).
Notes:
{1} Other than offhand references or analogies to the subject, there have been no significant posts pertaining to that subject specifically in a rationally argued format for over two years now. Indeed, the last post of significance on this weblog is from May 27, 2005 and that was mainly a clarification posting on a key point pertaining to many of those who support the death penalty. Prior to that, you have to go back to early 2004 to find a death penalty only posting to this weblog.
{2} The reason for this is because statistics can be easily manipulated.
{3} The Deterrent Effect of the Death Penalty
While I knew the studies had been done and what they concluded, I was nonetheless not aware of the existence of the above link until earlier this month.
{4} On the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Fallacious Appeals Thereof (circa March 8, 2007)
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Update: The text below was tweaked a bit to read differently than what was originally posted this morning. -ISM 6/14/07 4:40pm]
This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end
Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end
No safety or surprise, the end
I'll never look into your eyes...again
Readers of some time to this humble weblog are aware of your host's position on the death penalty. In doing a quick scan of the archives though, it does not appear that we have said anything in depth on the matter for a long time{1} so new readers may not be so familiar with it. To state it bluntly: I support it in some circumstances. I am not one generally inclined as a rule to quote statistics to support my positions even when the latter are favourable.{2} There have been for a while a few favourable studies on the benefits of the death penalty for preserving innocent lives that we have not mentioned before on this weblog.{3} However, rules admit of exceptions and I am going to depart from normal protocol here for reasons I hope to make manifestly evident in this posting.
As a societal issue of contemporary relevance, the disputes over whether or not the death penalty should be used have a predictable pattern to them. While not indicative of an absolute on either side, generally speaking those who favour it tend to make arguments based on reason and logic and those opposed tend to do so on an emotional basis to which they add unconvincing arguments and manifest a kind of "faith" that their position is correct.
At some point though, one has to recognize in the interest of both ethics as well as out of principle when these matters reach what could be called "critical mass." And in recent days, it is the judgment of your host that critical mass has been reached on the matter of the death penalty and whether or not it (i) acts as a deterrent against further murders and (ii) whether or not as a deterrent it saves more innocent lives than it takes from those who are convicted of the crime of murder.
In the last five odd years there have now been documented about twelve different studies all of which reach the same core verdict: the death penalty saves lives. Anyway, as CBS News the other day published an article on the subject, it seems opportune to revisit this subject anew so here goes:
Death Penalty Deters Murders, Studies Say (CBS News circa June 11, 2007)
Of particular interest to me is this part of the text:
"Science does really draw a conclusion. It did. There is no question about it," said Naci Mocan, an economics professor at the University of Colorado at Denver. "The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect."
A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. "The results are robust, they don't really go away," he said. "I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) — what am I going to do, hide them?"
Statistical studies like his are among a dozen papers since 2001 that capital punishment has deterrent effects. They all explore the same basic theory — if the cost of something (be it the purchase of an apple or the act of killing someone) becomes too high, people will change their behavior (forego apples or shy away from murder).
To explore the question, they look at executions and homicides, by year and by state or county, trying to tease out the impact of the death penalty on homicides by accounting for other factors, such as unemployment data and per capita income, the probabilities of arrest and conviction, and more.
Among the conclusions:
Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14). The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional homicides over four years following, according to a 2006 study by professors at the University of Houston.
Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor.
This should be common sense frankly but with too many people, they are deaf to this either because they do not possess common sense or because they place faith in certain authorities{4} who themselves are misinformed. Let us however go with the lowest figure given: that each execution rather than saving eighteen, fourteen, or even five innocent lives only saves three. If the trade off for executing one convicted murderer means that three innocent people will not be killed, how is such a usage of the death penalty not a protection of the common good of society and just public order???
As I noted already, I am not one normally to have recourse to statistics when rational arguments themselves are adequate to make a point. However, among many people there is an irrational kind of "faith" on this matter which is seemingly adverse to reasonable persuasion. And this is not one study we are talking about here but a dozen in the past six years -all of which reach the same core conclusion: the death penalty saves lives.
What is also noted in the above quote (and underlined for emphasis) is that one of those conducting a study (a Mr. Naci Mocan) and who double checked its data a second time was opposed personally to the death penalty. However, despite his personal views on the issue, Mr. Mocan out of principle will not bury the findings simply because said findings do not countenance his presuppositions. Nor is he the only one either as the CBS article speaks of another honest person who is not a fan of the death penalty when confronted with these evidences:
The studies' conclusions drew a philosophical response from a well-known liberal law professor, University of Chicago's Cass Sunstein. A critic of the death penalty, in 2005 he co-authored a paper titled "Is capital punishment morally required?"
"If it's the case that executing murderers prevents the execution of innocents by murderers, then the moral evaluation is not simple," he told The Associated Press. "Abolitionists or others, like me, who are skeptical about the death penalty haven't given adequate consideration to the possibility that innocent life is saved by the death penalty."
