Here comes the story of the Hurricane,
The man the authorities came to blame
For somethin' that he never done.
Put in a prison cell, but one time he could-a been
The champion of the world.

Is it possible that one of my favourite 1970's Bob Dylan songs could be so wrong in the events it presumes to portray??? I saw an article in The Seattle Times earlier this week about someone who was in the situation of being condemned for a crime he did not commit and the paper noted that he had Ruben "Hurricane" Carter in his corner for the fight. In doing a google search to find the article to post to this blog, I ran across a site that takes issue with the commonly-presented hypothesis that Carter was in any sense of the term innocent. That site can be reviewed here for those who are interested.

I was admittedly agnostic on this matter and had no reason to presume the "conventional wisdom" if you will of what is often portrayed in the case of "the Hurricane" was false. (My general disdain for msm "conventional wisdom" notwithstanding.) Nor do I have the time or desire to look into this matter myself. However, at the very least Cal Deal's site in doing a casual review of the contents looks to be as thorough in documenting sources as is my wont when writing on subjects so that fact alone inclines me towards giving what he has to say a fair hearing pending contrary evidences of similar weight to the contrary being presented of course.

Now to some extent this is an old story perhaps but at the time the movie based on Ruban "Hurricane" Carter's autobiography (and starring Denzil Washington) came out, I had a lot of things in my life of far greater importance than considering this issue if I had even known of it which for a variety of reasons{1} I did not. But as Ruban "Hurricane" Carter was in the news again and as I have been made aware of the information on Cal Deal's site, it seems appropriate to note it briefly as well as sketch out my reason for referring to it now.

My interest in these matters is simple really: I value the fundamental rights of man including life, faculties, and production. And in at least two of the three areas, there would be a violation if an innocent man was wrongly convicted.{2} Justice in some sense was not served here basically: either the guilty was set free or the innocent was convicted. And considering that "Hurricane" has been treated in the recent article noted above as defacto and unquestionably innocent with no mention made of the controversy of his case, a bit of remedying the situation to the extent that I can here (to provide both sides of the story) is something that I feel impelled to do.

As far as the song itself goes, I am never one to deny artistic license to any songwriter or artist but presumably the writer or artist worthy of their craft -and Bob Dylan certainly is one of the great songwriters- has a responsibility towards being as accurate as they can when presuming to portray an actual event in song. It would appear from what Cal Deal outlines that the song not only is inaccurate in its portrayal but criminally so.

And while I am not about to avoid watching movies or listening to the music of those whose views differ from mine{3}; nonetheless, I will always suspect with Dylan from here on out that on lyrical matters of a factual or historical basis that he cannot be trusted. But enough on this for now.

Notes:

{1} Too much to go into here even if I was inclined to (which I am not).

{2} Of life because it implies freedom within reason to life without being unduly constrained by society, of production because a man's right to provide for himself and his family would be impaired by his imprisonment.

{3} If I took that approach, it would make for a lot less interesting life that is for sure.

"Everything And the Kitchen Sink" Dept.
(On Senator Hillary Clinton and Her Nomination Chances)

[Prefatory Note: This note was pretty much written on March 5th and did not account for the dropping out of Rep. Ron Paul from the Republican contest which happened subsequently. -ISM]

Two events happened yesterday recently of signal importance for this election cycle if you exclude Ron Paul increasing the number of delegates he had won by a factor of 30%.{1} They are of course (i) Senator John McCain solidifying the Republican nomination and (ii) Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton after a eleven primary/caucus post Super Tuesday losing streak to Senator Barack Hussein Obama bouncing back and winning three of the four primaries yesterday including the important ones in Ohio and Texas. I will be posting some stuff soon on Senator McCain so the purpose of this posting is to outline the performance of Senator Clinton in the latest round of contests.

On the Obama/Clinton situation, I wrote on her situation last week when things were looking a lot grimmer with these words:

I will go out on a limb and say that the March 4th primaries in Ohio and Texas will prove to be either the turning point for Senator Clinton in the positive sense of putting her back into the race or in solidifying a near-insurmountable mountain for her to climb in order to win the nomination fairly. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 28, 2008)]

And while some try to paint her situation as still mathematically unviable, they are in our view betraying the fact that Senator Clinton with these wins is in it for the long haul. Furthermore, there is the wild card factor of the super delegates which is why we included the reference to winning the nomination "fairly" in our above comments.

If Senator Clinton were to have continued to lose and yet got the nomination by virtue of courting the Democratic "super delegates", that was what we had in mind when we mentioned her possibly not winning it "fairly." But if she continues to win in large states and makes a contest out of it, if she can persuade the so-called "super delegates" to leave Senator Obama and support her, that would be a situation where she indeed won it "fairly" as we see it. This is why those who make the statements about her chances being "mathematically slim" betray either their ignorance on these matters, their bias for Senator Obama, or both.

There is a serious problem with those who do not know how the election machinery functions who pontificate on these matters. We saw this idiocy back in 2000 when those sorts claimed that Senator Al Gore should have won over Governor George Bush by virtue of winning the popular vote when for 211 years this country has elected presidents with the electoral college. It was not by accident that the Founders seized upon that method of election which provided a check and balance on the voting process by the people. This is one of those mechanisms that separates the United States from being a pure democracy and places it properly speaking as a republican form of government. Or as I wrote on the subject in response to an email received about four years ago:

Indeed the best evidence of the fact that we are not a democracy is the manner whereby this country's government was set up. If we were a "democracy" than every position in government would be voted upon by the people. But we have judicial branches which are by appointment of the executive with the legislators acting in the capacity of advisers. We have posts in the president's administration all of which are by appointment. (Again, not very "democratic.") And of course the very election system that saved us from a Gore administration is another example of "non-democracy." For by your logic XXXX, Gore should have won by virtue of having more votes than Bush.[...] But Bush won because of the electoral college: an example of republican-style electing.

