More on Senator John McCain, the Boundaries of Conservative Republican Thought Historically Speaking, and Certain Troubling Contemporary Ahistorical So-Called "Conservative" Trends Thereof:
(Part I of a Dialogue)
This is a follow up to a previous conversation which can be read here:
A Dialogue on John McCain and "Conservatism" (circa March 26, 2008)
To facilitate an easier following of who said what -as there are many layers to this thread in divers font colourings- the following hopefully will be of assistance.
The orange font is from the emailer's original email while light blue font is my responses to the emailer's original note. The dark green font is from the emailer's follow-up to my first response while the regular blog font colour is my response to the emailer's follow-up note. Any sources I quote in this note will be in dark blue font and possibly smaller type as a result of the format this original text was taken from (I do not have time to change it).
Without further ado...
Hello XXXXXXX:
First of all, I hope your Easter was a good one. Without further ado…
You surely did not think I would let this one pass now did you??? I could have of course if not for being accused of sophistry and red herrings by someone who quite evidently was wearing blinders when it comes to a variety of the pertinent factors involved in the discussion. Nonetheless…
Michael Medved (or Michael Methhead as he was affectionately referred to by a caller to Rick Roberts, a talk radio local yokel here in San Diego) has the audicity to call McCain a Reagan Republican here.
I read the thread the other day actually.
What kind of Reagan Republican busts his ass to endear himself to the leftist media, sellout to the pseudo-science loving global warming touting, Algore worshipping, envirommentally ill wackos, whose significant legislative achievements also bear the names of the most radical leftist Democraps in the Senate.
I remind you XXXXXXX that it is nearly impossible to do anything legislatively without some degree of reaching across the aisle unless one party dominates the congresses and the presidency significantly.
There's a big difference between reaching arcoss the aisle, making compromises that garner some kind of benefit for our side and putting on the opposition's uniform and singing their fight song, and help construct legislation that is purely antithetical to conservatism. McCain's "bipartisanship" is clearly in the latter category. Can you think of any legislation co-authored by McCain that even has a whiff of conservatism to it? I can't. I am shocked you would even try flaoting this canard by me in regards to McCain.
This line of argument on your part is puzzling to me because your choice of terms admits of a few interpretations. (Feel free to clarify which one you refer to.) When you say "coauthored" do you mean the same thing as "co-sponsored" or do you mean he had to have written it himself or been the key sponsor to it???
Of course no matter which standard above you are applying, your claim of "co-authored legislation" is a canard itself since the lions share of bills never make it out of committee anyway. According to the NAAYP{1} and a "hostile witness" if you will for the sake of this discussion, in the 107th Congress (2001-2002) there were 8,948 bills introduced into the House and Senate. Do you care to guess the number which actually became law??? Try 377. If you do the math, you will find that it comes out to about 4%. That is roughly the same percentage as with any session of Congress: about 95% of introduced bills in every session fail to become law for a variety of reasons and usually because they die in committee and do not even get voted on by the full congressional bodies and sent to the president to begin with. And bear in mind, that is the entire congress, not just Senator John McCain. This fact is why your request to find a "piece of legislation" is on its face rather humourous. But heck, let us up the ante a bit now shall we???
Since you want to argue in this fashion -and presumably because you were not aware of the low number of bills that even become law in any session: if you actually knew this would be disingenuous and I doubt that was your intention- I will ask you to tell me if you can think of any legislation that President Bush vetoed in the first six years of his presidency that had more than a mere whiff of liberalism to it??? I guarantee you I would have better luck with answering your question than you would mine because even if I found one example for McCain which meets your criteria, you will never find a single example that meets mine because W did not veto a single piece of legislation in his first six years!!! That showed tremendous executive weakness since unlike McCain and the laborious process that it takes for any proposed bill to become law, the president has a pretty solid way of not letting bad legislation through. It is called the veto pen...you know that thing he only discovered after the Democrats took over Congress.
It is hard enough to get a bill through for presidential consideration and a veto is darn difficult to override. The historical average on overrides is 4% with recent presidents (since Truman to draw the line somewhere) having the following percentage of success in over-riding a presidential veto:
Harry S. Truman: 5%
Dwight D. Eisenhower: 1%
John F. Kennedy: 0%
Lyndon B. Johnson: 0%
Richard M. Nixon: 16%
Gerald R. Ford: 18%
James E. Carter: 6%
Ronald W. Reagan: 12%
George H. W. Bush: 2%
William J. Clinton: 5%
George W. Bush: 11%
You can follow this thread here. With regards to percentages, one must consider that except for Eisenhower having Republicans running Congress for a small part of his term, the Republican presidents (except W) had the opposing party in control of Congress and the Democrats (except Truman and Bubba) did not. But even the most embattled of presidents still succeeds at least 80% of the time in sustaining a veto; thus the failure of W to wield that instrument the first six years of his presidency against the unprincipled Republican congresses starting in January of 2001 and running through January of 2007 is a significant weakness on his part to lead.
And as that has not been seen since the first administration of fdr, it is not something that can or should be presumed at any time. And as the most influential persons in the Democratic camp (and the ones therefore who have the most "pull" influentially) are the older and more liberal ones, that does not leave much of a choice tactically. You would do well to remember that every conservative has had to make deals with liberals to get things passed and vice versa. Reagan never would have gotten his agenda through without the help of O'Neill and before you claim that was cause they were in his favour, remember that he also was involved in policies that were not beneficial to the conservative cause. The tax increases that Reagan agreed to in 1982 is one example. The mass amnesty from 1986 was another. More could be noted but on both of those
Yes, but as I point out above, this is not in the least the case with McCain. McCain throws in with the Democraps to poke conservatives in the eyes whereas Reagan at least did what he did to help the conservative agenda, not undermine it the way McCain has.
Undermine whose "conservative agenda"??? I really tire of this idea that there is one monolithic "conservative agenda" XXXXXXX because it is not true. There are general conservative issues of course but even then there is still a degree of difference of opinion which subsists. I am unaware of one single bread and butter definitively conservative issue that John McCain does not in some measure support even if I do not agree with the manner in which he seeks to apply the underlying principles involved. Do not mistaken failure to support certain methodologies as a failure to support particular principles or else you are doing nothing different than those who make matters of Catholic requirement concurring with matters of the prudential order as if they are akin to doctrine.
On the following subjects, McCain's voting record is on the whole quite conservative -not perfect certainly but substantial. For example:
On the subject of abortion, McCain gets a B+ which is not perfect but is still a hell of a lot better than the alternatives we have.
On overall life issues he gets at worst a B- which is not great of course but "conservatism" is a philosophy embodying a number of core principles not just one and there is not definitive unanimity on some of the underlying factors involved here anyway.
On budget issues, McCain gets a solid A and has a sterling record here which frankly after six years of W and a drunken sailor Republican congress would be a breath of fresh air in many respects.
On matters of the economy, he scores a B particularly on matters of taxation having never voted for a tax increase. I know you think he deserves to be flogged for not supporting Bush's tax cuts all along but I remind you that support for broad and deep tax cuts in the absence of definite spending reductions is not a traditional conservative position. If anything, the traditional conservative approach to deficits is to raise taxes not cut them!!! McCain's position on taxes is quite evidently not supply side-based. I am not saying it is wrong mind you, only that supporting tax cuts in the absence of definite (as opposed to future promised) spending reductions is not a position that is required to be a conservative. And I say that as someone who does view tax cuts as important economic stimulator and who defended the hypothesis of supply side economics before a class of liberals back in college.{2}
I note this here so that you understand that I take a different view on this than McCain does in one fundamental respect yet agree with him on another. I do not favour tax cuts without corresponding cuts in spending also -increasing revenue is pointless if that increased revenue is spent and then some- so I in that respect embody in symbiosis two historical conservative positions in one. Prior to Reagan, the mainstream conservative position was one that favoured raising taxes and cutting spending. Even Reagan in cutting taxes wanted corresponding spending reductions so in this respect, my position is solidly in line with Reagan as would appear to be McCain's.
Reagan to some extent though he failed in this area can be given some leeway as he was working with a Democratic congress. Even W's daddy who really messed up by not learning from Reagan's experience in this area again was dealing with a Democratic congress. But W had his guys in control and thus there is no excuse -I do not buy the bullshit of "well we are at war now" as an excuse for a three TRILLION dollar budget and still running a quarter to a half trillion a year deficit. This was pure horseshit and the idea that Bush cares about the budget now when the Democrats have control is "nearly a laugh but [its] really a cry" (cf. R. Waters).
On the subject of business, McCain gets a B-: not great but not too bad. I would score him a lot higher if he favoured repealing subsidies for companies that move jobs offshore to produce products for sending to American markets. Few things piss me off more and I say this as someone who does not personally benefit in any fashion from this move.{3} Nonetheless, his stance of not repealing such subsidies is more "mainstream conservative" than mine is so arguably that B- could be bumped up to a B+ if the goal here is conforming to what is considered by many to be "conservative" by virtue of what the mainstream pundits believe.
On the subject of civil rights, McCain gets a B-/C+: he is a bit nebulous on affirmative action and gay issues{4} but on balance here he is somewhat decent even if nothing to write home about.
On the subject of crime, McCain gets an A
On the subject of drugs, McCain gets an A+
On the subject of education, McCain gets an A-
On the subject of energy and oil, McCain gets a C. If he favoured more ANWAR drilling and more refineries being built along with utilizing the federal government to provide greater incentives for private businesses to develop alternative energy sources, I would grade him much higher. Those views are traditionally conservative after all: the Jeffersonian model is not the only traditional conservative model even if today it is the most prevalent one.{5}
On the subject of the environment, McCain gets a B. If not for his stance on global warming which is (at best) an unproven hypothesis, he would get an A. However, since he supports certain other environmental matters which modern "conservatives" do not generally favour, they would dock him for this. (For example, his stances on national parks and commercial whaling.) But again, there is a tradition of Republican thought as well as a traditional conservatism going back to Theodore Roosevelt which is more mindful of the environment than many modern conservatives are -a tradition that Senator Barry Goldwater also shared throughout his career. So while by modern standards, he would be viewed as lacking in this area, if judged by earlier conservative principles he would rate higher.{6}
On the subject of families and children, McCain gets an A.
On the subject of foreign policy, McCain gets a B+.
On the subject of "free trade", McCain by the general consensus of conservatives today gets an A+ but in my view gets a D.{7} Nonetheless, my point here is to note areas where McCain is closer or further from overall stances which would fall within the parameters of the outlines of what is "conservative." With that in mind, he gets an A+ here as he has never failed to support "free trade" issues thus getting a 100% vote from CATO Institute.
On second amendment issues, McCain gets an A-: I cannot give him a solid A since he does not own a firearm after all ;-)
On the subject of government reform, McCain gets another solid A.
On homeland security, McCain gets at least a B- if not a solid B if we account for general overview, defense spending, and his overall voting record. I dock him from a solid A for his stance on the subjects of Gitmo and water boarding but those are not sine qua non positions for determining or anathematizing someone from being a conservative. If McCain were to favour giving the terrorists constitutional rights -and he has said explicitly he does not favour this at all- then you would be able to make a solid argument on this matter that his conservative credentials would be questionable. But not in the absence of that factor in my humble opinion.
On jobs, McCain is given a 15% rating by the AFL-CIO which means he gets at least a middle B by virtue of the simple acid test of unions generally being wrong on what is best for effective economic productivity.{8}
On immigration, McCain gets a D or worse of that there is no doubt. You know my views on this and my disappointment in his position. But the problem is, his position is not different in substance than the one Reagan had...you know, one of those areas where Reagan made a mistake. But The Gipper for better or worse has framed this issue as an acceptable conservative hypothesis by virtue of his support for the proposal coupled with his status as a great conservative party icon. We would be wise to not forget that however much we view that position of McCain's part as a monumental mistake.
On social security issues, McCain gets a solid A.
On tax reform, McCain gets a solid A.
On technology, McCain gets a solid A.
On the war, McCain gets a solid A gaining points for what he loses on the torture subject for his stubbornness on supporting the surge unlike a lot of congressional Republicans. (He has been the strongest supporter of President Bush on this significant issue.)
On welfare and poverty issues, McCain gets a solid A.
He favours appointing originalist judges to the courts who interpret and not invent law so he gets a solid A+ on this issue pending actual disappointment on the matter in the same fashion I start all presidents (or in this case, potential presidents) off with A's. I did that with W too{9} so my approach here with McCain is hardly a novel one.
Shall I list more general areas or does this suffice??? The problem here XXXXXXX is your apparent identification of "the conservative agenda" as synonymous with what Rush Limbaugh thinks or what the general consensus of talk show hosts happens to be. They do not doth conservatism make. I do not in saying this mean they are not conservatives of course, only that they do not set the boundaries and they do not determine who is in the camp or not -they at times have an artificially narrowed view of these matters viewing conservatism as synonymous with their own personal views or certain zeitgeists of the recent past. And Limbaugh is not the only one who does this.
