Points to Ponder:
What the mind of man can conceive and believe, it can achieve. [Napolean Hill]
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Points to Ponder:
(On the Passing of Tony Snow and Disgusting Leftists)
It should tell you something, when every time misfortune befalls a conservative, there’s a need to sanitize [the Daily Kos]. And I haven’t even bothered to look at other “liberal” (LOL) sites - there’s really nothing to be learned or gained by reading hateful celebrations over Snow’s tragic death. I find his passing sad enough; no need to add to it by lamenting the evil among our fellow Americans. [Beth Cleaver]
(On the Passing of Tony Snow and Disgusting Leftists)
It should tell you something, when every time misfortune befalls a conservative, there’s a need to sanitize [the Daily Kos]. And I haven’t even bothered to look at other “liberal” (LOL) sites - there’s really nothing to be learned or gained by reading hateful celebrations over Snow’s tragic death. I find his passing sad enough; no need to add to it by lamenting the evil among our fellow Americans. [Beth Cleaver]
Briefly on the Current Real Estate Situation:
I have very little of a positive nature to say about the current president. There, I have said it as succinctly as I can. But at the same time, those under the illusion that the current problems in the real estate sphere of the economy are to be laid primarily at his feet need to have their presuppositions challenged. I have for that reason dug up an old online article dealing with the real estate market from when President Bush was governor of Texas:
The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities (City Journal Winter 2000)
Pay particular note to this part of the article:
This policy—"America's best mortgage program for working people," NACA calls it—is an experiment with extraordinarily high risks. There is no surer way to destabilize a neighborhood than for its new generation of home buyers to lack the means to pay their mortgages—which is likely to be the case for a significant percentage of those granted a no-down-payment mortgage based on their low-income classification rather than their good credit history. Even if such buyers do not lose their homes, they are a group more likely to defer maintenance on their properties, creating the problems that lead to streets going bad and neighborhoods going downhill. Stable or increasing property values grow out of the efforts of many; one unpainted house, one sagging porch, one abandoned property is a threat to the work of dozens, because such signs of neglect discourage prospective buyers.
A no-down-payment policy reflects a belief that poor families should qualify for home ownership because they are poor, in contrast to the reality that some poor families are prepared to make the sacrifices necessary to own property, and some are not. Keeping their distance from those unable to save money is a crucial means by which upwardly mobile, self-sacrificing people establish and maintain the value of the homes they buy. If we empower those with bad habits, or those who have made bad decisions, to follow those with good habits to better neighborhoods—thanks to CRA's new emphasis on lending to low-income borrowers no matter where they buy their homes—those neighborhoods will not remain better for long.
Nor for that matter is this the only part of the equation that could be mentioned -indeed the Clinton Administration's justice department threatening lenders with lawsuits for red lining if they did not make risky loans to particular demographics of the population who were serious credit risks is another factor altogether.{1}
When the mafia engages in this sort of thing, it is called "extortion" whereas when the federal government does it somehow these practices are supposed to be moral apparently. Pardon those of us who respect reason and logic and can recognize a violation of the law of non-contradiction when we see it but that is all on this subject for the present time.
Note:
{1} There is a whole can of worms on this subject which I do not have the time or inclination to delve into now but at some point in the future that may change.
I have very little of a positive nature to say about the current president. There, I have said it as succinctly as I can. But at the same time, those under the illusion that the current problems in the real estate sphere of the economy are to be laid primarily at his feet need to have their presuppositions challenged. I have for that reason dug up an old online article dealing with the real estate market from when President Bush was governor of Texas:
The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities (City Journal Winter 2000)
Pay particular note to this part of the article:
This policy—"America's best mortgage program for working people," NACA calls it—is an experiment with extraordinarily high risks. There is no surer way to destabilize a neighborhood than for its new generation of home buyers to lack the means to pay their mortgages—which is likely to be the case for a significant percentage of those granted a no-down-payment mortgage based on their low-income classification rather than their good credit history. Even if such buyers do not lose their homes, they are a group more likely to defer maintenance on their properties, creating the problems that lead to streets going bad and neighborhoods going downhill. Stable or increasing property values grow out of the efforts of many; one unpainted house, one sagging porch, one abandoned property is a threat to the work of dozens, because such signs of neglect discourage prospective buyers.
A no-down-payment policy reflects a belief that poor families should qualify for home ownership because they are poor, in contrast to the reality that some poor families are prepared to make the sacrifices necessary to own property, and some are not. Keeping their distance from those unable to save money is a crucial means by which upwardly mobile, self-sacrificing people establish and maintain the value of the homes they buy. If we empower those with bad habits, or those who have made bad decisions, to follow those with good habits to better neighborhoods—thanks to CRA's new emphasis on lending to low-income borrowers no matter where they buy their homes—those neighborhoods will not remain better for long.
Nor for that matter is this the only part of the equation that could be mentioned -indeed the Clinton Administration's justice department threatening lenders with lawsuits for red lining if they did not make risky loans to particular demographics of the population who were serious credit risks is another factor altogether.{1}
When the mafia engages in this sort of thing, it is called "extortion" whereas when the federal government does it somehow these practices are supposed to be moral apparently. Pardon those of us who respect reason and logic and can recognize a violation of the law of non-contradiction when we see it but that is all on this subject for the present time.
Note:
{1} There is a whole can of worms on this subject which I do not have the time or inclination to delve into now but at some point in the future that may change.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Guest Editorial on Senator Barack Obama and His Approach to Iraq:
(By Senator John McCain)
No folks, Senator McCain does not know he is contributing a guest editorial to this humble weblog. However, as for some reason the New York Times would not let this text be published in their op-ed section in response to an earlier op-ed by Senator Obama, I am going to publish it in the same text and formatting as it reads on Drudge's site except with the customary features we use for guest editorials here including font colouring. Without further ado...
######################
In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.
Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."
Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.
Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.
The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.
To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.
Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.
No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.
But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.
Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”
The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.
I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.
######################
Oh and lest I forget, Sen. Obama's NYT op-ed can be viewed here. To remind readers of our own view recently reiterated anew, see this thread for details:
Revisiting the Subject of the Surge and the Deafening Silence of the MSM Thereof (circa July 11, 2008)
(By Senator John McCain)
No folks, Senator McCain does not know he is contributing a guest editorial to this humble weblog. However, as for some reason the New York Times would not let this text be published in their op-ed section in response to an earlier op-ed by Senator Obama, I am going to publish it in the same text and formatting as it reads on Drudge's site except with the customary features we use for guest editorials here including font colouring. Without further ado...
######################
In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.
Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."
Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.
Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.
The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.
To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.
Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.
No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.
But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.
Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”
The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.
I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.
######################
Oh and lest I forget, Sen. Obama's NYT op-ed can be viewed here. To remind readers of our own view recently reiterated anew, see this thread for details:
Revisiting the Subject of the Surge and the Deafening Silence of the MSM Thereof (circa July 11, 2008)
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Briefly on Democratic Party Complete Control of Goverment:
(Aka "One From the Vault" Dept.)
This is not too deep a dip into the proverbial "vault" of responses written to inquiries on certain issues either personally or generally -actually then main text was written a few days ago. Nonetheless, the questioner's words will be in an appropriately dark green colour with footnotes added mostly on points covered in a more detailed format earlier on this weblog -though advance indulgence is begged for the caustic tonality in some of the McCain dialogual postings referenced in the footnotes. (Your host admittedly was pretty incensed when those words were written and did not conceal it as well as he should have.) Without further ado...
Conservatives: are you going to start switching to Obama now that...?
Obama has been calling for talks with Iran. Bush and McCain were dead set against this. Now we're talking to Iran.