Now one could argue that this country is more a democracy now than it was at its founding. This would be true in that the Senator was initially an appointed position contrasted with the House positions which were elected by those in the populace with the right to vote. But the structure is still republican to the core: a nation ruled by law and not by mob rule as in a democracy. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 11, 2004)]

Similarly there is a mechanism in place by the individual parties which regulates these matters. The Republicans have a number of state primaries which are winner take all and some which apportion delegates based on placing. The Democrats by contrast have a closer proportion of delegates in all of their primaries with about 750 odd "super delegates." So all of this talk about Senator Clinton being "out of it" and "desperate" in this race is absurd: she can come close in the earned delegate category and if she persuades enough "super delegates" to support her, she wins the nomination fair and square.

So enough of this crap about "the voters" folks because primaries are not pure democracies nor should they be. And the reason they are not is similar to the reason we have an Electoral College system in this country for general elections and (God-willing) we always will. But that is all I plan to say on this for now except to exhort Senator Clinton to continue her fight. After all, if Obama cannot take a punch, he has no business being president of the United States and he is about to find out just how tenacious the Clintons can be when they are fighting for their election lives.

Note:

{1} No, I am not serious about this one.

One of my favourite weblogs in years past (Southern Appeal) has made a return to publication so it seems appropriate to publicly welcome them back; ergo I have done so.

As this is a primary day, those who have tuned in expecting our usual unique perspective on these matters are in for a disappointment because frankly, I do not give a damn about any of it...not today folks.

For today is a commemorative day traditionally at this humble weblog: the sixty-seventh anniversary of the birth of my late father Richard Dunn McElhinney (March 4, 1941). As he has passed on from this mortal coil, prayers would be most appreciated. For those who do not believe in prayers for the departed, prayers for the surviving family members on this difficult of days would be most appreciated. For those who do believe in prayers for the dead, please pray for the eternal repose of his soul.



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.
May the Lord grant mercy to the family of Onesiphorus because he often gave me new heart and was not ashamed of my chains. But when he came to Rome, he promptly searched for me and found me. May the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day. [2 Tim. i,16-18]

On Presidential Front Runners and Election History -Plus Some Fresh Musings on Underdog Triumphs Historically:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[The first part of this posting{1} was written in late 2005 and originally intended or a multipart thread dialogue which was eventually blogged in early 2006. When doing the final reviews of that material before it was blogged, it was decided to abridge the texts and removed this material to suit that purpose. While I do not want to link to that material now as it is pretty long and would distract from the subject at hand -the current circumstances (of a near-certain Republican nominee while Democratic senatorial favourite Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are locked in a slugout for the Democratic nomination) seem to warrant reviewing what I wrote then. After all, learning from history is of no small value when it comes to forecasting what the future may well bring.

The newer material is designated as such and was primarily composed on February 18, 2007 -though I did finish it up today for posting.-ISM]

I advise you to take Santayana's dictum to heart on these matters and learn from history. If we look at the past hundred years (a decent slice of the pie considering that America is only 230 years old next year), it is significant that the leading Republican candidate going into the primaries has won twenty-two out of twenty-five times. Furthermore, the leading Republican candidate won the presidency in that span 13 times. And of the ten times they did not, there are extenuating circumstances to explain some of them. For example:

--Taft had to deal with a [former President Theodore Roosevelt] third party challenge in 1912.

--Tom Dewey was too much of a gentleman to run a rough campaign against Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) in 1944 when FDR was vulnerable to such things (much as he was in 1940) because of concern for the country over his own ambitions.

--Tom Dewey would have won in 1948 if he had not slacked up in the final days (believing the election was "in the can").

--Richard Nixon won in 1960 but had the election stolen by the Kennedy political machine.

--Gerald Ford lost a close race as a result of (i) a vigorous primary challenge from Reagan which went all the way to the convention, (ii) performing poorly in the debates, and (iii) the cloud of Nixon's resignation which he was unable to completely avoid.

Really, the only ones the Republicans lost where there were not mitigating factors involved were these:

--Alf Landon in 1936 (he was going up against the institution that was FDR and did not have a prayer).

--Barry Goldwater who was a sacrificial lamb for conservatism in 1964.

--Bill Clinton in 1996.

Now it is true that Clinton had Perot again in 1996 but it is debatable if Perot actually hurt Dole or not. (Unlike in 1992 where he clearly hurt Bush Sr.) Compared to this, the Democrats of whom thirteen of twenty-five nominee favourites actually won their party's nomination. And of that thirteen, the only times their favourite candidate actually won were these:

--Wilson in 1916.

--FDR in 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944

--Truman in 1948

--Johnson in 1964

--Clinton in 1996

If you factor in what I noted previously, FDR could have been beaten in 1940 and 1944 if the Republicans back then had the same lack of scruples and failed to value their selfish interests over the common good as today's Democrat scumbags do. Furthermore, Truman would have lost in 1948 if Dewey had not slacked up as he did. So the only truly incontrovertible examples of Democratic favourite candidates triumphing number five (1916, 1932, 1936, 1964, 1996).

By contrast, the Republicans of their thirteen triumphs can point to 1904, 1908, 1924, 1928, 1952, 1956, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, and 2004. The only time they cannot claim a clear and uncontroversial triumph of the thirteen times they won was in 2000.

To break it down, the Democratic candidate who was favoured going into the primaries of a presidential election was successfully nominated thirteen times out of twenty-five for a percentage of just over 50%. Of those thirteen nominations, they are credited with winning the election eight times. That is a percentage of 32%.

If we further consider that of those eight elections, three were either stolen (as in 1960), due to the Republican candidate slacking off late (as in 1948) or under circumstances where the Republicans placed the concern of the nation over their political ambitions (as in 1944) then it changes the dynamic even further to their disadvantage. For factoring out those disputed elections for reasons noted, the Democrats can point to five elections where they triumphed unquestionably -a percentage of 20%.