Now, Reagan made mistakes in that regard, which were miniscule in comparison the good he accomplished.
Of course Reagan made mistakes. So has McCain. So have you. So have I. Etcetera...
Now while becuase Reagan never was a Senator and therefore can we can never know for sure what kind of record he would have had there, it is more than safe to say that the Reagan we know and love would not have been caught dead acting anything like John McCain. Hell, even Bob "let's make a deal" Dole never would have been caught dead doing such a thing either. Shawn, if you think McCain would govern more conservatively than even the not so conservative Bush, you really need to flush out your headgear.
Frankly, anyone but Huckabee among the candidates this year would govern more conservatively than Bush did. Other than the tax cuts and war in 03, the surge in 07, and two justices on the court in 05 and 06, Bush has been a disgrace.
Say what??? Shawn if you think with McCain's record of real consequence (something I will elaborate on later) he will govern more conservatively than Bush, you need to take few hits off the crackppipe just to come to your senses. You really think I am that stupid to fall for this horseshit? I was born in the morning, but not this morning.
I am looking at two factors here XXXXXXX, the panopoly of issues and not just one or two "talking point" ones selected by Limbaugh and his cronies and also the change in office which comes with a change in responsibilities. There is a significant difference between being a senator and being a president. I am not presuming a priori that McCain cannot make the change as you are. I am open to the possibility that he can particularly if the conservatives McCain will need to win are in positions to be able to influence him in this direction. McCain is not stupid and he saw what happened when W rubbed the conservatives the wrong way on key points. The alternative media is here to stay whether he likes it or not.
Also, as president McCain would not need to haggle and compromise to come up with proposals that may or may not pass congress, he as the executive would be able to sign or veto what is put before him. This sets the stage for a more conservative governance potentially. I am not saying he will of course, only that if he is elected and does, it will not surprise me all that much actually. If anything McCain being no stranger to DC the past two decades means he is less likely to govern more liberally than he manifests himself to be going into the office because of the common change that DC can have on even the best intentioned of persons.
To be Continued...
Notes:
{1} The "National Association for the Advancement of You People" -coined by Rush Limbaugh circa 1992.
{2} I helped them see the value in it and many including the teacher came to support them until I mentioned I had just outlined "Reaganomics in a nutshell" at which point many flip-flopped but I digress.
{3} Unfortunately, so many people advocate positions because they benefit from them rather than out of principle (whether they benefit or not) and this is not what someone who is concerned with principle and an ethical approach to matters in general.
{4} Leaning towards if not taking a more modern "liberal" stance.
{5} I will write on this very soon on the weblog in a long-planned and finally completed sans final edited posting.
{6} Again, in doing the latter, I give him a B and if not for his support of the unproven hypothesis of global warming, I would give him a solid A.
{7} I do not have time to go through the archives of this weblog and track down the posts I have written on the subject of so-called "free trade" and my opposition to what masquerades as "free trade" in reality compared to the idea in the abstract. Hopefully this thread on CAFTA from mid 2005 will suffice as one example of my rather complex view on this matter.
{8} This is something I have noticed throughout my life and probably could raise this acid test to the status of at least a corollary if not a full blown dictum with a bit more development of thought and analysis on the matter (though I have no intention of doing either anytime soon due to lack of time). Ergo, if the unions do not like what he is doing, he is doing a lot more right than wrong: pretty simple really but effective nonetheless as a gauge of measurement here akin to The Carter Corollary if you will.
{9} Not docking him to A- until his stem cell decision which in light of his response to 9/11 bumped him back to a solid A at the time.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
A Near-Finalized Draft of a Long Planned Amazon Book Review of David Armstrong's The Catholic Verses:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Originally I had planned a much more ambitious and detailed review of this book but time and subsequent circumstances scuttled that idea significantly. A few months ago though, I ran across some of my old notes from mid 2005 and decided to piece them together into a review which will also be posted to Amazon probably this month or next. I also did a quick subsequent review of the sections of the book referred to in my notes, reviewing previous observations and jotting down a few additional ones pertaining to it on a section by section basis. My intention with the finished product is that the combination of the two will make this as fair a review as possible.
But before tending to that, I want to note briefly something I wrote earlier this year on a semi-private correspondence when the subject of David Armstrong came up in a discussion list I was on and misperception was not wanting as to my views on the matter. (And considering some of what transpired in past years, these misunderstandings were to some extent understandable.) So to help set the stage for this review, here is part of what I wrote very early in the new year in another medium so that readers can see how my assessment of David Armstrong's overall approach in the areas he does well meshes well with the review of this book which will follow:
To ask him about me, I went from being "wonderful" and "brilliant" and all of that to the "son of satan" with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. But I do not take that kind of absurd view of him -I do not view now as poorly done anything I previously praised or vice versa. (Though I tended before to make my views of Dave's poorer quality stuff very rarely known and almost never publicly.) That is what one who has the favour of friendship gets essentially: the benefit of the doubt. Here for your consideration (and the others on the list if they like) is my assessment of Dave's work as a whole apart from my view of him personally.
Starting with the good, Dave does very well to practically excellent on many aspects of bread and butter apologetics subjects particularly Catholic-Protestant stuff and on core Catholic doctrines. He does less well on ancillary subjects but that is the case for everyone really: by their nature they are harder to substantiate with the same degree of rock solidity as primary doctrinal matter. And on primary doctrinal subject matter, Dave's stuff is well worth reviewing. I said this years ago and my view on it has not in substance changed because (unlike Dave) I do not make personalities the criteria on how I view these matters.
Dave's work on Orthodox-Catholic stuff is not as good as his Catholic-Protestant stuff but it is still on the whole pretty good. On the subject of development of doctrine he is quite good -I now view him as perhaps overextending a bit on his application compared to previously as well as viewing Newman's theory as being more conclusive than it is. There are other areas he does well too but this suffices to show that I do not take a singular negative view of Dave's work. On balance his stuff in this area is well worth reading and my views on the above stuff now is no different than it was when he and I were on great terms (which was the case prior to September of 2005). I plan to review one of his books at some point in the new year -basically will take up a bare bones sketch of a draft from mid 2005 and my review of the work is not going to change now from what it was going to be then...
My problems with Dave on some issues do not detract from recognizing what he does that is good. [Excerpt from a Correspondence (circa January 1, 2008)]
There is more to it than just the above of course -the less positive parts of the above correspondence following that point and being heavily footnoted and perhaps worth going over at some point should I feel inclined to. I will simply note at this time on them that the major criticisms I have long had entail (i) his understanding of what is properly understood as "magisterial", (ii) his approach to what is called "general norms of interpretation" on theological matters in general, and (iii) his approach to moral theology in light of the previous two problematical areas. There has also been (iv) a tendency on his part at times towards fallacious forms of argumentation. However, in fairness I should note that the latter one is generally only a problem on ancillary subject matters.
But noting those things briefly at the outset is as far as I will take the critical element in this posting at least generally speaking -as it would not be honest of me to fail to disclose them at least briefly at the outset. But without further ado, here is a review of Mr. Armstrong's book The Catholic Verses which in substance was drafted nearly three years ago. The words of the review will be in red font.
The theme of this book is an interesting one -covering ninety-five biblical verses as a kind of symbolic response to Fr. Martin Luther's 95 Theses tacked by legend to the door of the Wittenburg cathedral in late 1517. And the manifested intention to demonstrate that there can be plausibly argued from a biblical standpoint for many of what Mr. Armstrong calls "Catholic distinctives" is amply sustained -though there is a variegated quality of his arguments in the book notwithstanding of course. This was unquestionably a very ambitious undertaking on the part of the author and for that fact alone he deserves some credit.
This book has a few weaknesses which affect the overall text. For one thing, it is very choppy in spots with the manuscript needing improvement by smoothing out some of the rough structural barbs. I should in fairness note in stating this criticism that part of that is perhaps inevitable if one looks at the pattern of the book and its intentions. For example, as the book is based on specific verses, there will be inexorably a greater degree of commentary interspersed with other sources. And of course the aforementioned commentary and use of sources will also bring to it certain unspoken and unsubstantiated presuppositions of the author no matter how one tries to avoid this -and the latter cannot be done justice in a volume such as this.
But that point noted, Mr. Armstrong is usually good at recognizing the principle that more formally developed concepts need not be present in later fullness in earlier periods of time: what Catholics refer to as development of doctrine. Mr. Armstrong understands the concept better than most but it is nonetheless one with its limits and not the magical "one size fits all" remedy that he at times appears to think it is. Mr. Armstrong also has a tendency to overplay his hand a bit through the use of statements of a more absolute nature where theologically there is more room than he appears to presume. But this criticism is one that is hardly applicable to him alone -I note it here nonetheless because it needs to be accounted for by the reader to receive a fuller picture of the author's work itself.
Despite the manifested intention to avoid triumphalist tonalities in the book, Mr. Armstrong while generally succeeding in this area nonetheless does involve a bit of sardonic phrasing in spots -seemingly at the points where either his arguments are the weakest or the internal contradictions of some of the sources he critically interacts with happen to be. John Calvin is a particular target in this area but considering the snide way Calvin approaches a number of subjects in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, it is hard to fault Mr. Armstrong for taking a bit of schadenfreude in puncturing the balloons of bombast common to Calvin's methodology even if in other areas one could find it easier for this criticism to have a bit more weight. (And I emphasize "a bit more" because on balance this book is light on explicit triumphalism: something which is to Mr. Armstrong's credit.)
On specific matters, to compile a detailed sketch would take more time than I have so I will note what is particularly well done section by section. The sections on The Church, Bible and Tradition, Papacy, Communion of Saints, and Prayers for the Dead are all despite the overall structural weaknesses noted earlier very solid in content and argumentation. (Likewise the sections on Baptism and Eucharist.) I could quibble with a few additional bits but they would not detract from my view of these sections at all so I will leave it be for now. The Communion of Saints section also possesses some nice nuances to it which someone familiar with the boilerplate elements of this subject could well appreciate -the same is the case for the section on Prayers for the Dead.
Other sections which are also good (albeit not to the extent the ones already noted are) include the ones on Penance and Relics/Sacramentals. The problem with these sections that I discerned most is brevity primarily: they require a lot more exposition due to being more implied in the scripture than the others noted thus far. It is also questionable in my mind if including these subjects in the book was a good idea for those reasons but what is there is good so I will leave it at that.
The section on Divisions/Denominationalism is on balance good but it has more weaknesses to it than the other sections noted thus far. For one thing, it needs to emphasize that the only divisions Mr. Armstrong intends to be critical of are ones that pertain to faith. In failing to do this, it leaves Mr. Armstrong open to those who point out areas of diversity in Catholic philosophy, theology, application of moral/ethical principles, geopolitical matters, etc. as a presumed "refutation" of his position in this section. If he were to in a subsequent edition make this delineation clearer, it would vindicate this section from the sort of criticism I noted above.
The last quarter of the book is of markedly less quality than the parts covered thus far -in part because the subjects move to more peripheral or controverted nature. For the sake of presenting a stronger product it would have been better to have either covered them in greater detail or passed these matters over completely. The section on Celibacy is written from a western perspective which gives the impression that there is one traditional approach to this matter instead of two. It would do Mr. Armstrong well in subsequent editions of this work to add a bit in there about the eastern tradition which allows for married clergy much as certain extraordinary provisions in the western church in recent decades does. In both traditions there is (albeit in differing ways) a recognition of the biblical principle of clerical celibacy so this revision would only strengthen the latter section of this book.
The section on Divorce suffers from a lack of completion akin to the one on Celibacy though not to the same extent. The main weakness here is the lack of distinguishing between the concepts of divorce and annulment. The latter is often called "Catholic divorce" but that expression is not accurate at all and failing to note the distinction in this section after the passages pertaining to divorce weakens the presentation here.
The section on Contraception is the weakest one in the book for a variety of reasons. The first reason is that it is a derivative concept which as I noted earlier is harder to cover than a primary subject. The second is that it is based on so little Scriptural reference and implied ones at that: making it by nature involving a lot more commentary. The third is that there are other objections raised against the OT passage he cited being interpreted as Mr. Armstrong does that he gives no credence whatsoever to. There are other factors too on this one but my guess is that this being an issue that was of particular resonance to Mr. Armstrong in his conversion is what prompted him to include a section in this book on the topic in question.
But to cover the latter subject with the detail required and accounting for all parameters (including certain presuppositions Mr. Armstrong unconsciously and uncritically accepts) would be to make the book a lot longer which is why it would have been better to have passed over it completely in this treatment.
To summarize this review, Mr. Armstrong attempts to cover an entire spectrum of ideas with this book. In doing this there will be a variegation of success and on the lions share of the topics covered as well as overall presentation, this book is a worthwhile read. But there are also some topics of which it would have been better to have a bit more material on to insure a more correct presentation. And there is exactly one subject which would have by the nature of the subject in question have benefited from being passed over with the idea of focusing on the ones where the greater strength of demonstration and argument can be made.