Obama has been calling for pulling out troops from Iraq and putting more in Afghanistan. Bush and McCain were against this: "Afghanistan is doing just fine," they said, even though we've been there since October 7, 2001. Now the White House will be putting more troops in Afghanistan and taking them out of Iraq.
Bush Sr., Bush Jr., and Jeb Bush were all against drilling off the coast. Now Bush Jr. is for it. Bush Jr. even said in a White House press briefing that it won't help our oil supplies in any immediate future but will help our psychology over the economy. This coming from a guy who was surprised to hear that gas could hit $4 a gallon this summer.
If the Republicans couldn't get it write in the 7 years they had both Congress and the White house, why stick with their party? Why not push to try an all Dem Congress plus W.House to see what happens?
We are talking with Iran but not in the way that Obama wants to do. It is one thing to seek diplomatic means to handle something and another to confer legitimacy on a thug like Ahmadinejad who has voiced the notion of wiping Israel off the map.{1} You cannot dialogue with those who want you dead -something Bush and McCain both realize but that Obama evidenylydoes not.
The troops are able now to be scaled down in Iraq because of the surge and the tactics of General Petraeus along with the Iraqi government and military finally getting their act together -fifteen of the eighteen "benchmarks" set a couple years back being met as of two months ago (versus eight last year).{2} Obama would have simply withdrawn the troops before the country was stabilized if we listen to his rhetoric on the matter. But as Iraq has gone from a mess to a success in the past couple of years, Obama will now flip flop a bit on that issue as he will continue to do on other issues.
Drilling will not solve problems overnight but building more refineries could help in the short term.{3} Obama and the Democrats do not favour such things but McCain and the Republicans would be open to the idea.
The all Democrat government has been tried and failed badly over and over. The problem is, the Republican congresses of 1/1995-1/2001 which were among the best series of congresses in ages were succeeded by the Republican congresses from 1/2001-1/2007 which were as bad as any Democrat congresses in recent memory overall. The reason was the executive. President Clinton was not a great president but he showed what could happen when an executive stands up to the congress in some respects.{4} Conversely, the Republicans who opposed him showed what they could do if they had backbone -they balanced the budget together with those tensions: something that has not happened since.{5}
President Bush and the Republican congresses under his first six years do not make a good case for why the Republicans as a party should soon be trusted with total control again. However, the problem is in my view more that of President Bush not showing executive backbone.{6} He could have played hard ball with the Republican congress and been successful. But it took a Democrat congress to get GWB to show backbone and while he has defeated the Democratic congress time and time again, it raises the question of why he could not have been this way the first six years of his term. My guess is he simply was too provincialist{7} and too much of a party man to tell his party when they needed to shape up.
By stark contrast, John McCain has been a fiscal hawk for his entire congressional career.{8} He has also stood up against the Republicans at times (even times where I did not agree with him{9}) which leads me to believe that if he had a Republican congress that he would be a far more effective executive than GWB has been fiscally.{10} He also due to his ability to reach across the aisle could serve as a control on the pretensions of the Democratic congress. I do not see Obama having any similar capabilities here because unlike McCain, Obama is a green senator who has no track record of going against his own party.
Basically I see an Obama presidency with a Democratic congress being fiscally a repeat of the Bush presidency with a Republican congress. And as bad as the latter was, we do not need another round of that kind of fiscal irresponsibility. And I guarantee you that is what would happen with all Democratic congress and presidency and that is why I would never favour pushing for such a thing.
Notes:
{1} On Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's View of Israel (circa June 3, 2008)
{2} Revisiting the Subject of the Surge and the Deafening Silence of the MSM Thereof (circa July 11, 2008)
{3} Revisiting the Subject of High Gas Prices in a Slowing Economy in an Election Year (circa May 31, 2008)
On the High Gas Prices and the Economics Therein (circa September 10, 2005)
{4} I do not buy (at any price) the crap of the Republicans "not being able to govern in the majority" ala what Rush has said for a number of years. That argument may have been valid in the 1990's[...] but not in the twenty-first century and with a Republican president. For crying out loud, these guys were stood down by President William Clinton -a member of the opposing party. Are you telling me that President George W. Bush of the same party (the "party leader") could not have successfully stood up to them??? [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 5, 2008)]
{5} And though many of the contemporary sorts ignorant of basic civics like to primarily blame the president for deficits, all bills for spending originate in the congress most specifically the House of Representatives. This is why the lions share of the blame for the deficits during the terms of President Ronald Reagan and President George Bush Sr. go not to those presidents but instead to the Democratic congresses of their tenures. Reagan and Bush Sr. also had promises made by those congresses to cut spending in fixed amounts which they never followed through on. (Reagan can be blamed somewhat for taking those disgraceful congresses at their word and Bush Sr. to some extent for not learning from what happened under Reagan as to how those Democratic congresses could not be trusted to keep their word.)
This is also why the credit for the reduced deficits and eventual balanced budgets during President Clinton's terms go to the Republican congresses of his tenure. But having noted these things, consistency on these scores demands that the Republicans not be allowed to skate on this. For that reason, we place the out of control budgets during Bush's first six years equally on the Republican congresses of that period and also for the same party president for failing to discipline his own party: there is no way around it however much the Republican party loyalists may attempt it.
{6} John McCain has been a senator who has to truck and bargain in the senate to try and get anything done whereas President George W. Bush has been the executive for going on eight years now who was and is in a position of far greater power and capable of getting a lot more done.
Whatever you want to say about McCain he was not a lame executive on numerous important issues as W has been for the first six years of his presidency. McCain did not fail to stand up with the power of the bully pulpit and threaten the veto pen to his own party if they did not govern according to conservative principles including fiscal discipline. The whole "well we are at war" excuse was pathetic...it may account for 2002 and 2003[...] but it would not account for 2004, 2005, or 2006.
And I do not give three shits about the fact that it will be another deficit this year: the Republicans messed up big time and attempts now to claim to have "learned their lesson" or whatever will have a difficult time sticking. The only real hope here is that the progress in Iraq continues to look good as it has been for the past fourteen odd months or so. At least with a Republican presidency in McCain and a Republican congress (if we can get that combination), I trust McCain to wield the veto pen against his own party unlike W who lacked the guts to. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 5, 2008)]
{7} 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. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 16, 2008)]
{8} On matters of the economy, [McCain] 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.[...]
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). [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 26, 2008)]
{9} 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. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 26, 2008)]
{10} At least with a Republican presidency in McCain and a Republican congress (if we can get that combination), I trust McCain to wield the veto pen against his own party unlike W who lacked the guts to. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 5, 2008)]
(Aka "One From the Vault" Dept.)
This is not too deep a dip into the proverbial "vault" of responses written to inquiries on certain issues either personally or generally -actually then main text was written a few days ago. Nonetheless, the questioner's words will be in an appropriately dark green colour with footnotes added mostly on points covered in a more detailed format earlier on this weblog -though advance indulgence is begged for the caustic tonality in some of the McCain dialogual postings referenced in the footnotes. (Your host admittedly was pretty incensed when those words were written and did not conceal it as well as he should have.) Without further ado...
Conservatives: are you going to start switching to Obama now that...?
Obama has been calling for talks with Iran. Bush and McCain were dead set against this. Now we're talking to Iran.
Obama has been calling for pulling out troops from Iraq and putting more in Afghanistan. Bush and McCain were against this: "Afghanistan is doing just fine," they said, even though we've been there since October 7, 2001. Now the White House will be putting more troops in Afghanistan and taking them out of Iraq.