By contrast, the Republicans successfully nominated the favoured candidate prior to the primaries twenty-two times for a percentage of 88%. Of those twenty-two nominations, thirteen of them went onto win the presidency for a percentage of 59%. Factoring out the 2000 election which was controversial, the Republicans can point to twelve elections where they triumphed unquestionably -a percentage of 45%.

Bear in mind, these are only elections where we are talking about the favoured candidate in a party from the very beginning winning the presidency and doing so incontrovertibly. The Republicans in the past hundred years have done so at a 45% rate, the Democrats at a 20% rate.

Furthermore, when you consider that all but the last two elections for president did not have the growing alternative media outside of talk radio on their side, it hopefully gives you reason for cautious optimism that Hillary will not be president in 2008. The odds against it are 80% if not more using history as our guide. And if we want history to repeat itself here (which in Hillary's case, we all do), then we need to take Santayana's dictum seriously.

Addendum Material -Written February 18, 2008:

In light of Senator McCain's virtually certain nomination, it seems appropriate to note the history of the parties of non favourites winning the nomination who then win the presidency. It does not happen often and with the 2008 election being the most wide open contest on both sides of the aisle since 1952, let us review the history of underdog nominees winning the presidency from both parties.

As the modern Democratic party did not really exist until 1824 and the candidacy of Andrew Jackson{2} and the Republican party as we know it now did not come into being until 1854, this means the elections since 1856 are the ones most applicable to the modern situation. When looking at it in this way, the following elections were won by candidates who were not party favourites -party affiliation will be noted after the names for differentiation purposes:

--William Henry Harrison of the Whig party (W) in 1840{3}

--James K. Polk of the Democratic party (D) in 1844{4}

--Zachery Taylor (W) in 1848{5}

--Franklin Pierce (D) in 1852{6}

--James Buchanan (D) in 1856{7}

--Abraham Lincoln of the Republican party (R) in 1860{8}

--Rutherford B. Hayes (R) in 1876{9}

--Warren G. Harding (R) in 1920{10}

--Bill Clinton (D) in 1992{11}

My point in noting these things is historically, no Democratic challenger who was not the favourite won the presidency since 1856 century except Bill Clinton and that was in a three way race. Similarly, no Republican who was not the favourite has won the presidency since 1876 except Warrem Harding in 1920. Another way of saying it is this: we have the possibility this year of two candidates for president from the major parties neither of whom was the favourite going in. Anyway, I am not sure how much that will help but it does point out why I was not as concerned with Senator Clinton as many were all along. However, I for reasons of my own{12} want her to buck the trend here and win big in the March 4th primaries so that is all I will say on the matter for now.

Notes:

{1} This is one of the threads I referred to last month:

In perusing the drafts folder at this humble weblog in late 2007, I realized there are 505 unfinished drafts there with the oldest ones going back about three years. Now many of them are earlier versions of stuff which was eventually finished and blogged but some of them were pieces which were not blogged for a variety of reasons -either because they are not finished yet or once they were finished the circumstances which originated their composition were too particular and not combining of the same degree of general principles and specific applications that I like to utilize when blogging most of the time. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 24, 2008)]

The applicable part now being the relevance of the material being different now than prior to Super Tuesday making the posting now more relevant now than even when that posting was written.

{2} The Democratic party today likes to disingenuously claim that their party goes back to Thomas Jefferson but it actually came out of the 1824 election after the Federalist party (the party of George Washington, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and Gouvernour Morris) disintegrated after the 1800 election. By 1820, the Democratic-Republican party (called the "Republican party" in Jefferson's time) was the last of the original parties and in 1824, it fractured into two parts. One part consisted of former Federalists represented by John Adams' son John Quincy Adams who was Secretary of State under President Monroe (1817-1825) and another from then-Speaker of the House Henry Clay which coalesced into a group which called itself the National Republican party and later was called the Whig party. Another was General Andrew Jackson who called their followers the Democratic party and first ran a candidate using that title formally in 1828 when Andrew Jackson ran against the incumbent President John Quincy Adams and won in convincing fashion.

This is why I refer to the modern Democratic party starting in 1824 and not 1792. The Republican party grew out of the later disintegration of the Whig party forming in 1854 and fielding their first presidential candidate in 1856. (Finally winning with Abraham Lincoln as their second presidential candidate in the election of 1860.)

{3} Harrison was not the favourite amongst the Whig candidates in the 1840 election but he secured nomination on the fifth ballot (the favourite was Henry Clay who was House Speaker from 1811-1825, ran for president in the deadlocked 1824 election, and was unanimously nominated in 1832 by the Whigs who were routed in President Andrew Jackson's re-election to the presidency. With Jackson out in 1836 following the tradition of not running for third terms, Clay was the favourite amongst the Whigs but he lost at the convention to General William Henry Harrison on the fifth ballot. Harrison won the presidency in 1840 and died a month after inauguration from pneumonia.

{4} The favourite in the 1844 for the Democrats was Martin Van Buren but he lost the nomination to Polk who won the presidency over Henry Clay of the Whigs.

{5} Henry Clay was again the favourite in the 1848 race.