In closing, I with minimal reservation recommend this work for those who have questions as to the presumed "unbiblical" nature of certain Catholic beliefs and practices. It would serve well to help them realize that (whether they agree with them or not) there are arguments that can be made from Scripture for many "Catholic distinctives" which non-Catholics may have been led to believe did not exist.
Rating: ****
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Originally I had planned a much more ambitious and detailed review of this book but time and subsequent circumstances scuttled that idea significantly. A few months ago though, I ran across some of my old notes from mid 2005 and decided to piece them together into a review which will also be posted to Amazon probably this month or next. I also did a quick subsequent review of the sections of the book referred to in my notes, reviewing previous observations and jotting down a few additional ones pertaining to it on a section by section basis. My intention with the finished product is that the combination of the two will make this as fair a review as possible.
But before tending to that, I want to note briefly something I wrote earlier this year on a semi-private correspondence when the subject of David Armstrong came up in a discussion list I was on and misperception was not wanting as to my views on the matter. (And considering some of what transpired in past years, these misunderstandings were to some extent understandable.) So to help set the stage for this review, here is part of what I wrote very early in the new year in another medium so that readers can see how my assessment of David Armstrong's overall approach in the areas he does well meshes well with the review of this book which will follow:
To ask him about me, I went from being "wonderful" and "brilliant" and all of that to the "son of satan" with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. But I do not take that kind of absurd view of him -I do not view now as poorly done anything I previously praised or vice versa. (Though I tended before to make my views of Dave's poorer quality stuff very rarely known and almost never publicly.) That is what one who has the favour of friendship gets essentially: the benefit of the doubt. Here for your consideration (and the others on the list if they like) is my assessment of Dave's work as a whole apart from my view of him personally.
Starting with the good, Dave does very well to practically excellent on many aspects of bread and butter apologetics subjects particularly Catholic-Protestant stuff and on core Catholic doctrines. He does less well on ancillary subjects but that is the case for everyone really: by their nature they are harder to substantiate with the same degree of rock solidity as primary doctrinal matter. And on primary doctrinal subject matter, Dave's stuff is well worth reviewing. I said this years ago and my view on it has not in substance changed because (unlike Dave) I do not make personalities the criteria on how I view these matters.
Dave's work on Orthodox-Catholic stuff is not as good as his Catholic-Protestant stuff but it is still on the whole pretty good. On the subject of development of doctrine he is quite good -I now view him as perhaps overextending a bit on his application compared to previously as well as viewing Newman's theory as being more conclusive than it is. There are other areas he does well too but this suffices to show that I do not take a singular negative view of Dave's work. On balance his stuff in this area is well worth reading and my views on the above stuff now is no different than it was when he and I were on great terms (which was the case prior to September of 2005). I plan to review one of his books at some point in the new year -basically will take up a bare bones sketch of a draft from mid 2005 and my review of the work is not going to change now from what it was going to be then...
My problems with Dave on some issues do not detract from recognizing what he does that is good. [Excerpt from a Correspondence (circa January 1, 2008)]
There is more to it than just the above of course -the less positive parts of the above correspondence following that point and being heavily footnoted and perhaps worth going over at some point should I feel inclined to. I will simply note at this time on them that the major criticisms I have long had entail (i) his understanding of what is properly understood as "magisterial", (ii) his approach to what is called "general norms of interpretation" on theological matters in general, and (iii) his approach to moral theology in light of the previous two problematical areas. There has also been (iv) a tendency on his part at times towards fallacious forms of argumentation. However, in fairness I should note that the latter one is generally only a problem on ancillary subject matters.
But noting those things briefly at the outset is as far as I will take the critical element in this posting at least generally speaking -as it would not be honest of me to fail to disclose them at least briefly at the outset. But without further ado, here is a review of Mr. Armstrong's book The Catholic Verses which in substance was drafted nearly three years ago. The words of the review will be in red font.
The theme of this book is an interesting one -covering ninety-five biblical verses as a kind of symbolic response to Fr. Martin Luther's 95 Theses tacked by legend to the door of the Wittenburg cathedral in late 1517. And the manifested intention to demonstrate that there can be plausibly argued from a biblical standpoint for many of what Mr. Armstrong calls "Catholic distinctives" is amply sustained -though there is a variegated quality of his arguments in the book notwithstanding of course. This was unquestionably a very ambitious undertaking on the part of the author and for that fact alone he deserves some credit.
This book has a few weaknesses which affect the overall text. For one thing, it is very choppy in spots with the manuscript needing improvement by smoothing out some of the rough structural barbs. I should in fairness note in stating this criticism that part of that is perhaps inevitable if one looks at the pattern of the book and its intentions. For example, as the book is based on specific verses, there will be inexorably a greater degree of commentary interspersed with other sources. And of course the aforementioned commentary and use of sources will also bring to it certain unspoken and unsubstantiated presuppositions of the author no matter how one tries to avoid this -and the latter cannot be done justice in a volume such as this.
But that point noted, Mr. Armstrong is usually good at recognizing the principle that more formally developed concepts need not be present in later fullness in earlier periods of time: what Catholics refer to as development of doctrine. Mr. Armstrong understands the concept better than most but it is nonetheless one with its limits and not the magical "one size fits all" remedy that he at times appears to think it is. Mr. Armstrong also has a tendency to overplay his hand a bit through the use of statements of a more absolute nature where theologically there is more room than he appears to presume. But this criticism is one that is hardly applicable to him alone -I note it here nonetheless because it needs to be accounted for by the reader to receive a fuller picture of the author's work itself.
Despite the manifested intention to avoid triumphalist tonalities in the book, Mr. Armstrong while generally succeeding in this area nonetheless does involve a bit of sardonic phrasing in spots -seemingly at the points where either his arguments are the weakest or the internal contradictions of some of the sources he critically interacts with happen to be. John Calvin is a particular target in this area but considering the snide way Calvin approaches a number of subjects in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, it is hard to fault Mr. Armstrong for taking a bit of schadenfreude in puncturing the balloons of bombast common to Calvin's methodology even if in other areas one could find it easier for this criticism to have a bit more weight. (And I emphasize "a bit more" because on balance this book is light on explicit triumphalism: something which is to Mr. Armstrong's credit.)
On specific matters, to compile a detailed sketch would take more time than I have so I will note what is particularly well done section by section. The sections on The Church, Bible and Tradition, Papacy, Communion of Saints, and Prayers for the Dead are all despite the overall structural weaknesses noted earlier very solid in content and argumentation. (Likewise the sections on Baptism and Eucharist.) I could quibble with a few additional bits but they would not detract from my view of these sections at all so I will leave it be for now. The Communion of Saints section also possesses some nice nuances to it which someone familiar with the boilerplate elements of this subject could well appreciate -the same is the case for the section on Prayers for the Dead.
Other sections which are also good (albeit not to the extent the ones already noted are) include the ones on Penance and Relics/Sacramentals. The problem with these sections that I discerned most is brevity primarily: they require a lot more exposition due to being more implied in the scripture than the others noted thus far. It is also questionable in my mind if including these subjects in the book was a good idea for those reasons but what is there is good so I will leave it at that.
The section on Divisions/Denominationalism is on balance good but it has more weaknesses to it than the other sections noted thus far. For one thing, it needs to emphasize that the only divisions Mr. Armstrong intends to be critical of are ones that pertain to faith. In failing to do this, it leaves Mr. Armstrong open to those who point out areas of diversity in Catholic philosophy, theology, application of moral/ethical principles, geopolitical matters, etc. as a presumed "refutation" of his position in this section. If he were to in a subsequent edition make this delineation clearer, it would vindicate this section from the sort of criticism I noted above.
The last quarter of the book is of markedly less quality than the parts covered thus far -in part because the subjects move to more peripheral or controverted nature. For the sake of presenting a stronger product it would have been better to have either covered them in greater detail or passed these matters over completely. The section on Celibacy is written from a western perspective which gives the impression that there is one traditional approach to this matter instead of two. It would do Mr. Armstrong well in subsequent editions of this work to add a bit in there about the eastern tradition which allows for married clergy much as certain extraordinary provisions in the western church in recent decades does. In both traditions there is (albeit in differing ways) a recognition of the biblical principle of clerical celibacy so this revision would only strengthen the latter section of this book.
The section on Divorce suffers from a lack of completion akin to the one on Celibacy though not to the same extent. The main weakness here is the lack of distinguishing between the concepts of divorce and annulment. The latter is often called "Catholic divorce" but that expression is not accurate at all and failing to note the distinction in this section after the passages pertaining to divorce weakens the presentation here.
The section on Contraception is the weakest one in the book for a variety of reasons. The first reason is that it is a derivative concept which as I noted earlier is harder to cover than a primary subject. The second is that it is based on so little Scriptural reference and implied ones at that: making it by nature involving a lot more commentary. The third is that there are other objections raised against the OT passage he cited being interpreted as Mr. Armstrong does that he gives no credence whatsoever to. There are other factors too on this one but my guess is that this being an issue that was of particular resonance to Mr. Armstrong in his conversion is what prompted him to include a section in this book on the topic in question.
But to cover the latter subject with the detail required and accounting for all parameters (including certain presuppositions Mr. Armstrong unconsciously and uncritically accepts) would be to make the book a lot longer which is why it would have been better to have passed over it completely in this treatment.
To summarize this review, Mr. Armstrong attempts to cover an entire spectrum of ideas with this book. In doing this there will be a variegation of success and on the lions share of the topics covered as well as overall presentation, this book is a worthwhile read. But there are also some topics of which it would have been better to have a bit more material on to insure a more correct presentation. And there is exactly one subject which would have by the nature of the subject in question have benefited from being passed over with the idea of focusing on the ones where the greater strength of demonstration and argument can be made.
In closing, I with minimal reservation recommend this work for those who have questions as to the presumed "unbiblical" nature of certain Catholic beliefs and practices. It would serve well to help them realize that (whether they agree with them or not) there are arguments that can be made from Scripture for many "Catholic distinctives" which non-Catholics may have been led to believe did not exist.
Rating: ****
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Miscellaneous Musings:
Briefly on some subjects of the past week...
--When it comes to the economy and the stock market, there is far more mixed signals on the matter than seems to be the msm's inclination to portray. One thing we do know for sure is that the economy has slowed down but as for an actual "recession", it is still too early to tell.
--I will be posting in the days after Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary a thread series containing my most detailed view of Senator John McCain yet -along with some of my most critical statements about President Bush as well. But not until after the Pennsylvania primary on Tuesday.
--On the upcoming primary in Pennsylvania, I noted already my sense of schadenfraude viz. how the Democrats are acting now with Senator Clinton considering how in the past they have played the "keep fighting" card even when the latter was genuinely hopeless. But this is hardly a case of a hopeless campaign for Senator Clinton because the very structure of the Democratic party nominating process has made this an open race. Heck, there is less than a ten percent margin in the delegate counts between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama!!! If that is cause for her to throw in the towel, then the Democrats who have whined about Florida since 2000{1} and Ohio since 2004{2} should apologize to everyone whose ear drums had to be subjected to their screeds over many years and give Senator Clinton her "recount" equivalent in this race by at least finishing it.
--As far as predictions on Pennsylvania go, I predict Senator Clinton will win by approximately 5%.
--I have not said anything about the pope's visit except in private to some friends. It is obviously great on one level that he came to America but there are other factors that I cannot ignore in the overall assessment. Here with some heavy editing out of material of a more confidential and other nature are some of the bits from one of those conversations six days ago with my interlocutor's words in dark green, my words in light blue font, and some structure added to the substance of my comments as well as theirs where needed:
BTW, are you doing anything with the Pope's visit.
with the pope coming...I am going to take a wait and see basically. I respect him tremendously
sure
I hear a but coming
much as I did [John Paul II]...but
I was right
I am concerned with the attitude many take on different fronts on different matters. Basically, I am a subsidiarity fella: it is how I approach things constitutionally and geopolitically. It is also how I approach things ecclesially
which would rule out distributism, obviously
that does not (lol)
mean I rule out the pope disciplining people of course. But we have two extremes I think need to be avoided. We need to avoid on the one hand a micromanaging pope
I think I see where this is goin.
engaging in a kind of ecclesial extreme federalism to the detriment of diocesan issues but at the same time we need a check on the tyranny of diocesan bureaucracies. It is ironic
and on the tyranny of individual bishops
that there are those in dioceses who complain about the Vatican intervening in their dioceses but they then act as if people in the dioceses owe them a much greater obedience than they owe the pope.
Boy, you said it.
This applies to bishops as well as lay people in bureaucracy...the balance needs to be struck. I will be honest...I think you at times err towards the "put their heads on the Tiber bridge" approach :P but then there are others who take too lax an approach. Basically if dogma or canon law is being violated, the pope has a responsibility to step in. Otherwise, more care is needed.
I do hope Benedict talks with the bishops about the pedophilia scandal though along with the college heads about the importance of JP II's ex corde ecclesiae on catholic college identity issues.