Bush Sr., Bush Jr., and Jeb Bush were all against drilling off the coast. Now Bush Jr. is for it. Bush Jr. even said in a White House press briefing that it won't help our oil supplies in any immediate future but will help our psychology over the economy. This coming from a guy who was surprised to hear that gas could hit $4 a gallon this summer.
If the Republicans couldn't get it write in the 7 years they had both Congress and the White house, why stick with their party? Why not push to try an all Dem Congress plus W.House to see what happens?
We are talking with Iran but not in the way that Obama wants to do. It is one thing to seek diplomatic means to handle something and another to confer legitimacy on a thug like Ahmadinejad who has voiced the notion of wiping Israel off the map.{1} You cannot dialogue with those who want you dead -something Bush and McCain both realize but that Obama evidenylydoes not.
The troops are able now to be scaled down in Iraq because of the surge and the tactics of General Petraeus along with the Iraqi government and military finally getting their act together -fifteen of the eighteen "benchmarks" set a couple years back being met as of two months ago (versus eight last year).{2} Obama would have simply withdrawn the troops before the country was stabilized if we listen to his rhetoric on the matter. But as Iraq has gone from a mess to a success in the past couple of years, Obama will now flip flop a bit on that issue as he will continue to do on other issues.
Drilling will not solve problems overnight but building more refineries could help in the short term.{3} Obama and the Democrats do not favour such things but McCain and the Republicans would be open to the idea.
The all Democrat government has been tried and failed badly over and over. The problem is, the Republican congresses of 1/1995-1/2001 which were among the best series of congresses in ages were succeeded by the Republican congresses from 1/2001-1/2007 which were as bad as any Democrat congresses in recent memory overall. The reason was the executive. President Clinton was not a great president but he showed what could happen when an executive stands up to the congress in some respects.{4} Conversely, the Republicans who opposed him showed what they could do if they had backbone -they balanced the budget together with those tensions: something that has not happened since.{5}
President Bush and the Republican congresses under his first six years do not make a good case for why the Republicans as a party should soon be trusted with total control again. However, the problem is in my view more that of President Bush not showing executive backbone.{6} He could have played hard ball with the Republican congress and been successful. But it took a Democrat congress to get GWB to show backbone and while he has defeated the Democratic congress time and time again, it raises the question of why he could not have been this way the first six years of his term. My guess is he simply was too provincialist{7} and too much of a party man to tell his party when they needed to shape up.
By stark contrast, John McCain has been a fiscal hawk for his entire congressional career.{8} He has also stood up against the Republicans at times (even times where I did not agree with him{9}) which leads me to believe that if he had a Republican congress that he would be a far more effective executive than GWB has been fiscally.{10} He also due to his ability to reach across the aisle could serve as a control on the pretensions of the Democratic congress. I do not see Obama having any similar capabilities here because unlike McCain, Obama is a green senator who has no track record of going against his own party.
Basically I see an Obama presidency with a Democratic congress being fiscally a repeat of the Bush presidency with a Republican congress. And as bad as the latter was, we do not need another round of that kind of fiscal irresponsibility. And I guarantee you that is what would happen with all Democratic congress and presidency and that is why I would never favour pushing for such a thing.
Notes:
{1} On Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's View of Israel (circa June 3, 2008)
{2} Revisiting the Subject of the Surge and the Deafening Silence of the MSM Thereof (circa July 11, 2008)
{3} Revisiting the Subject of High Gas Prices in a Slowing Economy in an Election Year (circa May 31, 2008)
On the High Gas Prices and the Economics Therein (circa September 10, 2005)
{4} I do not buy (at any price) the crap of the Republicans "not being able to govern in the majority" ala what Rush has said for a number of years. That argument may have been valid in the 1990's[...] but not in the twenty-first century and with a Republican president. For crying out loud, these guys were stood down by President William Clinton -a member of the opposing party. Are you telling me that President George W. Bush of the same party (the "party leader") could not have successfully stood up to them??? [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 5, 2008)]
{5} And though many of the contemporary sorts ignorant of basic civics like to primarily blame the president for deficits, all bills for spending originate in the congress most specifically the House of Representatives. This is why the lions share of the blame for the deficits during the terms of President Ronald Reagan and President George Bush Sr. go not to those presidents but instead to the Democratic congresses of their tenures. Reagan and Bush Sr. also had promises made by those congresses to cut spending in fixed amounts which they never followed through on. (Reagan can be blamed somewhat for taking those disgraceful congresses at their word and Bush Sr. to some extent for not learning from what happened under Reagan as to how those Democratic congresses could not be trusted to keep their word.)
This is also why the credit for the reduced deficits and eventual balanced budgets during President Clinton's terms go to the Republican congresses of his tenure. But having noted these things, consistency on these scores demands that the Republicans not be allowed to skate on this. For that reason, we place the out of control budgets during Bush's first six years equally on the Republican congresses of that period and also for the same party president for failing to discipline his own party: there is no way around it however much the Republican party loyalists may attempt it.
{6} John McCain has been a senator who has to truck and bargain in the senate to try and get anything done whereas President George W. Bush has been the executive for going on eight years now who was and is in a position of far greater power and capable of getting a lot more done.
Whatever you want to say about McCain he was not a lame executive on numerous important issues as W has been for the first six years of his presidency. McCain did not fail to stand up with the power of the bully pulpit and threaten the veto pen to his own party if they did not govern according to conservative principles including fiscal discipline. The whole "well we are at war" excuse was pathetic...it may account for 2002 and 2003[...] but it would not account for 2004, 2005, or 2006.
And I do not give three shits about the fact that it will be another deficit this year: the Republicans messed up big time and attempts now to claim to have "learned their lesson" or whatever will have a difficult time sticking. The only real hope here is that the progress in Iraq continues to look good as it has been for the past fourteen odd months or so. At least with a Republican presidency in McCain and a Republican congress (if we can get that combination), I trust McCain to wield the veto pen against his own party unlike W who lacked the guts to. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 5, 2008)]
{7} 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. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 16, 2008)]
{8} On matters of the economy, [McCain] 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.[...]
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). [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 26, 2008)]
{9} 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. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 26, 2008)]
{10} At least with a Republican presidency in McCain and a Republican congress (if we can get that combination), I trust McCain to wield the veto pen against his own party unlike W who lacked the guts to. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 5, 2008)]
 |
Friday, July 18, 2008
Points to Ponder:
All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near...
If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant...[Sun Tzu]
All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near...
If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant...[Sun Tzu]
For those who need a bit of a laugh in this election season, there is always the reliable folks at Jibjab our favourite political parody site. Here is their latest on the upcoming 2008 contest...
Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing:
This installment of the long-running series will comment briefly on a trifecta of recent threads from Charles Krauthammer. Without further ado...
How Hostages, And Nations, Get Liberated (July 11, 2008)
The above thread deals with a bit of reality that many who undoubtedly have good intentions are incapable of understanding.
Make the Election About Iraq (circa July 13, 2008)
Considering how well things are going over there and have been for the past sixteen odd months{1}, this is a wise and winning approach for McCain to take. Even a number of those who do not agree with him on his war position but who respect someone who stands on principle even against the tide of unpopular sentiment may well vote for him. By contrast, if Obama continues to try and pretend that it is 2002 or even 2006 -the former being before the war and the latter being a point when we were doing very poorly in Iraq- it will come back to bite him if he tries to argue for arbitrary troop withdrawals as he has been doing up to now.
Obama's Greatest Admirer (circa July 18, 2008)
Here is a small teaser bit from the above link for you:
[H]as there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?
As for the rest, you know what to do.