{6} The Democrats nominated a "dark horse" candidate, this time Franklin Pierce. [Wikipedia: Article on United States Presidential Election of 1852]

{7} The incumbent President, Franklin Pierce, was defeated in his effort to be renominated by the Democrats, who instead selected James Buchanan of Pennsylvania. [Wikipedia: Article on United States Presidential Election of 1856]

{8} The Republican National Convention met in mid-May, after the Democrats had been forced to adjourn their convention in Charleston. With the Democrats in disarray and with a sweep of the Northern states possible, the Republicans were confident going into their convention in Chicago. William H. Seward of New York was considered the front runner, followed by Abraham Lincoln of Illinois, Salmon P. Chase of Ohio, and Missouri's Edward Bates. [Wikipedia: Article on United States Presidential Election of 1860]

{9} When the 6th Republican National Convention assembled in Cincinnati on 14 June, 1876, it appeared that James G. Blaine of Maine would be the nominee. [Wikipedia: Article on United States Presidential Elections of 1876]

{10} Others placed in nomination included Senators Warren G. Harding of Ohio, Hiram Johnson of California, and Miles Poindexter of Washington, Governor Calvin Coolidge of Massachusetts, Herbert Hoover, and Columbia University President Nicholas Murray Butler. Senator Robert M. La Follette, Sr. of Wisconsin was not formally placed in nomination but received the votes of his state delegation, nonetheless. Harding was nominated for President on the tenth ballot, after shifts...

Harding's nomination, said to have been secured in negotiations among party bosses in a “smoke-filled room”, was engineered by Harry M. Daugherty, Harding's political manager who, upon Harding's election, became Attorney General. Prior to the convention, Daugherty was quoted as saying, “I don't expect Senator Harding to be nominated on the first, second, or third ballots, but I think we can afford to take chances that about eleven minutes after two, Friday morning of the convention, when fifteen or twenty weary men are sitting around a table, someone will say: ‘Who will we nominate?’ At that decisive time, the friends of Harding will suggest him and we can well afford to abide by the result.” [Wikipedia: Article on United States Presidential Election of 1920]

{11} Clinton, meanwhile, was still a relatively unknown national candidate before the primary season.[Wikipedia: Article on United States Presidential Election of 1992]

{12} And no, it is not because I have any intention of actually voting for her should she pull off the nomination.

You’re St. Justin Martyr! You have a positive and hopeful attitude toward the world. You think that nature, history, and even the pagan philosophers were often guided by God in preparation for the Advent of the Christ. You find “seeds of the Word” in unexpected places. You’re patient and willing to explain the faith to unbelievers. Find out which Church Father you are at The Way of the Fathers!

Points to Ponder:

Every age has its heresies, and the one to watch in the nuclear age is that which ends by venerating life at the expense of all other values. We cannot know whether God plans the end of the earth to synchronize with the discovery of planet-shattering technology, but there is nothing in the advent of nuclear energy that authorizes the new idolatry, which is to love life better than life's meaning. [William F. Buckley Jr.]

Diary from the Road (Bob Geldof)

Considering some of what I will be saying about the man in the coming days (possibly tomorrow time-willing) it seems appropriate to note some of what President Bush has done which does not get much press in America for reasons which (to put it nicely) are patently uncharitable.

It is also worth noting that Geldof's approach on this is admirable. He does not agree with the president on some issues -including a few of significant nature- but he does not let this be cause for discord between them sketching a balanced human profile of the President. Anyway, that is all I plan to say for now except to recommend the above article for readers to peruse.

Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing:
(On Senator Hillary Clinton)

Senator Clinton is reaching an important point in her campaign. As we have noted a few times now the plan to discuss the Senator John McCain nomination subject{1} and also plan to note publicly some of the things we have long said privately about certain political figures{2}, it seems appropriate to touch on the other nomination taking place between rival Democratic party senators.

As many know, Senator Clinton has lost about fourteen primaries in a row since Super Tuesday when she failed to put away Senator Barack Hussein Obama as she presumed she would. The New York Times has an interesting editorial which posits a parallel in Senator Clinton's election approach and the Iraq war strategery of President George W. Bush. Here is the thread in full:

The Audacity of Hopelessness (Frank Rich)

For those who do not know, the title of the article is a paraphrase of the title of a book written by Senator Barak Obama{3} her opponent in the Democratic party race for nomination. The hypothesis of the article is interesting to say the least -here is a key part of the article where it is summarized:

It’s not just that her candidacy’s central premise — the priceless value of “experience” — was fatally poisoned from the start by her still ill-explained vote to authorize the fiasco. Senator Clinton then compounded that 2002 misjudgment by pursuing a 2008 campaign strategy that uncannily mimicked the disastrous Bush Iraq war plan. After promising a cakewalk to the nomination — “It will be me,” Mrs. Clinton told Katie Couric in November — she was routed by an insurgency.

The Clinton camp was certain that its moneyed arsenal of political shock-and-awe would take out Barack Hussein Obama in a flash. The race would “be over by Feb. 5,” Mrs. Clinton assured George Stephanopoulos just before New Year’s. But once the Obama forces outwitted her, leaving her mission unaccomplished on Super Tuesday, there was no contingency plan. She had neither the boots on the ground nor the money to recoup.

That’s why she has been losing battle after battle by double digits in every corner of the country ever since.

Now those interested in the facts on the ground over abstract activist polemics are aware that there has been a change of direction in Iraq brought on by a variety of factors. I have written in the past eight months on both the fact that the surge strategery is working{4} and also in some detail as to both the politics involved{5} and many of the reasons for why things in Iraq have been going rather well for a while now{6} whereas for some time since the end of the combat operations they were not.{7} But that factor noted, the parallel could be realized if Senator Clinton goes on a "surge" of her own which it would appear she plans on doing. However, there is one significant difference and it is the time factor involved.

For President Bush as a lame duck president despite exiting office on January 20, 2009 will be turning over the Middle East situation to a successor whereas Senator Clinton will either achieve the nomination or not within the next four to five months.{8} Time in other words is not on her side whereas with President Bush in this area time has turned the situation over there in his favour though due to the nature of these matters, it would be naive to say that this is in any sense definitive. (Even if we may in the future look back upon 2007 as akin to 1943 in the Second World War; namely, the point where the tide had turned towards victory.)