The problem, as I've maintained all along, is that the ecclesiastical structure promotes arrogance, blind deference and a lack of accountability and transparency. This is true of all hierarchical, bureaucratic systems, religious or secular (e.g.USSR)
and that does not include those who get excited at every new papal document that comes out as if the pope needs to speak on every issues under the sun so that they can check their brains at the door in true prot caricatures of brainless dimwit catholics from polemical eras past.
The problem w/Benedict on the clerical sex-abuse problem is that I find him to be too much of an esoteric academic. He likes to make subtle messages (such as immediately accepting McCarrick's pro forma resignation) but some of that subtlety is beyond the minimal IQs of some of the bishops.
As I told the [discussion] list and others, I do not need any authority to do my thinking for me nor do I want it. If it is a matter of dogma or a doctrine that is evidently definitive (i.e. the bans on abortion or women priests) that is one thing but even those matters have certain subtleties that many do not appreciate...
and on geopolitical matters, history does not give me comfort the more I study it on the wisdom of Vatican geopolitics in general. That does not mean I do not respect the popes and the role they have to play on those matters of course. But those who treat geopolitical interventions as matters of unquestioning assent do not do the matter proper justice. [Excerpts from a Chat Correspondence (circa April 14, 2008)]
My geopolitical disillusionment is also not helped by the seeming obliviousness of His Holiness to several key factors that undermine particular geopolitical stances he has taken in recent years either. The question is how to respectfully address them{3} without the usual suspects accusing me of being "disrespectful" as if somehow the pope is above any and all criticism. But enough on these matters for now.
Notes:
{1} And no to any Bush Derangement Syndrome readers of this humble weblog but there was no presidential "stolen" elections in either 2000 or in 2004. The Supreme Court made the correct decision under the law in 2000 with the blatant crime being the activism of the Florida Supreme Court on that matter.
Yes we all know that the vote to stop the recount was 5-4 for Bush, but there is more to the story than that. For example, 2 of the 4 who sided with Gore concurred with the majority that there was no uniform standard of vote counting and that there were constitutional issues in what the Florida State Supreme Court was requiring. Further still, one of those justices who concurred with the majority but did not vote with them was a personal friend of Al Gore and therefore he arguably should have recused himself. With such a recusal of course a 5-3 vote on the matter would have taken place. (4-3 if Scalia had recused himself also though the connection he had to Bush was far less solid.) In other words, 7 of the 9 justices concurred on the problems in Florida but had a plurality of views on how to remedy the problem.
More could be said but the constitutional problems in Florida with the vote counting -to say nothing of 50,000 military absentee ballots which were ignored and the military vote for Bush would have been at least 70%- presented a problem that could not be resolved during an election cycle. Besides, Bush had already won four recounts anyway. There is no rational way to conclude that Florida was "stolen" in 2000 when all the factors above among other ones are taken into account. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 29, 2007)]
{2} As for Ohio in 2004, the irregularities there were no different than what happens in a lot of states though I do not recall the Democrats calling for investigations into the election oddities in Pennsylvania or Wisconsin which were if anything more suspicious than Ohio. Oh yes, they won those states so there could not have been voting irregularities!!! [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 29, 2007)]
{3} One of these matters will be addressed closer to the election in a few posts written last year which I decided to hold back at the time on posting. Another is the death penalty for reasons I noted here.
Briefly on some subjects of the past week...
--When it comes to the economy and the stock market, there is far more mixed signals on the matter than seems to be the msm's inclination to portray. One thing we do know for sure is that the economy has slowed down but as for an actual "recession", it is still too early to tell.
--I will be posting in the days after Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary a thread series containing my most detailed view of Senator John McCain yet -along with some of my most critical statements about President Bush as well. But not until after the Pennsylvania primary on Tuesday.
--On the upcoming primary in Pennsylvania, I noted already my sense of schadenfraude viz. how the Democrats are acting now with Senator Clinton considering how in the past they have played the "keep fighting" card even when the latter was genuinely hopeless. But this is hardly a case of a hopeless campaign for Senator Clinton because the very structure of the Democratic party nominating process has made this an open race. Heck, there is less than a ten percent margin in the delegate counts between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama!!! If that is cause for her to throw in the towel, then the Democrats who have whined about Florida since 2000{1} and Ohio since 2004{2} should apologize to everyone whose ear drums had to be subjected to their screeds over many years and give Senator Clinton her "recount" equivalent in this race by at least finishing it.
--As far as predictions on Pennsylvania go, I predict Senator Clinton will win by approximately 5%.
--I have not said anything about the pope's visit except in private to some friends. It is obviously great on one level that he came to America but there are other factors that I cannot ignore in the overall assessment. Here with some heavy editing out of material of a more confidential and other nature are some of the bits from one of those conversations six days ago with my interlocutor's words in dark green, my words in light blue font, and some structure added to the substance of my comments as well as theirs where needed:
BTW, are you doing anything with the Pope's visit.
with the pope coming...I am going to take a wait and see basically. I respect him tremendously
sure
I hear a but coming
much as I did [John Paul II]...but
I was right
I am concerned with the attitude many take on different fronts on different matters. Basically, I am a subsidiarity fella: it is how I approach things constitutionally and geopolitically. It is also how I approach things ecclesially
which would rule out distributism, obviously
that does not (lol)
mean I rule out the pope disciplining people of course. But we have two extremes I think need to be avoided. We need to avoid on the one hand a micromanaging pope
I think I see where this is goin.
engaging in a kind of ecclesial extreme federalism to the detriment of diocesan issues but at the same time we need a check on the tyranny of diocesan bureaucracies. It is ironic
and on the tyranny of individual bishops
that there are those in dioceses who complain about the Vatican intervening in their dioceses but they then act as if people in the dioceses owe them a much greater obedience than they owe the pope.
Boy, you said it.
This applies to bishops as well as lay people in bureaucracy...the balance needs to be struck. I will be honest...I think you at times err towards the "put their heads on the Tiber bridge" approach :P but then there are others who take too lax an approach. Basically if dogma or canon law is being violated, the pope has a responsibility to step in. Otherwise, more care is needed.
I do hope Benedict talks with the bishops about the pedophilia scandal though along with the college heads about the importance of JP II's ex corde ecclesiae on catholic college identity issues.
The problem, as I've maintained all along, is that the ecclesiastical structure promotes arrogance, blind deference and a lack of accountability and transparency. This is true of all hierarchical, bureaucratic systems, religious or secular (e.g.USSR)
and that does not include those who get excited at every new papal document that comes out as if the pope needs to speak on every issues under the sun so that they can check their brains at the door in true prot caricatures of brainless dimwit catholics from polemical eras past.
The problem w/Benedict on the clerical sex-abuse problem is that I find him to be too much of an esoteric academic. He likes to make subtle messages (such as immediately accepting McCarrick's pro forma resignation) but some of that subtlety is beyond the minimal IQs of some of the bishops.
As I told the [discussion] list and others, I do not need any authority to do my thinking for me nor do I want it. If it is a matter of dogma or a doctrine that is evidently definitive (i.e. the bans on abortion or women priests) that is one thing but even those matters have certain subtleties that many do not appreciate...
and on geopolitical matters, history does not give me comfort the more I study it on the wisdom of Vatican geopolitics in general. That does not mean I do not respect the popes and the role they have to play on those matters of course. But those who treat geopolitical interventions as matters of unquestioning assent do not do the matter proper justice. [Excerpts from a Chat Correspondence (circa April 14, 2008)]
My geopolitical disillusionment is also not helped by the seeming obliviousness of His Holiness to several key factors that undermine particular geopolitical stances he has taken in recent years either. The question is how to respectfully address them{3} without the usual suspects accusing me of being "disrespectful" as if somehow the pope is above any and all criticism. But enough on these matters for now.
Notes:
{1} And no to any Bush Derangement Syndrome readers of this humble weblog but there was no presidential "stolen" elections in either 2000 or in 2004. The Supreme Court made the correct decision under the law in 2000 with the blatant crime being the activism of the Florida Supreme Court on that matter.
Yes we all know that the vote to stop the recount was 5-4 for Bush, but there is more to the story than that. For example, 2 of the 4 who sided with Gore concurred with the majority that there was no uniform standard of vote counting and that there were constitutional issues in what the Florida State Supreme Court was requiring. Further still, one of those justices who concurred with the majority but did not vote with them was a personal friend of Al Gore and therefore he arguably should have recused himself. With such a recusal of course a 5-3 vote on the matter would have taken place. (4-3 if Scalia had recused himself also though the connection he had to Bush was far less solid.) In other words, 7 of the 9 justices concurred on the problems in Florida but had a plurality of views on how to remedy the problem.
More could be said but the constitutional problems in Florida with the vote counting -to say nothing of 50,000 military absentee ballots which were ignored and the military vote for Bush would have been at least 70%- presented a problem that could not be resolved during an election cycle. Besides, Bush had already won four recounts anyway. There is no rational way to conclude that Florida was "stolen" in 2000 when all the factors above among other ones are taken into account. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 29, 2007)]
{2} As for Ohio in 2004, the irregularities there were no different than what happens in a lot of states though I do not recall the Democrats calling for investigations into the election oddities in Pennsylvania or Wisconsin which were if anything more suspicious than Ohio. Oh yes, they won those states so there could not have been voting irregularities!!! [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 29, 2007)]
{3} One of these matters will be addressed closer to the election in a few posts written last year which I decided to hold back at the time on posting. Another is the death penalty for reasons I noted here.
Friday, April 18, 2008
The irony of the Democrats whining about trying to get Hillary out of the race before "all the votes are counted" (in lieu of their pushing Al Gore to continue his futile 2000 crusade in the general election under that very mantra) is simply too much!!! The Germans call this schadenfraude and yes folks, that is what I feel as I review the comments on this thread.
I simply want to reiterate what I said earlier about Senator Clinton and her chances at this time{1} and remind readers of why I have long said that "a year is an eternity time in politics." I predict this move by Howardthe Duck Dean will benefit Senator Clinton in Pennsylvania's primary on April 22, 2008.
Note:
{1} On Senator Hillary Clinton and Her Nomination Chances (circa March 7, 2008)
I simply want to reiterate what I said earlier about Senator Clinton and her chances at this time{1} and remind readers of why I have long said that "a year is an eternity time in politics." I predict this move by Howard
Note:
{1} On Senator Hillary Clinton and Her Nomination Chances (circa March 7, 2008)
Thursday, April 17, 2008
On Principles and Consistency:
(From the Mailbag on Sean Hannity and Problematical Strains of "Conservative" Catholicism)
The words of the emailer will be in dark green font.
Just looked at your comments about Hannity on RN. If the allegations are true, it wouldn't surprise me; just look at Pat Buchanan.
I would rather not consider Pat Buchanan actually. I spent far too much time in years past giving him too much credit for the parts he does get right{1} when he (i) misses the boat so often and (ii) so often makes statements that are imprudent at best or antisemitic at worst. I have no desire whatsoever to defend such people and will not give passes to Buchanan that I will not to others. Unlike many Catholics, I am not a provincialist{2} nor have I ever been one.
There's an element of conservative Catholicism that, if it isn't anti-Semitic outright, ignores the issue or tries to cozy up to Muslims too much. One example is a piece on insidecatholic.com (the online remnant of Crisis Magazine) that criticizes U.S. "imperialism" (obviously, in reference to the war in Iraq). Go to the site yourself and click on the icon on the right side featuring Teddy Roosevelt superimposed over an early-20th century battleship.
Oh yes, the usual suspects whose understanding of the Constitution results in practice in something that fails. Their instincts against this "evolving constitution" schtick which is common today are good but methodologically misguided to no small degree. Their hearts are in the right place though -that is where I will leave it for now.{3}
Of course, the last article written by Deal Hudson for Crisis criticized the Israeli security fence as injurious to Palestinian Christians (who are mostly in communion with Rome). Never mind that the fence saved innocent lives from suicide bombers.
Well, I do not have much interest in Catholic publications when they discourse on geopolitical matters because far too often it is embarrassing. As long as they do not try to make others believe that they are required to give assent to the opinions they espouse on geopolitical matters, then I do not care what they say. But when they do dogmatize on derivative issues, then they make themselves subject to a possible fisking should I have the time or otherwise feel the inclination to.
Notes:
{1} One example of which comes to mind offhand from the archives is this one:
I have noted my reservations about Patrick J. Buchanan before but to remind readers who may have forgotten:
This writer has often noted in the years since he was an avid Buchanan supporter[...] that Patrick J. Buchanan is a streaky kind of writer. I say this in the sense that when he is on, he is quite often not merely on target but indeed en fuego....In closing, though Buchanan is a streaky shooter, as I noted above, when he is on, he tends to get it on the bullseye. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 01, 2004))]
And on CAFTA, Mr. Buchanan gets it right on this subject in so many ways in the opinion of your weblog host. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 29, 2005)]
{2} See a recent bit on provincialism as posted here for more information on this matter.