Note:
{1} Revisiting the Subject of the Surge and the Deafening Silence of the MSM Thereof (circa July 11, 2008)
This installment of the long-running series will comment briefly on a trifecta of recent threads from Charles Krauthammer. Without further ado...
How Hostages, And Nations, Get Liberated (July 11, 2008)
The above thread deals with a bit of reality that many who undoubtedly have good intentions are incapable of understanding.
Make the Election About Iraq (circa July 13, 2008)
Considering how well things are going over there and have been for the past sixteen odd months{1}, this is a wise and winning approach for McCain to take. Even a number of those who do not agree with him on his war position but who respect someone who stands on principle even against the tide of unpopular sentiment may well vote for him. By contrast, if Obama continues to try and pretend that it is 2002 or even 2006 -the former being before the war and the latter being a point when we were doing very poorly in Iraq- it will come back to bite him if he tries to argue for arbitrary troop withdrawals as he has been doing up to now.
Obama's Greatest Admirer (circa July 18, 2008)
Here is a small teaser bit from the above link for you:
[H]as there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?
As for the rest, you know what to do.
Note:
{1} Revisiting the Subject of the Surge and the Deafening Silence of the MSM Thereof (circa July 11, 2008)
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
On the Passing of Tony Snow:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Update: Last night in haste I did not give this posting a final review before it was published; ergo it read more like a rough draft than a finished product. I have gone through it again and refined some points, added a bit more, etc. so it is now much more complete. -ISM 7/15/08 6:20pm]
Though this is coming on the heels of the passing last month of Tim Russert, I am sure Tony Snow would not mind me mentioning him and Russert in the same sentence. And journalism as a profession to which I am usually professing of no small amount of disdain for{1} having seen in the past month two of its finest representatives departing this mortal coil seems to merit another comment from your humble servant particularly due to the circumstances involved in the case of Snow's passing in some quarters.
I should probably start with the good including that Fox News for whom Snow worked for at one point has a good retrospective on his career viewable here. Rush Limbaugh also commented on the passing of his friend and colleague in an audio clip which can be listened to here. And while most of the reports have been positive, there are some which have not been and in lieu of the current circumstances this prevalence by certain sectors deserves to be focused on at least in brief.
Among those who are showing a lack of proper respect, is the following one from AP. I am thinking in reviewing it that the "A" in Associated Press should be changed to read "assholes" after noticing the following uncalled for blurbs in their reporting on the death of Tony Snow. Observe:
With a quick-from-the-lip repartee, broadcaster's good looks and a relentlessly bright outlook — if not always a command of the facts — he became a popular figure around the country to the delight of his White House bosses...
Snow resigned as Bush's chief spokesman last September, citing not his health but a need to earn more than the $168,000 a year he was paid in the government post...
As press secretary, Snow brought partisan zeal and the skills of a seasoned performer to the task of explaining and defending the president's policies.
Critics suggested that Snow was turning the traditionally informational daily briefing into a personality-driven media event short on facts and long on confrontation. He was the first press secretary, by his own accounting, to travel the country raising money for Republican candidates.
First of all, how is it newsworthy that "critics" suggest anything??? By their very nature they will take a contrary view -that is why they are called "critics" to begin with. This is as nonsensical a news bit as press bits that lead off with the "news story" of the most recent poll on an issue as if a poll is a news story rather than a bunch of fark. But that is neither here nor there.
Secondly, what point comes from mentioning the issue of Snow returning to the private sector when reporting on his death??? Of what value does this serve except to attempt to make Snow somehow appear sinister for leaving to work at another place for more money. Considering that Snow had been ailing for some time, it seems to me to be the responsible thing to do to try and insure that in his absence (should that occur) that his family is better taken care of. But whatever the reason, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with such decisions on Snow's part and discussing such things light of the current circumstances is tacky to no small degree.
Thirdly, whatever problems anyone may have with some of Tony Snow's statements, reporting on his passing is not the time to go into these matters. That Douglass K. Daniels and Jennifer Loven chose in their article to do this is deplorable and shows what happens with those who are so wedded to ideologies that they cannot see the humanity in those who do not agree with them.
Seriously folks, there is evidence here of a kind of mental sickness but strangely enough, it has far more prevalence on the side of those who would call themselves "liberal" or "progressive" than those who would call themselves "conservatives."{2} And whilethe next an up and coming "points to ponder" installment to this weblog will touch on that point a bit, for the time being, I will merely note that Douglass K. Daniels and Jennifer Loven should be ashamed of themselves. I do not know much about Daniels but Loven has a history of this sort of what Powerline calls in an understated fashion "classless reporting."{3}
It is garbage like this which makes the passing of Tony Snow from the standpoint of the state of journalism so unfortunate -his other qualities as a fully rounded human being who treated those who disagreed with him respectfully notwithstanding of course.
[Lord] remember Tony Snow. In baptism he died with Christ: may he also share his resurrection, when Christ will raise our mortal bodies and make them like his own in glory. [Eucharistic Prayer III: From The Roman Missal under Masses for the Dead]
Notes:
{1} Or to quote from a posting referenced in last month's blog entry on Tim Russert's passing:
The depravity to which the journalistic profession has fallen since the days of Watergate can be to some extent pinned on Woodward and Bernstein...not as much them personally as what they ushered in in the aftermath of the Nixon resignation.[...] The journalistic profession has become one where you "make it" by finding someone whose reputation you can destroy. Ethics are often not a factor, indeed morals and ethics often get the screw from journalists who are trying to "make it" and then (for those who "make it") the same tactics are utilized to try and stay "on top." The same is the case with the legal profession and the political profession: oftentimes those who "make it" do so by screwing other people. So the parallel to prostitution is an apt one. The only difference of course is that prostitutes are somewhat honest about it. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 1, 2005)]
The above entry of course was not written with journalists like Tony Snow in mind.
{2} I would be less than forthright if I did not acknowledge that there are some liberal journalists who have conducted themselves with class among them one of Fox News' staff liberals Juan Williams who had these gracious words to say when hearing of Snow's passing. (But then again, Juan Williams represents what is best amongst liberal journalists anyway so this does not surprise me except in the detail involved in his tribute.)
{3} I have another word in mind to describe Loven but that is all I will say on the matter at the present time.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Update: Last night in haste I did not give this posting a final review before it was published; ergo it read more like a rough draft than a finished product. I have gone through it again and refined some points, added a bit more, etc. so it is now much more complete. -ISM 7/15/08 6:20pm]
Though this is coming on the heels of the passing last month of Tim Russert, I am sure Tony Snow would not mind me mentioning him and Russert in the same sentence. And journalism as a profession to which I am usually professing of no small amount of disdain for{1} having seen in the past month two of its finest representatives departing this mortal coil seems to merit another comment from your humble servant particularly due to the circumstances involved in the case of Snow's passing in some quarters.
I should probably start with the good including that Fox News for whom Snow worked for at one point has a good retrospective on his career viewable here. Rush Limbaugh also commented on the passing of his friend and colleague in an audio clip which can be listened to here. And while most of the reports have been positive, there are some which have not been and in lieu of the current circumstances this prevalence by certain sectors deserves to be focused on at least in brief.
Among those who are showing a lack of proper respect, is the following one from AP. I am thinking in reviewing it that the "A" in Associated Press should be changed to read "assholes" after noticing the following uncalled for blurbs in their reporting on the death of Tony Snow. Observe:
With a quick-from-the-lip repartee, broadcaster's good looks and a relentlessly bright outlook — if not always a command of the facts — he became a popular figure around the country to the delight of his White House bosses...
Snow resigned as Bush's chief spokesman last September, citing not his health but a need to earn more than the $168,000 a year he was paid in the government post...