I will go out on a limb and say that the March 4th primaries in Ohio and Texas will prove to be either the turning point for Senator Clinton in the positive sense of putting her back into the race or in solidifying a near-insurmountable mountain for her to climb in order to win the nomination fairly.{9} So in a certain sense, Mr. Rich's hypothesis is a good one as far as it goes.

Real 'Work'? Clinton Swipes at Chelsea's Profession (ABC News)

The problem with manufacturing class envy or otherwise seeking to demonize entire classes of people -be they by sex, race, religion, profession, or whatever- is when it comes back to bite you, it can bite quite hard. Besides, for someone who wants to tax every perceived "high earner", it is strange that Senator Clinton herself does not seem to want people to know about her tax returns!!! The reason is almost certainly because we are dealing with a double standard here: one for Senator Clinton and one for the others in her tax bracket. But then again, Senator Clinton's comments show she is not very well versed with the subjects of either taxes or economics...a subject for another time and beyond the scope of this posting though it will be noted here in brief nonetheless.

Notes:

{1} [I]t is just about time to talk about McCain rather than merely the others running against him lest we fall into the same trap as those who for eight years played the pathetic and predictable "anybody but Bush" card. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 24, 2008)]

{2} Yes this is a bit vague but it will clarify itself when the discussion in footnote one is finally tended to on this weblog as it will be in the coming days.

{3} The book title was The Audacity of Hope.

{4} On the war front, the Iraq surge strategery is on the whole going pretty good. The Bush Administration is wisely understating this a bit in the period before a progress report due in September is released. No matter what the report says, it is going to be spun in as negative of a fashion as the msm and its willing seditionist comrades allies in the Democratic party and other places have a vested interest in seeing defeat in Iraq by any means necessary. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 11, 2007)]

{5} On the Iraq Situation, the Military Surge, and Playing Politics (circa August 21, 2007)

{6} On the Situation in Iraq as of Early November 2007 (circa November 9, 2007)

{7} One of the reasons I have not reacted to every news story on this subject the way so many do is because the principles whereby I formulated my original position on the military involvement in Iraq nearly five years ago has not changed and will not change. That being said though, it does not mean that I have always liked the way things have been done over there. Now I did not to my knowledge say anything publicly[...] on it but for the better part of two years I was admittedly not happy with what appeared to be our approach to post-war stabilization and development. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 9, 2007)]

{8} There is also the possibility that she may lose in pledged delegates and yet take the nomination at the convention by swaying the "super delegates" to vote for her.

{9} See footnote eight.

Points to Ponder:
(From William F. Buckley Jr.)

Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

I would like to electrocute everyone who uses the word 'fair' in connection with income tax policies.

We are so concerned to flatter the majority that we lose sight of how very often it is necessary, in order to preserve freedom for the minority, let alone for the individual, to face that majority down.

I would like to take you seriously, but to do so would affront your intelligence.

The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry.

Liberals, it has been said, are generous with other peoples' money, except when it comes to questions of national survival when they prefer to be generous with other people's freedom and security.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.

William F. Buckley Jr. Dies at 82 (Breitbart)

The above article is a fine retrospective of the life of one of the foundations of the modern conservative movement. All movements of history which seek to gain currency otherwise than through brute force have to start intellectually before they can gain traction politically. Though Senator Barry Goldwater predated William F. Buckley Jr. both in age and also in his involvement in politics, it was the Yale educated William F. Buckley Jr. who put an intellectual face onto conservatism{1} of the sort that for some time had been lacking. And it was from this foundation that the candidacy of Senator Goldwater was able to build and plant the seeds for the future presidency of Ronald Wilson Reagan.

While Buckley was a staunch anti-communist -including his admirable support for the substance if not the exact content of Senator Joseph McCarthy's correct stance on the influence of communists in positions of government and media, etc.{2}- he at the same time played an important role in weeding from the conservative tree the xenophobic extremists of the John Birch Society which was of no small importance for a variety of reasons too numerous to go into here.{3} A lot more could be said about the respectability that William F. Buckley Jr. brought to conservatism but one key element is his humanity: he was not dour but instead of generally good humour. This undoubtedly was another important element of humanizing what was previously viewed as some kind of mechanical socio-political philosophy but I do not want to go too long on this posting both for my limits of time and also because a life is not going to be adequately summed up in a single posting anyway.

WFB was a true renaissance man as that term is properly understood. It is certainly the hope of this writer that his contributions to the conservative cause not be forgotten -particularly in our time where from many appearances conservative principles have been either ignored or otherwise downplayed in the sacrifice of ethics and principles for expediency. And while we may say more on this matter later on, at the present time, that is all we have time for.

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

Notes:

{1} Barry Goldwater was an intelligent man but not an intellectual.

{2} I certainly do not like and would not endorse the manner in which McCarthy went about it even though in fact and principle he was right.

{3} In a nutshell: every movement has its extremists and if the latter cannot be moderated either by exhortations of prudence or otherwise contained, they need to be rooted out lest they become the presumed spokesmen of the movement.

Go Ralph Go!!!

Mike Huckabee kills two birds with one stone pointing out here that he is both an opportunist and also that many pro lifers are geopolitically dumb as a sack of hammers precisely as I have said many times over the years -most recently here.

If Hucksterbee thinks he would be a more conservative choice than McCain, he is nuts. I am not about to say that McCain is a conservative of course -at least not yet{1} but Hucksterbee is certainly not. As one friend astutely said back in December "Huck is like Dubya on steroids." I have to say that I concur with that assessment if the record of Hucksterbee as governor of Arkansas is scrutinized in accordance with conservative principles.

More could be noted on this but since McCain is on the verge of officially clinching this anyway{2}, it is just about time to talk about McCain rather than merely the others running against him lest we fall into the same trap as those who for eight years played the pathetic and predictable "anybody but Bush" card. But that is all I have say on this matter at the present time.