Indeed, most of the abolitionist crowd has not thought this through adequately and the moral evaluation is not as simple as many have casually presumed it is. And while more could be noted than that, I will close at this time with the statement that it appears to be much more probable that those who support the use of the death penalty against murderers are on the side of protecting innocent lives unlike those who are calling for the abolishment of the death penalty (however noble the intentions of those opposed to the death penalty may be).
Notes:
{1} Other than offhand references or analogies to the subject, there have been no significant posts pertaining to that subject specifically in a rationally argued format for over two years now. Indeed, the last post of significance on this weblog is from May 27, 2005 and that was mainly a clarification posting on a key point pertaining to many of those who support the death penalty. Prior to that, you have to go back to early 2004 to find a death penalty only posting to this weblog.
{2} The reason for this is because statistics can be easily manipulated.
{3} The Deterrent Effect of the Death Penalty
While I knew the studies had been done and what they concluded, I was nonetheless not aware of the existence of the above link until earlier this month.
{4} On the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Fallacious Appeals Thereof (circa March 8, 2007)
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
As today is the sixth anniversary of the passing of my late father Richard Dunn McElhinney (d. June 12, 2001), prayers for the eternal repose of his soul would be most appreciated.
Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord and may thy perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace with all the souls of the faithfully departed. Amen.
Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord and may thy perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace with all the souls of the faithfully departed. Amen.
Friday, June 08, 2007
Bush, allies hope to revive immigration bill (from Texas Fred)
While appearing to not have much to do with the above thread per se, it is interesting that I have had on the drafting table for quite a while a planned post responding to twenty-five so-called "arguments" for impeaching President Bush. Most of those objections have been refuted in the draft as it is written now but the reason I am not likely to finish it anytime soon is this:
--I am inclining towards the view that the immigration policy President Bush wants to undertake is itself a potentially impeachable offense!!!
I do not intend to set forth the full panopoly of arguments to explain this at the present time. However, I will touch in passing on one argument so that readers can see the consistency in how I am approaching this issue.
One of the issues at stake here is that of undermining the common good of society by actions taken to upset just public order. That is what a failure to secure the borders of this nation constitutes in a nutshell. The law is intended to protect the fundamental rights of people as a collective and attempts to undermine those rights is a perversion of the law's natural purpose. Or to remind readers of what Claude Frederic Bastiat wrote on this matter:
If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850)]
I would like to see some of these amnesty supporters explain how this amnesty proposal does not result in a loss of respect for the law in society in precisely the same dilemma that Bastiat so outlined in the mid nineteenth century:
No society can exist if respect for the law does not to some extent prevail; but the surest way to have the laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality are in contradiction, the citizen finds himself in the cruel dilemma of either losing his moral sense or of losing respect for the law, two evils of which one is as great as the other, and between which it is difficult to choose. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850)]
A lot more could be noted but that suffices for now. This amnesty idea is a bad idea for a lot more reasons than the ones quickly touched on above but those are adequate in and of themselves. The whole concept makes a mockery of the rule of law in society. And while I could say a lot more than that and probably will at a later time, that is all I will say on the matter right now.
While appearing to not have much to do with the above thread per se, it is interesting that I have had on the drafting table for quite a while a planned post responding to twenty-five so-called "arguments" for impeaching President Bush. Most of those objections have been refuted in the draft as it is written now but the reason I am not likely to finish it anytime soon is this:
--I am inclining towards the view that the immigration policy President Bush wants to undertake is itself a potentially impeachable offense!!!
I do not intend to set forth the full panopoly of arguments to explain this at the present time. However, I will touch in passing on one argument so that readers can see the consistency in how I am approaching this issue.
One of the issues at stake here is that of undermining the common good of society by actions taken to upset just public order. That is what a failure to secure the borders of this nation constitutes in a nutshell. The law is intended to protect the fundamental rights of people as a collective and attempts to undermine those rights is a perversion of the law's natural purpose. Or to remind readers of what Claude Frederic Bastiat wrote on this matter:
If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850)]
I would like to see some of these amnesty supporters explain how this amnesty proposal does not result in a loss of respect for the law in society in precisely the same dilemma that Bastiat so outlined in the mid nineteenth century:
No society can exist if respect for the law does not to some extent prevail; but the surest way to have the laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality are in contradiction, the citizen finds himself in the cruel dilemma of either losing his moral sense or of losing respect for the law, two evils of which one is as great as the other, and between which it is difficult to choose. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850)]
A lot more could be noted but that suffices for now. This amnesty idea is a bad idea for a lot more reasons than the ones quickly touched on above but those are adequate in and of themselves. The whole concept makes a mockery of the rule of law in society. And while I could say a lot more than that and probably will at a later time, that is all I will say on the matter right now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)