As press secretary, Snow brought partisan zeal and the skills of a seasoned performer to the task of explaining and defending the president's policies.
Critics suggested that Snow was turning the traditionally informational daily briefing into a personality-driven media event short on facts and long on confrontation. He was the first press secretary, by his own accounting, to travel the country raising money for Republican candidates.
First of all, how is it newsworthy that "critics" suggest anything??? By their very nature they will take a contrary view -that is why they are called "critics" to begin with. This is as nonsensical a news bit as press bits that lead off with the "news story" of the most recent poll on an issue as if a poll is a news story rather than a bunch of fark. But that is neither here nor there.
Secondly, what point comes from mentioning the issue of Snow returning to the private sector when reporting on his death??? Of what value does this serve except to attempt to make Snow somehow appear sinister for leaving to work at another place for more money. Considering that Snow had been ailing for some time, it seems to me to be the responsible thing to do to try and insure that in his absence (should that occur) that his family is better taken care of. But whatever the reason, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with such decisions on Snow's part and discussing such things light of the current circumstances is tacky to no small degree.
Thirdly, whatever problems anyone may have with some of Tony Snow's statements, reporting on his passing is not the time to go into these matters. That Douglass K. Daniels and Jennifer Loven chose in their article to do this is deplorable and shows what happens with those who are so wedded to ideologies that they cannot see the humanity in those who do not agree with them.
Seriously folks, there is evidence here of a kind of mental sickness but strangely enough, it has far more prevalence on the side of those who would call themselves "liberal" or "progressive" than those who would call themselves "conservatives."{2} And while
It is garbage like this which makes the passing of Tony Snow from the standpoint of the state of journalism so unfortunate -his other qualities as a fully rounded human being who treated those who disagreed with him respectfully notwithstanding of course.
[Lord] remember Tony Snow. In baptism he died with Christ: may he also share his resurrection, when Christ will raise our mortal bodies and make them like his own in glory. [Eucharistic Prayer III: From The Roman Missal under Masses for the Dead]
Notes:
{1} Or to quote from a posting referenced in last month's blog entry on Tim Russert's passing:
The depravity to which the journalistic profession has fallen since the days of Watergate can be to some extent pinned on Woodward and Bernstein...not as much them personally as what they ushered in in the aftermath of the Nixon resignation.[...] The journalistic profession has become one where you "make it" by finding someone whose reputation you can destroy. Ethics are often not a factor, indeed morals and ethics often get the screw from journalists who are trying to "make it" and then (for those who "make it") the same tactics are utilized to try and stay "on top." The same is the case with the legal profession and the political profession: oftentimes those who "make it" do so by screwing other people. So the parallel to prostitution is an apt one. The only difference of course is that prostitutes are somewhat honest about it. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 1, 2005)]
The above entry of course was not written with journalists like Tony Snow in mind.
{2} I would be less than forthright if I did not acknowledge that there are some liberal journalists who have conducted themselves with class among them one of Fox News' staff liberals Juan Williams who had these gracious words to say when hearing of Snow's passing. (But then again, Juan Williams represents what is best amongst liberal journalists anyway so this does not surprise me except in the detail involved in his tribute.)
{3} I have another word in mind to describe Loven but that is all I will say on the matter at the present time.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Revisiting the Subject of the Surge and the Deafening Silence of the MSM Thereof:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
One of the advantages of focusing so much on fundamental principles for the positions we have taken and continue to take on various and sundry issues over the years is it enables us to approach the issues we write about generally speaking with a calmer detachment than the lions share of commentators who write on the same issues regardless of their ideological leanings.{1}
Now we say "generally speaking" because it would be the height of absurdity to claim that we have never succumbed to this tendency ourselves. However, on significant subject matter{2} we have not done this. And that is one reason why we do not regret or feel the need to try and hide what we have written on over the years even if in some cases we are less likely to advertise the work than others.
For what it is worth, our reticence here is not because we cannot admit to making mistakes or anything like that -heck we have a mea culpa blog tag for that- but simply that some subjects of interest to us in years past either no longer are or rarely are and for that reason we are not inclined to want to revisit those subjects.{3}
However, periodically at this weblog we find it relevant to remind readers of our prescience on various subject revisit subjects that certain provocateurs focus on seemingly daily without seeing the forest for the trees. One such subject is the so-called "surge" which we last wrote on back in November of last year and which will be a factor of no small significance in the 2008 fall elections. It seems appropriate to revisit that thread with a quote to remind readers of what we said then to set up what we are about to say. Without further ado...
These musings were the result of the following article from The Washington Post which we read about a month ago:
Al-Qaeda In Iraq Reported Crippled (Thomas E. Ricks and Karen DeYoung)
To start with, the article itself is another piece of evidence for the hypothesis that the surge approach in Iraq is working. However, there is as always a broader approach to these matters that needs to be considered and I will touch on it now for those who are interested.
One of the reasons I have not reacted to every news story on this subject the way so many do is because the principles whereby I formulated my original position on the military involvement in Iraq nearly five years ago has not changed and will not change. That being said though, it does not mean that I have always liked the way things have been done over there. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 9, 2007)]
Though we had noted before on more than one occasion support to various degrees for the surge{4} and also have noted since that time the irrevocable nature of our publicly stated war position in Iraq{5}, the present writer cannot recall offhand any public statement prior to the above posting where it was revealed that he was unhappy with the pre-surge post war approach to stabilization. Of course we have since that posting noted this a few times{6} but over time there has been little if anything in the mainstream media (msm) about the surge. The reason folks is simply: it is working.
Those who remember last year and the msm's crowing about how only eight of eighteen set "benchmarks" had been met with a "satisfactory" grade by even the White House's reckoning should take note of how little we are hearing about "benchmarks" now. Indeed, it was pointed out in April by Frederic Kagan of The Weekly Standard that those who were opposed to the war in Iraq and also to the surge who had previously gone out of their way to claim that success was "impossible" or who sought to emphasize the importance on meeting certain so-called "benchmarks" were moving the goalposts as it became clear that the previously assessed "benchmarks" were being gradually met:
AS THE REDUCTION IN violence in Iraq has become incontestable (the insistence of early critics that no such reduction was possible notwithstanding), war opponents have fallen back on their next line of defense--that the military progress has not been matched by the political progress it was supposed to enable. This talking point, however, is also outdated and invalid. The Bush administration, commanders and ambassadors in the field, and supporters of the effort to win in Iraq have long pointed to evidence of grassroots reconciliation and political progress. This evidence is growing and the importance of these developments is becoming increasingly apparent. But critics have long dismissed these developments on the grounds that they meant nothing if the central government did not meet the key benchmarks established in 2007 as the basis for continued American support. For most of 2007, such critics at least had some facts on their side--the Iraqi Government quickly moved to achieve most of the security-related benchmarks, but key legislative benchmarks remained stalled. The facts no longer support this argument, however. As a recent study by the U.S. Institute of Peace noted, "It may be that February 13, 2008 will be remembered as the day when Iraq's political climate began to catch up with its improved security situation--or, more to the point, when Iraqi leaders discovered the key to political compromise and reconciliation."
As the tally below shows, the Government of Iraq has now met 12 out of the original 18 benchmarks set for it, including four out of the six key legislative benchmarks. It has made substantial progress on five more, and only one remains truly stalled. One can argue about the scoring of this or that benchmark, but the overall picture is very clear: before the surge began, the Iraqi Government had accomplished none of the benchmarks and was on the way to accomplishing very few. As the surge winds down, it has accomplished around two-thirds of them and is moving ahead on almost all of the remainder. To say in the face of these facts that Iraq has made "little" or "no" political progress is simply false-to-fact.[LINK]
As we noted in last November's post on these matters{7} and in the other threads of 2007 where the surge was mentioned{8}, the msm has no interest in winning in Iraq.{9} It should therefore not surprise that the more good news that comes out of Iraq on the progress front, the less they are going to say on the matter. Now with the news of 15 of the 18 "benchmarks" being satisfactorily met as of May 2008, expect these sorts to continue to be as silent as a whore in church on this subject.