Notes:

{1} I am not going to claim that Senator McCain either is or is not a conservative in this posting -only that the last person who is credible on discerning this matter is President George W. Bush for reasons I have delved into in the past and probably will in the future. (When I go into my view on Senator John McCain as both a nominee for and possible future President of the United States in light of recent developments.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 16, 2008)]

{2} As of this writing, John McCain has 918 delegates to 217 by Mike Huckabee. Even Mitt Romney who has suspended his campaign has more delegates (286) than Huckabee so the nominating process is for all intensive purposes over mathematically.

Notification of Several Upcoming Post Projects:

[Prefatory Note: This posting was drafted on January 3, 2008 (and lightly tweaked today) in anticipation of the posting from January 11, 2008 which we touch on in the next paragraph. It intends to touch on past projects in various states of completion (or which were intended but barely if actually started) of which we intend in light of the January 11th posting to carry through to completion. It is possible that we may run across and add to the list some others when going through and pruning the numerous drafts in the archives. However, for now, what is noted below is all that we plan to tend to completing of the projects prior to that time. -ISM]

In lieu of what we outlined recently about the wheres (and most of the whys) of the change in direction and emphasis of this weblog which has officially taken place, it seems opportune to note for readers of this humble weblog some of the upcoming projects from the various previously-intended ones which we plan to complete for posting in the coming days, weeks, months, etc of this humble weblog. (Precise dates are not possible; ergo the ambiguity so noted in the latter statement.) Without further ado and in point by point format we will be completing the following:

--A post mentioned on many occasions{1} on the importance of a third way in politics between the two common points of reference of the modern political climate; namely between what is unlawful and what historically does not work.

--A post dealing with the history of presidential front runners in light of the 2008 presidential election year.

--An dialogual thread on the subject of appealing to authority which has been in the draft folder for many months but not used on the blog yet as of this writing.

--A response to an emailer on a thread posted to this weblog late in 2007 on the subject of logic.

--A response to an emailer on a thread posted to this weblog in mid 2007 taking issue with Claude Frederic Bastiat's theory of the fundamental rights of man as represented on this weblog by us.

--A response to an emailer on a thread posted to this weblog late 2007 taking issue with some threads we posted earlier in 2007 on the subject of distributivism and our representation of it.

--A thread defining and explaining the proper meaning of two terms touching on philosophy, theology, and ethics which we are tired of seeing misrepresented in the public square by presumed "social commentators."

--A thread on many of the rational problems with the foundational presuppositions behind conspiracy theory advocates.

--A thread dealing with the flawed representation of statistics on African-American middle class home ownership the past twenty-five years by those much more interested in fanning the flames of racial and cultural strife than being forthright and truthful about the facts of reality.

--A trio of threads -one of expository nature and a couple others of a dialogual nature- dealing with a serious criticism we have of the methodology of Pope Benedict XVI on an issue of contemporary importance.

--A dialogual thread on the new (as of this year) US Ambassador to the Vatican and some of the possible geopolitical ramifications thereof.

--A variety of "points to ponder" excerpts on tap along with some planned excerpts from classic writings, and some more poetry which are already on tap and ready for posting as of this writing.

--The answer to an interesting "test" which this blog and its archives were subjected to some time back.

--The posting to this weblog of a couple of state initiative ideas we intend to give to a key initiative pusher in the state of Washington to hopefully start a nationwide movement of legislative accountability at the state and federal levels of government.{2}

--A dialogue on the moral and ethical principles behind the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki if the previously-agreed upon dialogual format is still acceptable to the party who accepted my invitation of the previous year and met the minimal requirements requested thereof.{3}

--A thread written with the latter project in mind which may be formatted into a general principle statement apart from that project -in content the two threads would be substantially the same even verbatim in spots but each will pertain to a somewhat different (even if somewhat related by logical extension) context.

The threads noted above are in various stages of completion from ready to post to needing to be written- though many of them are most way towards being finished for posting as of this writing. They are also the only projects already undertaken which we have any intention of completing anytime soon -all others being presumptively abrogated from this point forward in perpetuity to insure that our priorities as set out previously are in order and are not deviated from.

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Notes:

{1} Ron Paul belongs to a school of thought on Constitutional matters which is intrinsically flawed and historically unviable for reasons I will explain in an upcoming posting on constitutional matters to this humble weblog. However, I do not in that posting go into much detail on this in Paul's specific case. Nor do I intend in this one to do anything more than address one aspect of Rep. Paul's campaign platform (the "antiwar" platform) and do so indirectly at best. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 26, 2007)]

{2} We have sketched out the basic ideas and principles behind the initiative ideas before -either in some detail on this weblog or in some pointers of other ideas we intend to develop into a coherent plan of action and leave to the experienced initiative pusher the role of crafting them into ideas for the public ballot in if not the 2008 election than at the very least by 2010.

{3} This intention was never realized last year for a variety of reasons. Truthfully we are quite sick and tired of the subject matter and covering it again would serve as a kind of penance for us; nonetheless, as a service to dialogue we would be willing to deal with it once more under the previously enunciated conditions and with the party we agreed to discuss it with if they remain open to the idea in the new year.

Miscellaneous Musings:

Three bits briefly as that is all I have time for at the moment...