{3} Except to note that a piece on a necessary third way in political understanding on constitutional issues which has often been mentioned on this weblog as being on the way at some point (most recently here) had the first parts of a rough draft composed and was first publicly mentioned as forthcoming a year ago today. The draft itself was revised into the form it is in now back in December but needs one final review before it will be ready for posting. (I have not had time to do that yet for many reasons including the ones noted here from January of 2008.)
(From the Mailbag on Sean Hannity and Problematical Strains of "Conservative" Catholicism)
The words of the emailer will be in dark green font.
Just looked at your comments about Hannity on RN. If the allegations are true, it wouldn't surprise me; just look at Pat Buchanan.
I would rather not consider Pat Buchanan actually. I spent far too much time in years past giving him too much credit for the parts he does get right{1} when he (i) misses the boat so often and (ii) so often makes statements that are imprudent at best or antisemitic at worst. I have no desire whatsoever to defend such people and will not give passes to Buchanan that I will not to others. Unlike many Catholics, I am not a provincialist{2} nor have I ever been one.
There's an element of conservative Catholicism that, if it isn't anti-Semitic outright, ignores the issue or tries to cozy up to Muslims too much. One example is a piece on insidecatholic.com (the online remnant of Crisis Magazine) that criticizes U.S. "imperialism" (obviously, in reference to the war in Iraq). Go to the site yourself and click on the icon on the right side featuring Teddy Roosevelt superimposed over an early-20th century battleship.
Oh yes, the usual suspects whose understanding of the Constitution results in practice in something that fails. Their instincts against this "evolving constitution" schtick which is common today are good but methodologically misguided to no small degree. Their hearts are in the right place though -that is where I will leave it for now.{3}
Of course, the last article written by Deal Hudson for Crisis criticized the Israeli security fence as injurious to Palestinian Christians (who are mostly in communion with Rome). Never mind that the fence saved innocent lives from suicide bombers.
Well, I do not have much interest in Catholic publications when they discourse on geopolitical matters because far too often it is embarrassing. As long as they do not try to make others believe that they are required to give assent to the opinions they espouse on geopolitical matters, then I do not care what they say. But when they do dogmatize on derivative issues, then they make themselves subject to a possible fisking should I have the time or otherwise feel the inclination to.
Notes:
{1} One example of which comes to mind offhand from the archives is this one:
I have noted my reservations about Patrick J. Buchanan before but to remind readers who may have forgotten:
This writer has often noted in the years since he was an avid Buchanan supporter[...] that Patrick J. Buchanan is a streaky kind of writer. I say this in the sense that when he is on, he is quite often not merely on target but indeed en fuego....In closing, though Buchanan is a streaky shooter, as I noted above, when he is on, he tends to get it on the bullseye. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 01, 2004))]
And on CAFTA, Mr. Buchanan gets it right on this subject in so many ways in the opinion of your weblog host. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 29, 2005)]
{2} See a recent bit on provincialism as posted here for more information on this matter.
{3} Except to note that a piece on a necessary third way in political understanding on constitutional issues which has often been mentioned on this weblog as being on the way at some point (most recently here) had the first parts of a rough draft composed and was first publicly mentioned as forthcoming a year ago today. The draft itself was revised into the form it is in now back in December but needs one final review before it will be ready for posting. (I have not had time to do that yet for many reasons including the ones noted here from January of 2008.)
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Briefly Revisiting An Argumentation Fallacy From Years Past:
As one of the posts I will be blogging soon mentions the subject of provincialism, it seems appropriate in light of the importance of this subject to revisit this matter matter briefly for those who have either forgotten or were unaware of our previous expositions on the matter.
To start with, I recorded an audio post on the argumentation fallacy of provincialism back in May of 2005 but for some reason, none of the audioblogger recordings are accessible anymore despite the promise that they would be.{1}
Without exhausting much type on the matter at the present time, let it suffice to say that fallacious provincialism is present whenever a party engages in double standards with moral and ethical principles. The most prevalent one is where they give a free pass or promotion of various sorts to those who are their positional allies while either not giving a free pass or condemning the same things in those who are not their positional allies that they let those who agree with them get away with.{2}
A lot more could be said on the matter than that but that is all I presently have time for.
Notes:
{1] I keep the audio post links in the archive on the long shot that the company who now stores them will eventually keep their promise and allow access to them.
{2} For those who recall various postings in the archives which have taken issue with these kinds of double standards, this is one of the fallacies at the heart of my criticisms of not a few either rationally oblivious or profoundly disingenuous partisans.
As one of the posts I will be blogging soon mentions the subject of provincialism, it seems appropriate in light of the importance of this subject to revisit this matter matter briefly for those who have either forgotten or were unaware of our previous expositions on the matter.
To start with, I recorded an audio post on the argumentation fallacy of provincialism back in May of 2005 but for some reason, none of the audioblogger recordings are accessible anymore despite the promise that they would be.{1}
Without exhausting much type on the matter at the present time, let it suffice to say that fallacious provincialism is present whenever a party engages in double standards with moral and ethical principles. The most prevalent one is where they give a free pass or promotion of various sorts to those who are their positional allies while either not giving a free pass or condemning the same things in those who are not their positional allies that they let those who agree with them get away with.{2}
A lot more could be said on the matter than that but that is all I presently have time for.
Notes:
{1] I keep the audio post links in the archive on the long shot that the company who now stores them will eventually keep their promise and allow access to them.
{2} For those who recall various postings in the archives which have taken issue with these kinds of double standards, this is one of the fallacies at the heart of my criticisms of not a few either rationally oblivious or profoundly disingenuous partisans.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Points to Ponder:
No talk of peace, justice, truth, or virtue is complete without a clear understanding that certain individuals, movements, and nations must be met with measured force, however much we might prefer to deal with them peacefully or pleasantly. Without force, many will not talk seriously at all, and some not even then. Human, moral, and economic problems are greater today for the lack of adequate military force or, more often, for the failure to use it when necessary. [Fr. James V. Schall SJ]
No talk of peace, justice, truth, or virtue is complete without a clear understanding that certain individuals, movements, and nations must be met with measured force, however much we might prefer to deal with them peacefully or pleasantly. Without force, many will not talk seriously at all, and some not even then. Human, moral, and economic problems are greater today for the lack of adequate military force or, more often, for the failure to use it when necessary. [Fr. James V. Schall SJ]
Friday, April 11, 2008
"One From the Vault" Dept.
(On Atheism)
Originally this was drafted in December of 2006 as a short critique of someone else's writing in response to an atheist interlocuter but for some reason I cannot recall at the moment, it was never actually blogged.{1} I have made some redactions to the completed post as it was in the archives and decided to post it at this time for something I have had in the works for completing and posting for about five months now as a point of reference. Without further ado...
Now, I don't subscribe to the belief that religion is the only thing that makes people compelled to good behavior (although it's certainly true for some), but it does give people inner peace, serenity, enlightenment, and often things like creativity and clarity in thinking.
I would change "it does" to "it can." I know not a few theists who frankly are lousy thinkers. But yes, if one accepts as a certain foundational presupposition that there is Infinite Intelligence (in some form or another) it can definitely assist with creativity and clarity in thinking because it defines a point of reference from which one can operate from. And as I am wont to say at times "definitions are the tools of thought."
On the whole the piece you sent me reads fine except it did not seem to me that you challenged the atheist while trying to defend yourself from his assertions. The following threads from my weblog may be of assistance in this area:
Musings on Atheism (circa August 15, 2003)
Points to Ponder on Atheism By Dr. Art Sippo (circa August 14, 2003)
Ultimately, atheism is arbitrary as both Dr. Sippo and I note in various ways. Because to be an atheist is to have an operative presupposition in your thinking that something was created out of nothing. I remember really pissing off atheists at the infidels board about seven to eight years ago with pointing that out in various ways to a whole host of their presumed "arguments against God's existence." The beauty of it is that no matter how they slice it, that is what all of their attempts inexorably boil down to. I hope that helps.
Note:
{1} It was drafted on December 14, 2006 -a few days before the posting of this thread which was written at about the same time and pertaining to similar subject matter:
On Implicit Faith (circa December 16, 2006)
My best guess offhand (since I cannot remember) is that though both posts were similarly of a universal nature and covered some of the same elements that I viewed the above thread to be of greater service both generally as well as particularly at the time than this one. That is one possible reason and the only one I can think of offhand that explains it other than simply being so inundated with a variety of things that I forgot about it and more drafts in various stages of completion piled up after it and it got buried.
(On Atheism)
Originally this was drafted in December of 2006 as a short critique of someone else's writing in response to an atheist interlocuter but for some reason I cannot recall at the moment, it was never actually blogged.{1} I have made some redactions to the completed post as it was in the archives and decided to post it at this time for something I have had in the works for completing and posting for about five months now as a point of reference. Without further ado...
Now, I don't subscribe to the belief that religion is the only thing that makes people compelled to good behavior (although it's certainly true for some), but it does give people inner peace, serenity, enlightenment, and often things like creativity and clarity in thinking.
I would change "it does" to "it can." I know not a few theists who frankly are lousy thinkers. But yes, if one accepts as a certain foundational presupposition that there is Infinite Intelligence (in some form or another) it can definitely assist with creativity and clarity in thinking because it defines a point of reference from which one can operate from. And as I am wont to say at times "definitions are the tools of thought."
On the whole the piece you sent me reads fine except it did not seem to me that you challenged the atheist while trying to defend yourself from his assertions. The following threads from my weblog may be of assistance in this area:
Musings on Atheism (circa August 15, 2003)
Points to Ponder on Atheism By Dr. Art Sippo (circa August 14, 2003)
Ultimately, atheism is arbitrary as both Dr. Sippo and I note in various ways. Because to be an atheist is to have an operative presupposition in your thinking that something was created out of nothing. I remember really pissing off atheists at the infidels board about seven to eight years ago with pointing that out in various ways to a whole host of their presumed "arguments against God's existence." The beauty of it is that no matter how they slice it, that is what all of their attempts inexorably boil down to. I hope that helps.
Note:
{1} It was drafted on December 14, 2006 -a few days before the posting of this thread which was written at about the same time and pertaining to similar subject matter:
On Implicit Faith (circa December 16, 2006)
My best guess offhand (since I cannot remember) is that though both posts were similarly of a universal nature and covered some of the same elements that I viewed the above thread to be of greater service both generally as well as particularly at the time than this one. That is one possible reason and the only one I can think of offhand that explains it other than simply being so inundated with a variety of things that I forgot about it and more drafts in various stages of completion piled up after it and it got buried.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Points to Ponder:
I cannot help in pondering the subject of war come to any conclusion except that if it was ever outlawed, if those who are the most manic of the so-called "peacemakers" among us were to actually achieve their intended aim, that we will have forever enthroned an unstoppable totalitarianism on the world. We need to always have the option of what Chesterton called "the sacred right of insurrection" if we are to have a modicum of restoring societies from the tyranny of legal perversion by bureaucratic termites and whores who see mankind as clay for their own sociological "moulding." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 16, 2005)]
I cannot help in pondering the subject of war come to any conclusion except that if it was ever outlawed, if those who are the most manic of the so-called "peacemakers" among us were to actually achieve their intended aim, that we will have forever enthroned an unstoppable totalitarianism on the world. We need to always have the option of what Chesterton called "the sacred right of insurrection" if we are to have a modicum of restoring societies from the tyranny of legal perversion by bureaucratic termites and whores who see mankind as clay for their own sociological "moulding." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 16, 2005)]
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Mexico reconquers California? Absolut drinks to that!
And that my friends is why I will not drink Absolut vodka anytime soon -even going so far as to ask every place I go where vodka is served what they are serving.
Also, the presumed apology of Absolut does not change my mind an iota -particularly since this supposed "absolut world" happens to coincide with an actual movement to try and achieve what that map outlines. Pardon your humble servant if he does not find this matter so amusing.
As for the rest, I summarized it last year in a post which I will include in a footnote{1} and that is all I plan to say on it for now.
Note:
{1} On President Bush and the Southern Border (circa June 23, 2007)
And that my friends is why I will not drink Absolut vodka anytime soon -even going so far as to ask every place I go where vodka is served what they are serving.
Also, the presumed apology of Absolut does not change my mind an iota -particularly since this supposed "absolut world" happens to coincide with an actual movement to try and achieve what that map outlines. Pardon your humble servant if he does not find this matter so amusing.
As for the rest, I summarized it last year in a post which I will include in a footnote{1} and that is all I plan to say on it for now.
Note:
{1} On President Bush and the Southern Border (circa June 23, 2007)
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Points to Ponder:
(On "Fark")
(On "Fark")
Fark is what fills space when mass media runs out of news. It's not news, it's Fark. Fark is supposed to look like news... but it's not news.
There is an ancient (supposed) Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times." Let's face it, interesting times suck. Whenever Mass Media is really fulfilling its intended purpose, generally something bad is going on. Wars, blown elections, bad weather, you name it -- when people need to know something, it's probably because it's likely to kill them. We'd be much better off living in non-interesting times.