Now it is one thing to disagree on policies of any politician, president, pope, or whomever and even do so strongly at that. But disagreement for the sake of disagreement or because of blindly or uncritically following the opinions of others (whomever they are) should be shunned on all sides.
One should always strive to take any position on a principle or an issue consonant with the facts to the extent they can ascertain them and in doing this be willing to admit even if it is inconvenient to do so when the facts as they are made aware of them do not countenance their previously enunciated views. This is a minimum requirement of logic and rational thought to say nothing about the accompanying moral and ethical dimensions. And while this writer can in disagreement respect those who do not agree with him, such respect however is contingent upon said parties involved meeting the aforementioned logical, rational, moral, and ethical criteria.{10} And that is the bottom line really.
Notes:
{1} While we have noticed that those of a so-called "progressivist" mindset are habitually prone to this problem, there are also knee jerk sorts who identify as "conservatives" who do the same thing.
{2} As opposed to ancillary or minutiae subject matter where occasionally this has happened.
{3} There have also been cases where we have changed our mind or are less sure of views as espoused in years past but these are few and far between and (usually) a pattern of sorts will probably indicate these matters in the archives as subjects are written on in a variety of ways over time. (Emphasis on "probably" as we are not certain if this applies in all cases though with the ones we can think of offhand it does.)
{4} On President Bush and His Administration As of Mid 2007 (circa July 11, 2007)
On the Iraq Situation, the Military Surge, and Playing Politics (circa August 21, 2007)
{5} Most recently noted in this thread from February.
{6} Most notably in these threads:
A Dialogue on John McCain and "Conservatism" (circa March 26, 2008)
More on Senator John McCain, the Boundaries of Conservative Republican Thought Historically Speaking, and Certain Troubling Contemporary Ahistorical So-Called "Conservative" Trends Thereof --Parts I-V of a Dialogue (circa April 26-May 14, 2008)
{7} On the Situation in Iraq As of Early November 2007 (circa November 9, 2007)
{8} See footnote four.
{9} I have said next to nothing about the Iraq surge since the strategy was announced late last year in the wake of the probable election losses for the Republicans in the congressional races.[...] Part of the reason for this is that it takes a while to implement a new military strategy and when I did speak on the matter back in July[...], the full number of extra troops were still not in place yet. I did however know that the surge was working about as well as it could be expected under the circumstances including that the msm has no interest in winning in Iraq for political reasons any more than the Democrats do. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 21, 2007)]
{10} Or benchmarks
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
One of the advantages of focusing so much on fundamental principles for the positions we have taken and continue to take on various and sundry issues over the years is it enables us to approach the issues we write about generally speaking with a calmer detachment than the lions share of commentators who write on the same issues regardless of their ideological leanings.{1}
Now we say "generally speaking" because it would be the height of absurdity to claim that we have never succumbed to this tendency ourselves. However, on significant subject matter{2} we have not done this. And that is one reason why we do not regret or feel the need to try and hide what we have written on over the years even if in some cases we are less likely to advertise the work than others.
For what it is worth, our reticence here is not because we cannot admit to making mistakes or anything like that -heck we have a mea culpa blog tag for that- but simply that some subjects of interest to us in years past either no longer are or rarely are and for that reason we are not inclined to want to revisit those subjects.{3}
However, periodically at this weblog we find it relevant to remind readers of our prescience on various subject revisit subjects that certain provocateurs focus on seemingly daily without seeing the forest for the trees. One such subject is the so-called "surge" which we last wrote on back in November of last year and which will be a factor of no small significance in the 2008 fall elections. It seems appropriate to revisit that thread with a quote to remind readers of what we said then to set up what we are about to say. Without further ado...
These musings were the result of the following article from The Washington Post which we read about a month ago:
Al-Qaeda In Iraq Reported Crippled (Thomas E. Ricks and Karen DeYoung)
To start with, the article itself is another piece of evidence for the hypothesis that the surge approach in Iraq is working. However, there is as always a broader approach to these matters that needs to be considered and I will touch on it now for those who are interested.
One of the reasons I have not reacted to every news story on this subject the way so many do is because the principles whereby I formulated my original position on the military involvement in Iraq nearly five years ago has not changed and will not change. That being said though, it does not mean that I have always liked the way things have been done over there. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 9, 2007)]
Though we had noted before on more than one occasion support to various degrees for the surge{4} and also have noted since that time the irrevocable nature of our publicly stated war position in Iraq{5}, the present writer cannot recall offhand any public statement prior to the above posting where it was revealed that he was unhappy with the pre-surge post war approach to stabilization. Of course we have since that posting noted this a few times{6} but over time there has been little if anything in the mainstream media (msm) about the surge. The reason folks is simply: it is working.
Those who remember last year and the msm's crowing about how only eight of eighteen set "benchmarks" had been met with a "satisfactory" grade by even the White House's reckoning should take note of how little we are hearing about "benchmarks" now. Indeed, it was pointed out in April by Frederic Kagan of The Weekly Standard that those who were opposed to the war in Iraq and also to the surge who had previously gone out of their way to claim that success was "impossible" or who sought to emphasize the importance on meeting certain so-called "benchmarks" were moving the goalposts as it became clear that the previously assessed "benchmarks" were being gradually met:
AS THE REDUCTION IN violence in Iraq has become incontestable (the insistence of early critics that no such reduction was possible notwithstanding), war opponents have fallen back on their next line of defense--that the military progress has not been matched by the political progress it was supposed to enable. This talking point, however, is also outdated and invalid. The Bush administration, commanders and ambassadors in the field, and supporters of the effort to win in Iraq have long pointed to evidence of grassroots reconciliation and political progress. This evidence is growing and the importance of these developments is becoming increasingly apparent. But critics have long dismissed these developments on the grounds that they meant nothing if the central government did not meet the key benchmarks established in 2007 as the basis for continued American support. For most of 2007, such critics at least had some facts on their side--the Iraqi Government quickly moved to achieve most of the security-related benchmarks, but key legislative benchmarks remained stalled. The facts no longer support this argument, however. As a recent study by the U.S. Institute of Peace noted, "It may be that February 13, 2008 will be remembered as the day when Iraq's political climate began to catch up with its improved security situation--or, more to the point, when Iraqi leaders discovered the key to political compromise and reconciliation."
As the tally below shows, the Government of Iraq has now met 12 out of the original 18 benchmarks set for it, including four out of the six key legislative benchmarks. It has made substantial progress on five more, and only one remains truly stalled. One can argue about the scoring of this or that benchmark, but the overall picture is very clear: before the surge began, the Iraqi Government had accomplished none of the benchmarks and was on the way to accomplishing very few. As the surge winds down, it has accomplished around two-thirds of them and is moving ahead on almost all of the remainder. To say in the face of these facts that Iraq has made "little" or "no" political progress is simply false-to-fact.[LINK]
As we noted in last November's post on these matters{7} and in the other threads of 2007 where the surge was mentioned{8}, the msm has no interest in winning in Iraq.{9} It should therefore not surprise that the more good news that comes out of Iraq on the progress front, the less they are going to say on the matter. Now with the news of 15 of the 18 "benchmarks" being satisfactorily met as of May 2008, expect these sorts to continue to be as silent as a whore in church on this subject.