Communist Totalitarian Murderer Stepping Down

There is irony in many who evince such a visceral hatred for certain Presidents of the United States (past and present) but they will mourn the stepping down of someone who for nearly fifty years has a track record of failure longer than the Rocky Mountain chain. To read the above thread sans several of the comments box bits{1}, Castro sure comes across sounding downright benign but he was anything but that. But that kind of characterization of him fits the template of those who advocate for socialism which is basically marxism with a smile. Or as we wrote sometime ago about the reality of socialism as compared to the abstract in discoursing on marxist double standards:

The marxists --and every promoter of socialism is a defacto marxist in some form or another[...]-- have a notorious double standard from which they operate. Essentially, they judge their own policies not by the uniform and undeniable[...] failure of their policies every time they have been tried. No, with the marxists it is on the intentions behind their policies that they focus on. But they then judge their political enemies -and America is probably first on that list- by the results of their policies. And since America --despite its overall success as a bastion of freedom unlike any nation in history-- is imperfect, then there are always points that can be focused on to America's discredit. But the marxist intentions of a "paradise on earth" are far more idyllic than the even the significant results that America has achieved. For that reason, the results of marxist policies are ignored while the intentions of the marxists are their point of focus.

Now granted, the marxists fabricated a lot of stuff to make things appear even worse than they actually were but that point aside, there is enough in the historical record without fabrications to enable America to always look bad next to the ideal that marxists claim to repine for. And that is the secret essentially to why marxists can lie, cheat, steal, murder, and commit any atrocity and still be held up as icons for the marxist cause ala the near-veneration of predators like Castro, Guevera, Ortega, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Lenin, etc. by not a few who disingenuously claim the mantles of "progressivist" or "peacemakers." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 20, 2005)]

This fundamental double standard explains the irrationality of the socialist weltanschauung at its core so no more needs to be said about it at this time except to exhort readers to watch how many weep for Fidel and yet compare President George W. Bush to the Nazis. Yes folks Bush Derangement Syndrome (or BDS) in its full solipsistic glory will be on display if it is not already. But enough on that and onto the next point of blog host interest.

Court Rejects ACLU Challenge to Wiretaps

It is very pleasing to see the ACLU get a kick in the teeth even if indirectly by a court that under the guidance of Chief Justice Roberts seems to be more and more realizing the true function of the Supreme Court as an interpreter of law and not inventor of law.

Those who have a problem with restrictions on free speech in a time of war can reference Schenck vs. United States (1919) where the Supreme Court upheld the legitimacy of the US Sedition Act of 1918.{2} It is both rational and correct to recognize that the wide span of rights ordinarily enjoyed in peacetime are to some extent abridged during a time of war. Loose lips sink ships after all.

Rush Limbaugh Interview by Time Magazine

One thing I am not surprised by is Limbaugh's approach here. It irritated me in 1992 and 1996 when he did the same sort of thing as he is doing here this but not this time around.

Strangely enough, I know some who find my irritation from previous years to be strange or otherwise try to claim my principled stances taken then{3} were somehow ill-advised or otherwise improper but who are probably beside themselves now when the same situation presents itself -with with Limbaugh in particular and with the issue of how candidate inevitability is dealt with in general.

But I will highlight some more on that subject another time when the impending nomination Senator John McCain is dealt with in more detail than I have thus far -particularly since his nomination by the Republican party moved to the realm of the certain{4} from the realm{5} of the still speculative.

Notes:

{1} Or to quote verbatim a couple for the responses to this story -names pasted to the end of the quotes instead of before for the sake of continuity:

Who wrote this story? Pravda,the New York Times or some other propaganda agency? Ask the Cubans in Miami about castro and you will get a whole different story.Why let the facts get in the way of a leftist fairy tale.Che Guvara was a murderous thug too.Get the story straight comrades! [Dan in N.J. February 19th, 2008 - 10:41 am]

It is unfortunate that this man one day will die without being held accountable for his crimes to the Cuban people and to other people in the world. He deserves the same summary justice that he has meted out to so many of those who opposed him. His stepping down does not mean anything because Cuba continues to live under one of the most tyrannical and repressive regimes in history. [Ganto February 19th, 2008 - 11:00 am]

And this one which really summarizes the view of your humble servant so succinctly we could have written it ourselves:

Only someone as ignorant as andr59 could believe that anything good came of the Castro dictatorship. To continue to call him a “president” is an insult to the tens of thousands he killed and the millions he impoverished. Compare Cuba, Haiti, El Salvador, and Colombia? Easy. Cuba had the same thug for decades, rather than changing guard with other murderers. Oh, and Fidel Castro, as a drug dealer, makes Pablo Escobar look like a corner dime-bag dealer. The less you know about how evil Fidel really has been, the more idiots like andr59 somehow believe he is a savior. Cubans, in Cuba not in exile, are anything BUT proud and independent. You need to stop watching Michael Moore and the Motorcycle Diaries. [VicenteGarcia February 19th, 2008 - 12:48 pm]

{2} [I]t 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.[...] 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. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 5, 2007)]

{3} My general principles which those stances were taken on have not changed even if my views on how to best implement those principles has in that time undergone more than one revision.

{4} To summarize what has been said thus far, review the thread from February 16th located here and consider what we wrote back on February 9th in two separate blog postings:

There have been a number of friends who have expressed a degree of shock and even anger at the idea of John McCain as the nominee in November for the Republican Party. Not being a Republican myself[...], perhaps that is the reason this does not infuriate us as much which is not to say that this was pleasing to us either. In the coming weeks, we may through notes already written to others or in the process of being thought out[...] explain our views on this beyond the sketchy probabilities we have noted up to this point on the weblog. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 9, 2008)]

Additional points for reflection on the inevitable McCain nomination can be read here as well.

{5} There is one factor no one is considering and it is this: McCain made a lot of his deals in a situation where one tries via politics to achieve the art of the possible. (In other words, working with less than ideal circumstances.) It is possible as president that he would be more conservative governing overall than it would appear on the surface to us now and his time in Washington making him less likely to be taken in by the system than others. It is possible so if it happens, you heard it here first. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 1, 2008)]

Kevin Tierney in this thread shows three factors which I believe are important in any attempt to discuss an issue on which principled positions are taken; namely (i) recognition of the importance of dealing with reality and not one's particular flight of fancy or how to know when a battle is lost, (ii) how to approach a situation fairly regardless of particular preferences{1} on the matter, and (iii) the importance of balancing a variety of factors of a personal and prudential matter when dealing with issues in reality as opposed to the abstract.