This presents a problem for Mass Media, however, when we are not living in interesting times. This has been further compounded by the advent of twenty-four hour news channels and the Internet as a news source. Back in the days when TV news concentrated most of its resources on one half-hour blocks of news, finding material to fill the time slot wasn't difficult. Nowadays cable news networks have to scramble to have something to talk about for twenty-four hours a day, even when nothing of important is going on. Sales departments are still selling advertisements, after all. Mass Media can't just run content made entirely of ads (with the possible exception of the Home Shopping Network). Something has to fill the space.
Over the years Mass Media has developed several methods of filling this space. No one teaches this in journalism school; odds are Mass Media itself hasn't given much thought to the process. It's a practice honed over the years by editors and publishers, verbally passed down from one generation to the next. They're not entirely aware they're doing it, although the media folks who read advance copies of this manuscript all had the same reaction: "I've been saying we should stop doing this for YEARS." [Drew Curtis]
God rest your soul Charlton Heston and thank you for your contributions to humanity
Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord and my Thy perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace with all the souls of the faithful departed through the mercy of God. Amen.
Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord and my Thy perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace with all the souls of the faithful departed through the mercy of God. Amen.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing:
As I have a few minutes to cover some things on the blog, here are some threads for your consideration along with some off the cuff musings on my part. Without further ado...
How the Democrats Could Lose (Richard Cohen)
While I could point out a few areas where I do not concur with his outlook, suffice to say Richard Cohen does point out what some did not seem to realize but what your host always has: the Democrats can lose in November. I will go further and say they could also lose one or more houses of congress as well even if that does not appear at this point to be likely. But a year is an eternity in politics so we have 2/3rds of an eternity until it is all decided and a lot could happen.
If McCain vs. Obama, 28% of Clinton Backers Go for McCain, If McCain vs. Clinton, 19% of Obama backers go for McCain (Gallup)
For those who think that McCain may lose the votes of a sizable chunk of self-identified conservatives, they would do well to consider the defection factor amongst supporters of either Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama. And with more Clinton supporters willing to defect to McCain if Obama is nominated{1}, those who think Obama would stomp a mudhole in McCain in November would do well to...aw heck, you are right folks, it is all over!!! Heck, it is so already over that you Obama supporters need not even turn out and vote at all -it will be that much of a rout!!!
But returning to your regularly scheduled blogging, we have this little tidbit:
Clinton backers warn Pelosi on superdelegate rift (Reuters)
The plot thickens folks...now Sen. Clinton's supporters are telling Speaker Pelosi to "butt out" essentially. Well, that is not how the article put it of course:
A group of prominent Hillary Clinton donors sent a letter to House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday asking her to retract her comments on superdelegates and stay out of the Democratic fight over their role in the presidential race.
That is basically a nice way of telling Speaker Pelosi to shut up. I hope Speaker Pelosi makes it clear to them that she intends to speak her mind on the matter at hand. And that is not all...
Barack Obama Throws Grandma Under the Bus (Ben Shapiro)
This one is too rich for a mere small snippet to deal with so here is a larger appetizer:
Barack Obama will throw his own grandmother under the bus if it helps him get elected -- and he has. After the mainstream media finally caught on to the fact that Obama attended a black radical church for two decades, Obama made a speech in which he compared his America-hating pastor to the white grandmother who raised him. "I can no more disown (the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.) than I can disown my white grandmother, a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe." Also, a woman Obama will knife if it helps him in the polls.
Here's the story of Obama's "racist" grandmother: She brought up a daughter who married a black man, then raised their mixed-race son when her daughter took off. Here's her supposed Bull Connor moment: Obama rips on her in his bestseller, "Dreams From My Father," for harboring fears about an aggressive black panhandler who accosted her at a bus stop. Not exactly the stuff of which Simon Legrees are made.
Here's the story of Jeremiah Wright Jr.: He was Obama's spiritual mentor for 20 years. He also says 9/11 was a case of "America's chickens … coming home to roost." He thinks the U.S. government created AIDS and distributed it in the black community. He believes America sentences crack cocaine dealers more harshly than regular cocaine dealers because of racism. God, he avers, should damn America, not bless it. He is, in short, a tremendously racist, despicably anti-American rabble-rouser.
For Obama to attend Wright's church is disgusting enough. For him to compare his grandmother to Wright is simply sickening.
Schapiro forgot to mention that Wright has claimed that Israel (and presumably the US or with out assistance) created some sort of "ethnic bomb" to kill "black and Arabs." Oh well, with the sort of space limitations with periodical and online essay publications, one must pick and choose of course.{2} Moving on we have this little tidbit from Debbie Schlussel on Sean Hannity:
Vannity, You Look Great in Brown: Sean Hannity Must Come Clean on White Supremacist Neo-Nazi Friend Hal Turner; Incriminating Tapes For Sale (Debbie Schlussel)
It is probably the case that many would presume that I have been some major promoter of Sean Hannity over the years because on several subjects he and I are to a degree simpatico. But on reviewing my archive briefly, I found only nine references to Hannity in it and they were covered in this thread earlier in the week.{3} But having done those things, here is my view on Hannity and as is my wont I am consistent:
--Sean Hannity if he has cozied up to white supremicists is a scumbag and deserves to lose all credibility. PERIOD. Notice I said if.
I have not looked into this matter and do not intend to but that is my position and it is not going to change. He certainly is a hypocrite (again, if the assertions against him are true) for speaking out against Jeremiah Wright's abominable statements{4} considering that affiliation on his part. If those assertions are false, then even those who are not fans of Hannity's should in principle stand up for him. Likewise, if they are true, his fans should in principle stand against him. That is at bottom what it means to be moral and ethical: avoiding double standards and recognizing the same principles apply across the board, regardless of whom they help or harm.
Notes:
{1} Something I would not have foreseen happening admittedly but this election year continues in so many ways (in this area) to go against the norm so in that respect, it should not surprise.
{2} That is the nature of writing for those mediums of course.
{3} I decided to compile and post that thread prior to finishing and posting this one for a ready reference should that issue crop up in the future.
{4} "Everything's AlWright" Dept. (circa March 29, 2008)
Miscellaneous Mutterings on Barack Obama and Double Standards (circa March 21, 2008)
As I have a few minutes to cover some things on the blog, here are some threads for your consideration along with some off the cuff musings on my part. Without further ado...
How the Democrats Could Lose (Richard Cohen)
While I could point out a few areas where I do not concur with his outlook, suffice to say Richard Cohen does point out what some did not seem to realize but what your host always has: the Democrats can lose in November. I will go further and say they could also lose one or more houses of congress as well even if that does not appear at this point to be likely. But a year is an eternity in politics so we have 2/3rds of an eternity until it is all decided and a lot could happen.
If McCain vs. Obama, 28% of Clinton Backers Go for McCain, If McCain vs. Clinton, 19% of Obama backers go for McCain (Gallup)
For those who think that McCain may lose the votes of a sizable chunk of self-identified conservatives, they would do well to consider the defection factor amongst supporters of either Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama. And with more Clinton supporters willing to defect to McCain if Obama is nominated{1}, those who think Obama would stomp a mudhole in McCain in November would do well to...aw heck, you are right folks, it is all over!!! Heck, it is so already over that you Obama supporters need not even turn out and vote at all -it will be that much of a rout!!!
But returning to your regularly scheduled blogging, we have this little tidbit:
Clinton backers warn Pelosi on superdelegate rift (Reuters)
The plot thickens folks...now Sen. Clinton's supporters are telling Speaker Pelosi to "butt out" essentially. Well, that is not how the article put it of course:
A group of prominent Hillary Clinton donors sent a letter to House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday asking her to retract her comments on superdelegates and stay out of the Democratic fight over their role in the presidential race.
That is basically a nice way of telling Speaker Pelosi to shut up. I hope Speaker Pelosi makes it clear to them that she intends to speak her mind on the matter at hand. And that is not all...
Barack Obama Throws Grandma Under the Bus (Ben Shapiro)
This one is too rich for a mere small snippet to deal with so here is a larger appetizer:
Barack Obama will throw his own grandmother under the bus if it helps him get elected -- and he has. After the mainstream media finally caught on to the fact that Obama attended a black radical church for two decades, Obama made a speech in which he compared his America-hating pastor to the white grandmother who raised him. "I can no more disown (the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.) than I can disown my white grandmother, a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe." Also, a woman Obama will knife if it helps him in the polls.
Here's the story of Obama's "racist" grandmother: She brought up a daughter who married a black man, then raised their mixed-race son when her daughter took off. Here's her supposed Bull Connor moment: Obama rips on her in his bestseller, "Dreams From My Father," for harboring fears about an aggressive black panhandler who accosted her at a bus stop. Not exactly the stuff of which Simon Legrees are made.
Here's the story of Jeremiah Wright Jr.: He was Obama's spiritual mentor for 20 years. He also says 9/11 was a case of "America's chickens … coming home to roost." He thinks the U.S. government created AIDS and distributed it in the black community. He believes America sentences crack cocaine dealers more harshly than regular cocaine dealers because of racism. God, he avers, should damn America, not bless it. He is, in short, a tremendously racist, despicably anti-American rabble-rouser.
For Obama to attend Wright's church is disgusting enough. For him to compare his grandmother to Wright is simply sickening.
Schapiro forgot to mention that Wright has claimed that Israel (and presumably the US or with out assistance) created some sort of "ethnic bomb" to kill "black and Arabs." Oh well, with the sort of space limitations with periodical and online essay publications, one must pick and choose of course.{2} Moving on we have this little tidbit from Debbie Schlussel on Sean Hannity:
Vannity, You Look Great in Brown: Sean Hannity Must Come Clean on White Supremacist Neo-Nazi Friend Hal Turner; Incriminating Tapes For Sale (Debbie Schlussel)
It is probably the case that many would presume that I have been some major promoter of Sean Hannity over the years because on several subjects he and I are to a degree simpatico. But on reviewing my archive briefly, I found only nine references to Hannity in it and they were covered in this thread earlier in the week.{3} But having done those things, here is my view on Hannity and as is my wont I am consistent:
--Sean Hannity if he has cozied up to white supremicists is a scumbag and deserves to lose all credibility. PERIOD. Notice I said if.
I have not looked into this matter and do not intend to but that is my position and it is not going to change. He certainly is a hypocrite (again, if the assertions against him are true) for speaking out against Jeremiah Wright's abominable statements{4} considering that affiliation on his part. If those assertions are false, then even those who are not fans of Hannity's should in principle stand up for him. Likewise, if they are true, his fans should in principle stand against him. That is at bottom what it means to be moral and ethical: avoiding double standards and recognizing the same principles apply across the board, regardless of whom they help or harm.
Notes:
{1} Something I would not have foreseen happening admittedly but this election year continues in so many ways (in this area) to go against the norm so in that respect, it should not surprise.
{2} That is the nature of writing for those mediums of course.
{3} I decided to compile and post that thread prior to finishing and posting this one for a ready reference should that issue crop up in the future.
{4} "Everything's AlWright" Dept. (circa March 29, 2008)
Miscellaneous Mutterings on Barack Obama and Double Standards (circa March 21, 2008)
For those tuning in who want something more than a weblog posting on weblog reformatting, I doubt this subject is going to come up again any time soon. Nonetheless...
The 200 space limitation on post tag length really has been an annoyance to your host because we like to utilize a variety of primary and secondary tagging patterns{1} at this weblog for easier classification of threads thereof. And with such limitations, if a post is found to have a glitch in it that needs fixing -either a formatting one, a spelling one, or something similar- we then have to manually re-add some of the tags after it is published to insure that it reads as it did prior to being corrected.
Upon things hitting critical mass in that area, and particularly since the weblog reformatting may well mean various archive posts may need to be republished to correct formatting or font colour glitches that developed with the new system, it became evident to me that the post tags in general needed to be tagged with shorter titles to minimize the sort of hassles that this sort of situation can involve. So without further ado, here are the post tags that were revised with the revised titles below the originals in sequence. First a few of the primary post category titles:
Dialogues/Mailbag Discussions
Dialogues and/or Mailbag
Miscellaneous Threads/Briefer Musings
Misc. Threads/Brief Musings
Lyrics/Poetry/Haikus
Lyrics/Poetry
Lyrics/Poetry/Haikus/Plus Musings
Lyrics/Poetry/Musings
Stray Links of Interest
Interesting Links
And then various secondary post tags in no particular order:
Capitalism/Commerce/Economics/Trade
Business/Economics
The John Roberts Court
The Roberts Court
The Fundamental Rights of Man
Fundamental Rights
Politics/Elections/Sociopolitical/Geopolitical
Pol/Elect/Sociopol/Geopol
National Security
Nat. Security
JunkYard Blog -The Bryan Preston Years/Bryan Preston
Old JYB/Bryan Preston
Perversion of Law/Government Theft
Perversion (Law/Gov.)