Now it is one thing to disagree on policies of any politician, president, pope, or whomever and even do so strongly at that. But disagreement for the sake of disagreement or because of blindly or uncritically following the opinions of others (whomever they are) should be shunned on all sides.
One should always strive to take any position on a principle or an issue consonant with the facts to the extent they can ascertain them and in doing this be willing to admit even if it is inconvenient to do so when the facts as they are made aware of them do not countenance their previously enunciated views. This is a minimum requirement of logic and rational thought to say nothing about the accompanying moral and ethical dimensions. And while this writer can in disagreement respect those who do not agree with him, such respect however is contingent upon said parties involved meeting the aforementioned logical, rational, moral, and ethical criteria.{10} And that is the bottom line really.
Notes:
{1} While we have noticed that those of a so-called "progressivist" mindset are habitually prone to this problem, there are also knee jerk sorts who identify as "conservatives" who do the same thing.
{2} As opposed to ancillary or minutiae subject matter where occasionally this has happened.
{3} There have also been cases where we have changed our mind or are less sure of views as espoused in years past but these are few and far between and (usually) a pattern of sorts will probably indicate these matters in the archives as subjects are written on in a variety of ways over time. (Emphasis on "probably" as we are not certain if this applies in all cases though with the ones we can think of offhand it does.)
{4} On President Bush and His Administration As of Mid 2007 (circa July 11, 2007)
On the Iraq Situation, the Military Surge, and Playing Politics (circa August 21, 2007)
{5} Most recently noted in this thread from February.
{6} Most notably in these threads:
A Dialogue on John McCain and "Conservatism" (circa March 26, 2008)
More on Senator John McCain, the Boundaries of Conservative Republican Thought Historically Speaking, and Certain Troubling Contemporary Ahistorical So-Called "Conservative" Trends Thereof --Parts I-V of a Dialogue (circa April 26-May 14, 2008)
{7} On the Situation in Iraq As of Early November 2007 (circa November 9, 2007)
{8} See footnote four.
{9} I have said next to nothing about the Iraq surge since the strategy was announced late last year in the wake of the probable election losses for the Republicans in the congressional races.[...] Part of the reason for this is that it takes a while to implement a new military strategy and when I did speak on the matter back in July[...], the full number of extra troops were still not in place yet. I did however know that the surge was working about as well as it could be expected under the circumstances including that the msm has no interest in winning in Iraq for political reasons any more than the Democrats do. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 21, 2007)]
{10} Or benchmarks
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Points to Ponder:
(On Constitutional Interpretation From Democratic President Grover Cleveland)
Here is the background of what is about to be quoted from another website:
After a drought had ruined crops in several Texas counties, the Congress appropriated $10,000 to purchase seed grain for farmers there. Cleveland vetoed the expenditure.
And here is the message on why the bill was vetoed -today's "points to ponder" installment:
I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people. [President Grover Cleveland]
(On Constitutional Interpretation From Democratic President Grover Cleveland)
Here is the background of what is about to be quoted from another website:
After a drought had ruined crops in several Texas counties, the Congress appropriated $10,000 to purchase seed grain for farmers there. Cleveland vetoed the expenditure.
And here is the message on why the bill was vetoed -today's "points to ponder" installment:
I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people. [President Grover Cleveland]
Monday, July 07, 2008
Briefly on Appeasement Ecclesial-Style:
[Update: I added a title to this posting to enable me to precede it with an update that a portion of this note was not finished yesterday -something I did not realize until briefly perusing it again. The required material to complete it was added to the third footnote shortly before this note was attached. -ISM 7/8/08 7:00pm]
In looking into our proverbial crystal ball, "NostraShawnus" predicts that a lot of Anglicans will become either Catholics or Orthodox after the latest round of capitulation by their synod.
Whatever you have to say about it, at least the Catholics and Orthodox traditions reject the very notion of women's ordination -tying the principle to a sacramental understanding of clerical major orders which involves to some extent the intrinsic trait of masculinity.{1} But despite claiming an Apostolic pedigree, there is a marked absence of this principle amongst the Anglicans which is what made this new decision in the synod one that was eventually going to happen with enough time.
One who stands on fundamental philosophical principles is able to withstand what those who do not take such stands cannot for long endure. And I would be remiss in failing to note that this is also what happens when there is something rather irrational in your approach to these things.
Faith and reason should support and sustain one another when each is properly understood. But the claim that women can be priests but cannot be bishops (as the Anglican community has been claiming for some time now) is patently irrational if you consider that in the Christian tradition a bishop is merely receiver of a fullness of a common mystery{2} that priests receive to a lesser degree than bishops and deacons an even more marked lessening thereof. Such a consistency of principle is what protects the Catholic{3} and Orthodox{4} while the Anglicans show yet again the dangers of extreme or untethered latitudinarianism. Caveat Emptor!!!
Notes:
{1} The imagery drawn on in both traditions embodies in part Jesus' masculinity being part of his humanity and the Church in a mystical sense being his bride; ergo (one argument goes) the priest as a representative of Jesus for the assembly (or the bishop for the dioceses) requires the same fundamental characteristics of Jesus' humanity including his maleness.
{2} Or in Latin sacramentum or the basis for the theological principle of what is called "sacraments." The Anglicans rejecting the concept of clerical orders as a sacrament basically (and to put it nicely) cut off the branch on which they are sitting when it comes to these sorts of matters.
{3} In the Catholic tradition, this matter has become a matter of controversy since the Second Vatican Council. It is perhaps ironic that prior to the council this matter was theologically an open subject but at the council the matter was closed when the grades of what is called holy orders is expressly restricted to bishops, priests, and deacons in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium. (See sections 22-29 where the hierarchy and its various roles and functions are discussed.) With the boundaries of the sacrament of holy orders now as a matter of settled doctrine in the Catholic understanding of things, the inadmissibility on doctrinal, theological, and historical grounds of women to the priesthood was later proclaimed by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) under then-prefect Franjo Seper in a declaration which was issued with the concurrence of Pope Paul VI in 1976.
Not long after the Anglicans started "ordaining" women to be "priests", Pope John Paul II proclaimed the inadmissibility of women to the priesthood in a more solemn fashion in 1994. (In the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.) The CDF in 1995 under then-prefect Joseph Ratzinger issued a clarification in response to a question on the matter affirming the definitive nature of the aforementioned declaration which was authorized by Pope John Paul II. In 2007, the CDF issued under current prefect William Levada a declaration that any woman attempting to receive the sacrament of holy orders and any cleric who would dare attempt to administer it would receive an automatic excommunication latae sententae (or basically "by virtue of the act itself.") That decision was published in the Vatican's official newspaper on May 30, 2008.
{4} The Orthodox understanding of this tradition mirrors the Catholic one in many respects and is outlined in this writing by Fr. Alister Anderson.
[Update: I added a title to this posting to enable me to precede it with an update that a portion of this note was not finished yesterday -something I did not realize until briefly perusing it again. The required material to complete it was added to the third footnote shortly before this note was attached. -ISM 7/8/08 7:00pm]
In looking into our proverbial crystal ball, "NostraShawnus" predicts that a lot of Anglicans will become either Catholics or Orthodox after the latest round of capitulation by their synod.
Whatever you have to say about it, at least the Catholics and Orthodox traditions reject the very notion of women's ordination -tying the principle to a sacramental understanding of clerical major orders which involves to some extent the intrinsic trait of masculinity.{1} But despite claiming an Apostolic pedigree, there is a marked absence of this principle amongst the Anglicans which is what made this new decision in the synod one that was eventually going to happen with enough time.