These are important lessons to be learned in politics as well since defeat on issues in politics is something that happens to people of every particular view at some point or another. For those who may not consider these lessons if enunciated in a political context, perhaps if they are stated in a religious one they may give it some consideration and revise their approaches accordingly.

Note:

{1} I say "particular preferences" here because Kevin makes it clear in the thread above his opposition to the policy being undertaken. Liturgically as a Catholic he also knows that in the Catholic religion the pope is "the decider" ultimately on these kinds of matters (either in concurrence with an ecumenical council or individually) and therefore his stance here honours the rule of law if you will regardless of personal preferences on the matter.

Points to Ponder:
(On Perceived "Allies", "Adversaries", and Striving For Objectivity In Our Assessments of Others)

It is natural of course to feel an affinity for those we perceive to be our "allies" in a fight and even a kind of operative animosity towards those we believe are opposed to us. These tendencies however should never get in the way of trying as best we can to make as fair an assessment of persons and situations. Otherwise, there is a problem with approaching moral and ethical issues in a uniform standard and more often than not there is the use of double standards. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 25, 2007)]

I have not said much on the inevitable{1}nomination of Senator John McCain yet for the Republicans but President Bush claiming that conservatives should unite behind McCain because President Bush says he is a conservative is laughable. Seriously.

I am not going to claim that Senator McCain either is or is not a conservative in this posting -only that the last person who is credible on discerning this matter is President George W. Bush for reasons I have delved into in the past and probably will in the future. (When I go into my view on Senator John McCain as both a nominee for and possible future President of the United States in light of recent developments.)

As for now though, that is all I intend to say on the matter other than to inaugurate a new weblog category specifically to tag discuss the Arizona senator from here on out which I am also applying retroactively to the archives all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

I decided to take this approach because I do not have time or the desire at the moment to go into my archives to find choice bits for fleshing out this posting either in the body of the text or in footnotes; ergo the creation of this tag so that readers can review our archives and see everything we have said about the senior senator from Arizona over the years on this weblog.{2} And (of course) unlike a lot of people, I do not have anything to hide and my views on the senator at sundry times and divers manners have not always been flattering.

So with that noted, those interested in seeing what I have said thus far about Senator McCain (to get an idea of what I may say in the future) go ahead and have a look. That is all I will say about him for the time being though with a year being an eternity in politics{3} you can be sure there will be more in the months ahead as I am inclined (and have the time) to discuss that subject.

Notes:

{1} At this point.

{2} I did an archive search and tagged everything which was actually posted where I mentioned Senator McCain in any capacity whatsoever.

{3} As I have said so many times on this weblog when talking about politics.

Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing:

-40F

Bitter Cold, Whiteouts Hit Upper Midwest, East...

Chill Map...

Fairbanks has coldest temps in eight years...

All of the above threads are courtesy of Drudge and to serve as a reminder for those who may have forgotten{1} about the stance on global warming of your host at Rerum Novarum.

Note:

{1} On the Fraud of "Global Warming" With Greg Mockeridge and Kevin Tierney (circa April 13, 2006)

Boulder: Impeach Bush? (Rocky Mountain News)

If ever a snapshot of why I hold the hippie contingent in such derision was needed, the above link provides it. I have an idea: how about impeaching the Boulder City Council!!! They have local concerns to deal with and they waste time and energy in moronic notions such as supporting a presidential impeachment where there is no viable case to be made for it. Now it is true that President Bush came close to doing something that a good argument could have been made for impeachment{1}but it had nothing to do with the war in Iraq which was entered into for a variety of reasons -the most significant and concrete of which were the basis of your host's position on the war which was synthesized and blogged five years ago this week.{2}

Indeed I might be willing to go into these matters but for one problem other than lack of time: motivation. I am hardly going to play the kind of last year pig pile on the lame duck incumbent{3} game that is par for the course both this year as well as historically. (It is predictable as well as boring.) And this is also not to say of course that I will avoid criticism when I view it as both applicable as well as serving a viable purpose. But what it does rule out is any plans whatsoever to expend any energy whatsover on having President Bush's back on anything that is for his personal benefit. Or as I noted last July when talking about my unwillingness on these matters:

Admittedly I have lost any remaining motivation to complete it after the last round of trying to pass the illegal amnesty proposal and make it into law. The reason for lacking the motivation now is not because the arguments of the kooks are difficult to dispatch with. (Quite the contrary actually: the hardest part of it is finding the time to dispatch with them piece by piece in reasonable detail.) The problem is mainly that I have no confidence in President Bush to do much of anything right anymore. And since he has shown a lack of concern for having the back of those who have supported him over the years for the most part -or at the very least defended him from unfair attacks- why should anyone have his back now??? [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 11, 2007)]

That really sums it up nicely except for one small thing which I will briefly touch on soon. But that suffices for the time being in my view; ergo this posting will be concluded.

Notes:

{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)]

{2} My Definitive Position on the Eventual War in Iraq (circa February 9, 2003)

{3} Though for a lame duck, President Bush had a pretty good 2007. Or as I noted last year when commenting on the progress of President Bush and his Administration as of mid 2007:

On the whole, the Bush Administration is doing better in 2007 than in 2006 or 2005 but sometimes this is in spite of their intentions on some issues rather than because of them. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 11, 2007)]

Of course President Bush finished the year as well as he started it shutting down the pretensions of the Democratic congress again and again. If not for the fact that he lacked this kind of spine in standing up to his own party when they were running congress as wannabee big government liberals, I would be quite impressed indeed. But I digress.