President Bill Clinton
Pres. Bill Clinton
President Ronald Reagan
Pres. Reagan
President George W. Bush
Pres. Bush
US Constitution/Founding Fathers/Federalist Papers
US Constitution/Founders/The Federalist
War in General/War on Terror/Iraq War
War/WOT/Etc.
Beer/Wine/Various Spirits
Beer/Wine/Spirits
Barack Hussein Obama
B. H. Obama
Hillary Rodham Clinton
H. R. Clinton
I also added a tag for posts involving President Bush's father. As the current president's tag reads "Pres. Bush", the one for his father reads "Pres. Bush Sr." While there may be some additional changes along these lines over time, I doubt there will any sort of significant adjustment of a whole host of category titles as there was in recent days which this posting drew attention to.
Note:
{1} Basically, every posting has some kind of primary post tag on it and the purpose of this is to insure that posts can be categorized without overlapping when it comes to primary descriptive tags. The secondary tags are simply a further notation of particular features to the post itself and in this area, overlap is basically a given. This format makes it so I do not have to do the sorts of arduous weblog updates anymore that were standard on this weblog from its founding through the last day of 2006: both lack of time as well as a desire to not do that anymore contributed to the post tagging approach we undertook last year even if it has been tweaked in minor ways since then.
The 200 space limitation on post tag length really has been an annoyance to your host because we like to utilize a variety of primary and secondary tagging patterns{1} at this weblog for easier classification of threads thereof. And with such limitations, if a post is found to have a glitch in it that needs fixing -either a formatting one, a spelling one, or something similar- we then have to manually re-add some of the tags after it is published to insure that it reads as it did prior to being corrected.
Upon things hitting critical mass in that area, and particularly since the weblog reformatting may well mean various archive posts may need to be republished to correct formatting or font colour glitches that developed with the new system, it became evident to me that the post tags in general needed to be tagged with shorter titles to minimize the sort of hassles that this sort of situation can involve. So without further ado, here are the post tags that were revised with the revised titles below the originals in sequence. First a few of the primary post category titles:
Dialogues/Mailbag Discussions
Dialogues and/or Mailbag
Miscellaneous Threads/Briefer Musings
Misc. Threads/Brief Musings
Lyrics/Poetry/Haikus
Lyrics/Poetry
Lyrics/Poetry/Haikus/Plus Musings
Lyrics/Poetry/Musings
Stray Links of Interest
Interesting Links
And then various secondary post tags in no particular order:
Capitalism/Commerce/Economics
Business/Economics
The John Roberts Court
The Roberts Court
The Fundamental Rights of Man
Fundamental Rights
Politics/Elections/Sociopolitic
Pol/Elect/Sociopol/Geopol
National Security
Nat. Security
JunkYard Blog -The Bryan Preston Years/Bryan Preston
Old JYB/Bryan Preston
Perversion of Law/Government Theft
Perversion (Law/Gov.)
President Bill Clinton
Pres. Bill Clinton
President Ronald Reagan
Pres. Reagan
President George W. Bush
Pres. Bush
US Constitution/Founding Fathers/Federalist Papers
US Constitution/Founders/The Federalist
War in General/War on Terror/Iraq War
War/WOT/Etc.
Beer/Wine/Various Spirits
Beer/Wine/Spirits
Barack Hussein Obama
B. H. Obama
Hillary Rodham Clinton
H. R. Clinton
I also added a tag for posts involving President Bush's father. As the current president's tag reads "Pres. Bush", the one for his father reads "Pres. Bush Sr." While there may be some additional changes along these lines over time, I doubt there will any sort of significant adjustment of a whole host of category titles as there was in recent days which this posting drew attention to.
Note:
{1} Basically, every posting has some kind of primary post tag on it and the purpose of this is to insure that posts can be categorized without overlapping when it comes to primary descriptive tags. The secondary tags are simply a further notation of particular features to the post itself and in this area, overlap is basically a given. This format makes it so I do not have to do the sorts of arduous weblog updates anymore that were standard on this weblog from its founding through the last day of 2006: both lack of time as well as a desire to not do that anymore contributed to the post tagging approach we undertook last year even if it has been tweaked in minor ways since then.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
A Weblog Archive Collection of References to Sean Hannity:
(Aka a Rerum Novarum Recapitulation Thread)
My reason for posting this thread is to avoid cluttering up the thread that will follow it with these references and my notes on each. Anyway, here are all the mentions in the archive of this humble weblog of Sean Hannity in order from oldest to newest. Without further ado...
I have not watched Hannity and Colmes for a while but it is nice to hear that Sean Hannity did the Ash Wednesday show with ashes on his forehead. Now I realize that the Gospel for Wednesday speaks against acting as a Pharisee and I also realize that the homily I posted from Fr. Reginald talked about the significance of wearing the ashes. From most appearances it would appear wrong for Sean Hannity to have done what he did. But in this case I believe he was right...
I am not sure if this is what Mr. Hannity did but frankly it is nice to see a Catholic in the media who by all appearances (and by what he says) takes his faith seriously. And I am sure that for at least one day Alan had a fairly easy day because Sean was probably less inclined to slam his arguments. But not having seen the show I could well be mistaken. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 13, 2003)]
I will readily admit that when those words were written, I had a fairly high view of Sean Hannity and listened semi-regularly to his radio program. With the advent of Michael Medved to KTTH and their radio launch in January of 2003, I gravitated to that station as they had many of the radio hosts I had listened to in previous years. But at this time, I was still listening somewhat regularly to Sean Hannity on the radio and watching him on television.
Fox News has picked up Dennis Miller to be a regular contributor. He'll start out doing a weekly gig on Hannity and Colmes, but look for him to get a show of his own before long. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 21, 2003) quoting from The JunkYard BLOG]
The above quote was from a JunkYard BLOG (JYB) update of the sort we used to do somewhat regularly on this humble weblog.{1} My listening to Hannity by this point had gone into significant decline compared to in the two previous years.
I remember when Mike Siegel was a flaming liberal on 1090, before Rush Limbaugh's show jumped the shark{1} when Alan Combs (of Hannity and Colmes) used to have a noon show on KVI...
Sean Hannity at noon is up against Michael Medved - I like both shows but I listen more to Medved. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 14, 2003)]
I had started sometime before those words were written listening much more often to Michael Medved's radio program than Sean Hannity's. The reasons were varied and if the subject of talk radio is raised in the future on this weblog{2}, I may well explain some of the reasons why.
I agree with Sean Hannity that she can't win nationally. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 30, 2003) quoting from an emailer]
That was a comment about Senator Hillary Clinton from an email dialogue posted to this weblog. I am not sure if by that point I had stopped listening to Hannity on the radio completely or if I was still dabbling on occasion{3} but if I was still listening at that point, it was not that often.
Limbaugh's show originated four or five years earlier in Sacramento on a single radio station before it was launched nationally on fifty-six stations in 1989. Since then, he has gone onto be over six hundred stations (including Armed Forces Radio) and accumulate an audience of twenty odd million a week. And with Limbaugh's success came a new format for conservative voices which many others (i.e. Ken Hamblin, Michael Reagan, Michael Savage, Michael Medved, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, etc) were to join making this the first significant challenge to major media. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 16, 2004)]
The above was a footnote where I was noting something on conservative talk radio in general and mentioned Hannity in the mix of a bunch of other radio hosts -some I liked and listened to (either at that time or in the past) and others I did not (either then or previously).
I was still at that point giving Bill O'Reilly the old college try but my patience was wearing out on him as someone I could listen to regularly. By that point, I had for a variety of reasons stopped listening to Hannity on the radio but I did still watch Hannity and Colmes on FOX occasionally at that time.
It bears noting here that those who share certain elements of a common view (as Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, and Novak do) will tend to have similar views on issues. As far as "tow[ing] the line", they do so with the Republicans much the way counterparts in the mainstream media generally do for the Democrats. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 20, 2004)]
That was a response to someone else who mentioned Sean Hannity and a bunch of conservative-minded people. The idea that they all "towed the line" or that their listeners did was what got a response from me -as I had (and have) disagreements with all of them in some areas- not any intention to write on any of them individually at that time.
Few if any of us actually listen to Sean Hannity and at least some of us do not particularly care for Bill O'Reilly. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 2, 2005)]
By that point, I was not only not listening to Hannity on the radio (and rarely watching him on television) but I had had it with O'Reilly overall too -though the audio of it does not seem to exist anymore{4} I had noted this on the weblog as of seven months prior to those words being written.
That's nearly a word-for-word exchange that took place on Hannity today--him trying in vain to get her to answer a simple question, her letting those questions pass between her ears as she lurched from one idiotic talking point to another. I kept urging Hannity to just hang up on her, ban her from his show for life, etc, but of course I was only talking to myself. And he kept her on the show and let her keep spouting enemy bullet points and nonsense .[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 16, 2005) quoting from The JunkYard BLOG]
That was a quote from a posting to the JYB on one of update threads in years past. I commented on the overall factor being referenced there but not on the mention of Hannity personally.
If you were paying attention at all, you would know that I am hardly a fan of President Bush's at all. Nor do I care much for Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity as a rule. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 12, 2006)]
I doubt I have listened to more than an hour of Sean Hannity's radio show in the past four years. That comment was in response to someone who presumed based on stereotyping that I must be a fan of President Bush, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity. Nonetheless, I only mentioned Hannity to respond to the stereotype being perpetrated -having long since stopped listening to him on the radio and watching him on television.
My reason for noting this recapitulation of Rerum Novarum archive references to Sean Hannity will be made evident in the coming days.
Notes:
{1} Back in the days when Bryan Preston was the proprietor of that weblog as he was prior to about late 2005.
{2} Either on my own initiative to do so or (more likely) if a reader emails me on the subject and I happen in the mood to talk a bit about it.
{3} It is hard to remember with precise dates when I stopped listening to certain programs on the radio or watching them on television.
{4} I would like to find out that all the audios recorded with audioblogger on this weblog between mid 2004 and late 2006 are still accessible somewhere on the web -but thus far am not encouraged that they are unfortunately.
(Aka a Rerum Novarum Recapitulation Thread)
My reason for posting this thread is to avoid cluttering up the thread that will follow it with these references and my notes on each. Anyway, here are all the mentions in the archive of this humble weblog of Sean Hannity in order from oldest to newest. Without further ado...
I have not watched Hannity and Colmes for a while but it is nice to hear that Sean Hannity did the Ash Wednesday show with ashes on his forehead. Now I realize that the Gospel for Wednesday speaks against acting as a Pharisee and I also realize that the homily I posted from Fr. Reginald talked about the significance of wearing the ashes. From most appearances it would appear wrong for Sean Hannity to have done what he did. But in this case I believe he was right...
I am not sure if this is what Mr. Hannity did but frankly it is nice to see a Catholic in the media who by all appearances (and by what he says) takes his faith seriously. And I am sure that for at least one day Alan had a fairly easy day because Sean was probably less inclined to slam his arguments. But not having seen the show I could well be mistaken. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 13, 2003)]
I will readily admit that when those words were written, I had a fairly high view of Sean Hannity and listened semi-regularly to his radio program. With the advent of Michael Medved to KTTH and their radio launch in January of 2003, I gravitated to that station as they had many of the radio hosts I had listened to in previous years. But at this time, I was still listening somewhat regularly to Sean Hannity on the radio and watching him on television.
Fox News has picked up Dennis Miller to be a regular contributor. He'll start out doing a weekly gig on Hannity and Colmes, but look for him to get a show of his own before long. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 21, 2003) quoting from The JunkYard BLOG]
The above quote was from a JunkYard BLOG (JYB) update of the sort we used to do somewhat regularly on this humble weblog.{1} My listening to Hannity by this point had gone into significant decline compared to in the two previous years.
I remember when Mike Siegel was a flaming liberal on 1090, before Rush Limbaugh's show jumped the shark{1} when Alan Combs (of Hannity and Colmes) used to have a noon show on KVI...
Sean Hannity at noon is up against Michael Medved - I like both shows but I listen more to Medved. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 14, 2003)]
I had started sometime before those words were written listening much more often to Michael Medved's radio program than Sean Hannity's. The reasons were varied and if the subject of talk radio is raised in the future on this weblog{2}, I may well explain some of the reasons why.
I agree with Sean Hannity that she can't win nationally. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 30, 2003) quoting from an emailer]
That was a comment about Senator Hillary Clinton from an email dialogue posted to this weblog. I am not sure if by that point I had stopped listening to Hannity on the radio completely or if I was still dabbling on occasion{3} but if I was still listening at that point, it was not that often.
Limbaugh's show originated four or five years earlier in Sacramento on a single radio station before it was launched nationally on fifty-six stations in 1989. Since then, he has gone onto be over six hundred stations (including Armed Forces Radio) and accumulate an audience of twenty odd million a week. And with Limbaugh's success came a new format for conservative voices which many others (i.e. Ken Hamblin, Michael Reagan, Michael Savage, Michael Medved, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, etc) were to join making this the first significant challenge to major media. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 16, 2004)]
The above was a footnote where I was noting something on conservative talk radio in general and mentioned Hannity in the mix of a bunch of other radio hosts -some I liked and listened to (either at that time or in the past) and others I did not (either then or previously).
I was still at that point giving Bill O'Reilly the old college try but my patience was wearing out on him as someone I could listen to regularly. By that point, I had for a variety of reasons stopped listening to Hannity on the radio but I did still watch Hannity and Colmes on FOX occasionally at that time.
It bears noting here that those who share certain elements of a common view (as Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, and Novak do) will tend to have similar views on issues. As far as "tow[ing] the line", they do so with the Republicans much the way counterparts in the mainstream media generally do for the Democrats. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 20, 2004)]
That was a response to someone else who mentioned Sean Hannity and a bunch of conservative-minded people. The idea that they all "towed the line" or that their listeners did was what got a response from me -as I had (and have) disagreements with all of them in some areas- not any intention to write on any of them individually at that time.
Few if any of us actually listen to Sean Hannity and at least some of us do not particularly care for Bill O'Reilly. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 2, 2005)]
By that point, I was not only not listening to Hannity on the radio (and rarely watching him on television) but I had had it with O'Reilly overall too -though the audio of it does not seem to exist anymore{4} I had noted this on the weblog as of seven months prior to those words being written.
That's nearly a word-for-word exchange that took place on Hannity today--him trying in vain to get her to answer a simple question, her letting those questions pass between her ears as she lurched from one idiotic talking point to another. I kept urging Hannity to just hang up on her, ban her from his show for life, etc, but of course I was only talking to myself. And he kept her on the show and let her keep spouting enemy bullet points and nonsense .[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 16, 2005) quoting from The JunkYard BLOG]
That was a quote from a posting to the JYB on one of update threads in years past. I commented on the overall factor being referenced there but not on the mention of Hannity personally.
If you were paying attention at all, you would know that I am hardly a fan of President Bush's at all. Nor do I care much for Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity as a rule. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 12, 2006)]
I doubt I have listened to more than an hour of Sean Hannity's radio show in the past four years. That comment was in response to someone who presumed based on stereotyping that I must be a fan of President Bush, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity. Nonetheless, I only mentioned Hannity to respond to the stereotype being perpetrated -having long since stopped listening to him on the radio and watching him on television.
My reason for noting this recapitulation of Rerum Novarum archive references to Sean Hannity will be made evident in the coming days.
Notes:
{1} Back in the days when Bryan Preston was the proprietor of that weblog as he was prior to about late 2005.
{2} Either on my own initiative to do so or (more likely) if a reader emails me on the subject and I happen in the mood to talk a bit about it.
{3} It is hard to remember with precise dates when I stopped listening to certain programs on the radio or watching them on television.
{4} I would like to find out that all the audios recorded with audioblogger on this weblog between mid 2004 and late 2006 are still accessible somewhere on the web -but thus far am not encouraged that they are unfortunately.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Still working on the template here and there...however I have moved from the dabbling I mentioned late last night to a more substantive approach and have found myself stumped. If anyone reading this knows how to widen these blog template boxes a bit, it would be most appreciated if they could kindly fill me in. The technology on weblogs has changed since the last major structural overhaul which was back in 2002. (I refer to setting the boundaries of the type and the boxes including the main area and the side margins, not changing colours of font or background or adding links to the side margin.) I also operated all my adjustments over the years from within the boundaries of an old template called the Sandbox even if I completely revamped it in colour and all other parameters.
As of yesterday, this is a completely different template format and while I have imported features from the older template (including font colours, background colour, various links, etc) I nonetheless have found a nut I am not able to crack format wise. The problem with this template is that rounded corners feature. I need the main body of the weblog to be larger -say 50% or so- but when I do that, the type spills outside the rounded corner structure.
Basically I either want to widen the rounded corner structure or completely remove it from the template. But at the same time, I do not want to mess up the weblog presentation. In short, any formatting gurus out there your assistance on this would be most appreciated.
As of yesterday, this is a completely different template format and while I have imported features from the older template (including font colours, background colour, various links, etc) I nonetheless have found a nut I am not able to crack format wise. The problem with this template is that rounded corners feature. I need the main body of the weblog to be larger -say 50% or so- but when I do that, the type spills outside the rounded corner structure.
Basically I either want to widen the rounded corner structure or completely remove it from the template. But at the same time, I do not want to mess up the weblog presentation. In short, any formatting gurus out there your assistance on this would be most appreciated.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Having just finished a grueling elliptical workout about an hour ago (1750 calories burned and a gallon of water consumed in about two and a half hours) I decided to tinker a bit with the template of this weblog. Which reminds me...
For those who may have logged in and thought they were on the wrong site, rest assured this is Rerum Novarum. I am dabbling a bit with the template for the first time in a few years and have saved the original template to more than one private weblog for easy accessing should for some reason I decide to return to it. Certainly some of the features of the previous weblog template will be added to this one should I decide to continue along this pathway. Otherwise, it will revert back to what it has been for the past three odd years.
The various links and the like should be added later today after I wake up and have a few spare moments. But until that time, talk with you later.
For those who may have logged in and thought they were on the wrong site, rest assured this is Rerum Novarum. I am dabbling a bit with the template for the first time in a few years and have saved the original template to more than one private weblog for easy accessing should for some reason I decide to return to it. Certainly some of the features of the previous weblog template will be added to this one should I decide to continue along this pathway. Otherwise, it will revert back to what it has been for the past three odd years.
The various links and the like should be added later today after I wake up and have a few spare moments. But until that time, talk with you later.
"Everything's AlWright" Dept.
(Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing on Jeremiah Wright)
Having already put in my own two bits on the matter of Jeremiah Wright and the Obama double standard, the following is a sequence of threads I happened to run across from others who have made similar notations on the matter. Without further ado...
Wright Connection Fatally Undermines Obama's Central Theme (David Limbaugh)
David summarizes well the point that I made in my own treatment of this matter in the following parts:
We must recognize the double standard that liberals typically apply to immunize themselves from accountability for bigotry. When the remotest connection can be inferred between a conservative and a bigoted supporter, there is always hell to pay. No excuses are permitted. Guilt attaches -- not even by so much as true association but by passive receipt of an endorsement from anyone the left believes to have bigoted views. Liberals, on the other hand, can be overtly racist toward conservative blacks like Condoleezza Rice and Clarence Thomas and earn accolades rather than condemnation. And in Obama's case, we have more than passive receipt of an endorsement. We have more than guilt by casual association.
This is the reason I have at times been unsparing of those who would create double standards for "their own" that they will not allow for those who are not of "their own."
The bottom line is that we either judge whether something is or is not moral or ethical on the action itself or else we do so based on who commits the action. Only the former is truly capable of allowing us any sort of viable measure while the latter is ultimately worthless. Principles and ethics are either objective or they are not and woe to those who would presume that actions are good or evil based on who says or does something rather than on the intrinsic nature of the respective statement or action.
Geraldine Ferraro: Wright a "Racist Bigot" (Ed Morrissey of HotAir)
It is probably a rare situation when I agree with Geraldine Ferraro on anything{1} but on this matter, we are to a good extent quite simpatico.
An Elegant Farce (Victor Davis Hanson)
Insightful as usual from VDH. This bit in particular is worth noting in brief:
[T]o Obama, the postmodernist, context is everything. We all have eccentric and flamboyant pastors like Wright with whom we disagree. And words, in his case, don’t quite mean what we think; unspoken intent and angst, not voiced hatred, are what matters more.
Rather than account for his relationship with a hate-monger, Obama will enlighten you, as your teacher, why you are either confused or too ill-intended to ask him to disassociate himself from Wright.
The Obama apologia was a “conversation” about moral equivalence...
Obama is right about one thing: We are losing yet another opportunity to talk honestly about race, to hold all Americans to the same standards of public ethics and morality, and to emphasize that no one gets a pass peddling vulgar racism, or enabling it by failing to disassociate himself from its source — not Rev. Wright, not even the eloquent, but now vapid, Barack Obama.
The double standard continues it seems...hopefully Obama will not get away with it but (unfortunately) I do not place much confidence in the intelligence of the general public on these matters. Oh and one more thing.
Even those who try to claim that Wright's comments should be viewed in the context of his entire speech{2} often accept uncritically the one-sided portrayal of events he gives.{3} Those who would want context to Wright's speech should demand that people like Wright provide the context to every historical event they seek to misrepresent in propagating their delusions of reality. Otherwise, the deck is not properly stacked and again excuses are made for Wright that are not made for others of an opposing viewpoint.
And the ethical aspects of double standards aside, I will be blunt: this smells of racism to me. Think about it: the idea that Rev. Wright deserves some kind of kid gloves treatment or "explanation" for his abominable comments of the sort that Senator Trent Lott and Don Imus did not get for far more benign (but still inexcusable) offenses is disgusting. And that is the bottom line really except I want to give props to Geraldine Ferraro for her principled stand on this issue.
Notes:
{1} And even rarer still that I would actually find out about such points of convergence.
{2} Yes, there have been those who have taken this approach to the issue at hand and it was both predictable as well as disgusting.
{3} If not for lack of time, I could go through that speech and debunk so many of the "historical portrayals" he makes of certain events and explain the context behind them.
(Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing on Jeremiah Wright)
Having already put in my own two bits on the matter of Jeremiah Wright and the Obama double standard, the following is a sequence of threads I happened to run across from others who have made similar notations on the matter. Without further ado...
Wright Connection Fatally Undermines Obama's Central Theme (David Limbaugh)
David summarizes well the point that I made in my own treatment of this matter in the following parts:
We must recognize the double standard that liberals typically apply to immunize themselves from accountability for bigotry. When the remotest connection can be inferred between a conservative and a bigoted supporter, there is always hell to pay. No excuses are permitted. Guilt attaches -- not even by so much as true association but by passive receipt of an endorsement from anyone the left believes to have bigoted views. Liberals, on the other hand, can be overtly racist toward conservative blacks like Condoleezza Rice and Clarence Thomas and earn accolades rather than condemnation. And in Obama's case, we have more than passive receipt of an endorsement. We have more than guilt by casual association.
This is the reason I have at times been unsparing of those who would create double standards for "their own" that they will not allow for those who are not of "their own."
The bottom line is that we either judge whether something is or is not moral or ethical on the action itself or else we do so based on who commits the action. Only the former is truly capable of allowing us any sort of viable measure while the latter is ultimately worthless. Principles and ethics are either objective or they are not and woe to those who would presume that actions are good or evil based on who says or does something rather than on the intrinsic nature of the respective statement or action.
Geraldine Ferraro: Wright a "Racist Bigot" (Ed Morrissey of HotAir)
It is probably a rare situation when I agree with Geraldine Ferraro on anything{1} but on this matter, we are to a good extent quite simpatico.
An Elegant Farce (Victor Davis Hanson)
Insightful as usual from VDH. This bit in particular is worth noting in brief:
[T]o Obama, the postmodernist, context is everything. We all have eccentric and flamboyant pastors like Wright with whom we disagree. And words, in his case, don’t quite mean what we think; unspoken intent and angst, not voiced hatred, are what matters more.
Rather than account for his relationship with a hate-monger, Obama will enlighten you, as your teacher, why you are either confused or too ill-intended to ask him to disassociate himself from Wright.
The Obama apologia was a “conversation” about moral equivalence...
Obama is right about one thing: We are losing yet another opportunity to talk honestly about race, to hold all Americans to the same standards of public ethics and morality, and to emphasize that no one gets a pass peddling vulgar racism, or enabling it by failing to disassociate himself from its source — not Rev. Wright, not even the eloquent, but now vapid, Barack Obama.
The double standard continues it seems...hopefully Obama will not get away with it but (unfortunately) I do not place much confidence in the intelligence of the general public on these matters. Oh and one more thing.
Even those who try to claim that Wright's comments should be viewed in the context of his entire speech{2} often accept uncritically the one-sided portrayal of events he gives.{3} Those who would want context to Wright's speech should demand that people like Wright provide the context to every historical event they seek to misrepresent in propagating their delusions of reality. Otherwise, the deck is not properly stacked and again excuses are made for Wright that are not made for others of an opposing viewpoint.
And the ethical aspects of double standards aside, I will be blunt: this smells of racism to me. Think about it: the idea that Rev. Wright deserves some kind of kid gloves treatment or "explanation" for his abominable comments of the sort that Senator Trent Lott and Don Imus did not get for far more benign (but still inexcusable) offenses is disgusting. And that is the bottom line really except I want to give props to Geraldine Ferraro for her principled stand on this issue.
Notes:
{1} And even rarer still that I would actually find out about such points of convergence.
{2} Yes, there have been those who have taken this approach to the issue at hand and it was both predictable as well as disgusting.
{3} If not for lack of time, I could go through that speech and debunk so many of the "historical portrayals" he makes of certain events and explain the context behind them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)