One who stands on fundamental philosophical principles is able to withstand what those who do not take such stands cannot for long endure. And I would be remiss in failing to note that this is also what happens when there is something rather irrational in your approach to these things.
Faith and reason should support and sustain one another when each is properly understood. But the claim that women can be priests but cannot be bishops (as the Anglican community has been claiming for some time now) is patently irrational if you consider that in the Christian tradition a bishop is merely receiver of a fullness of a common mystery{2} that priests receive to a lesser degree than bishops and deacons an even more marked lessening thereof. Such a consistency of principle is what protects the Catholic{3} and Orthodox{4} while the Anglicans show yet again the dangers of extreme or untethered latitudinarianism. Caveat Emptor!!!
Notes:
{1} The imagery drawn on in both traditions embodies in part Jesus' masculinity being part of his humanity and the Church in a mystical sense being his bride; ergo (one argument goes) the priest as a representative of Jesus for the assembly (or the bishop for the dioceses) requires the same fundamental characteristics of Jesus' humanity including his maleness.
{2} Or in Latin sacramentum or the basis for the theological principle of what is called "sacraments." The Anglicans rejecting the concept of clerical orders as a sacrament basically (and to put it nicely) cut off the branch on which they are sitting when it comes to these sorts of matters.
{3} In the Catholic tradition, this matter has become a matter of controversy since the Second Vatican Council. It is perhaps ironic that prior to the council this matter was theologically an open subject but at the council the matter was closed when the grades of what is called holy orders is expressly restricted to bishops, priests, and deacons in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium. (See sections 22-29 where the hierarchy and its various roles and functions are discussed.) With the boundaries of the sacrament of holy orders now as a matter of settled doctrine in the Catholic understanding of things, the inadmissibility on doctrinal, theological, and historical grounds of women to the priesthood was later proclaimed by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) under then-prefect Franjo Seper in a declaration which was issued with the concurrence of Pope Paul VI in 1976.
Not long after the Anglicans started "ordaining" women to be "priests", Pope John Paul II proclaimed the inadmissibility of women to the priesthood in a more solemn fashion in 1994. (In the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.) The CDF in 1995 under then-prefect Joseph Ratzinger issued a clarification in response to a question on the matter affirming the definitive nature of the aforementioned declaration which was authorized by Pope John Paul II. In 2007, the CDF issued under current prefect William Levada a declaration that any woman attempting to receive the sacrament of holy orders and any cleric who would dare attempt to administer it would receive an automatic excommunication latae sententae (or basically "by virtue of the act itself.") That decision was published in the Vatican's official newspaper on May 30, 2008.
{4} The Orthodox understanding of this tradition mirrors the Catholic one in many respects and is outlined in this writing by Fr. Alister Anderson.
Saturday, July 05, 2008
Reissuing the "'Neo-Con' Challenge'":
Since first sketching out my questions with regard to use of this term in October of 2005{1}, and putting together a more systematical presentation in December of that year{2}, I have from time to time when the mood strikes me reissued{3} the challenge to those who frequently utilize this term -most recently in January of last year.{4}
Though some will probably find this notion amusing, I nonetheless have a method to my madness and am doing this for a reason: to point out the problem with using terms that are not defined or not explaining how one who uses a term understands that term to be applicable. It is too common for people to lazily throw around terms to avoid having to think about issues and that is a problem that is seemingly increasing over time. And as we noted in the last reissuing of this challenge, the problem was summed up rather tersely in the following statement by one of our early{5} intellectual mentors:
[W]e are living in a new Dark Ages, we really are. Most people have no concept of logic and how to use it. How to use their intellectual faculties to distinguish between truth and falsehood. Most people are intellectually dependent. [Mike Mentzer (circa 1993) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa February 12, 2006)]
This is a serious problem we face in society and it is one reason I see value in the challenge I am proposing here. So as definitions are the tools of thought,{6}, it would be nice if those who have a bug up their hind quarters about these supposed "neo-cons" actually explain what I have requested in the threads above. This is not that difficult to do actually but doing so would hold those who kvetch about these supposed beings to a certain standard. Thus far, only one party who has frequent recourse to this term has taken the time to formulate a definition of the term{7} but even they were trying to go beyond the boundaries they set down in applying it.
So is it possible that someone will step up to the plate and actually define this term so we can identify these so-called 'neo-cons' or is it going to be more of the same indiscriminate labeling of others with what is intended to be a derisive or dismissive term akin to "antisemite", "nazi", or whatever??? I highly doubt the frequenters of that term will provide us with an answer but hope springs eternal I suppose.
Notes:
{1} Miscellaneous Morning Musings on Blogging, the So-Called "Neo-Cons", and the Miers Nomination--An Audio Post (circa October 27, 2005)
{2} "Tracking the Ever-Elusive So-Called 'Neo Con'" Dept. (circa December 4, 2005)
{3} "Tracking the Ever-Elusive So-Called 'Neo-Con'" Dept. --A Rerum Novarum Challenge Revisitation/Reiussuance Thread (circa October 2, 2006)
{4} "Lions and Tigers and 'Neo-Cons', Oh My!!!" Dept. (circa January 31, 2007)
{5} I touched on this a bit in the following post:
Responding to the Blogosphere Book Meme (circa June 14, 2005)
{6} Points to Ponder as posted to Rerum Novarum (circa December 17, 2004)
{7} That party for those who are interested was Dale Vree. Mr. Vree's proposed definition and application were addressed in a March 2006 posting to Rerum Novarum which is viewable HERE.
Since first sketching out my questions with regard to use of this term in October of 2005{1}, and putting together a more systematical presentation in December of that year{2}, I have from time to time when the mood strikes me reissued{3} the challenge to those who frequently utilize this term -most recently in January of last year.{4}
Though some will probably find this notion amusing, I nonetheless have a method to my madness and am doing this for a reason: to point out the problem with using terms that are not defined or not explaining how one who uses a term understands that term to be applicable. It is too common for people to lazily throw around terms to avoid having to think about issues and that is a problem that is seemingly increasing over time. And as we noted in the last reissuing of this challenge, the problem was summed up rather tersely in the following statement by one of our early{5} intellectual mentors:
[W]e are living in a new Dark Ages, we really are. Most people have no concept of logic and how to use it. How to use their intellectual faculties to distinguish between truth and falsehood. Most people are intellectually dependent. [Mike Mentzer (circa 1993) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa February 12, 2006)]
This is a serious problem we face in society and it is one reason I see value in the challenge I am proposing here. So as definitions are the tools of thought,{6}, it would be nice if those who have a bug up their hind quarters about these supposed "neo-cons" actually explain what I have requested in the threads above. This is not that difficult to do actually but doing so would hold those who kvetch about these supposed beings to a certain standard. Thus far, only one party who has frequent recourse to this term has taken the time to formulate a definition of the term{7} but even they were trying to go beyond the boundaries they set down in applying it.
So is it possible that someone will step up to the plate and actually define this term so we can identify these so-called 'neo-cons' or is it going to be more of the same indiscriminate labeling of others with what is intended to be a derisive or dismissive term akin to "antisemite", "nazi", or whatever??? I highly doubt the frequenters of that term will provide us with an answer but hope springs eternal I suppose.
Notes:
{1} Miscellaneous Morning Musings on Blogging, the So-Called "Neo-Cons", and the Miers Nomination--An Audio Post (circa October 27, 2005)
{2} "Tracking the Ever-Elusive So-Called 'Neo Con'" Dept. (circa December 4, 2005)
{3} "Tracking the Ever-Elusive So-Called 'Neo-Con'" Dept. --A Rerum Novarum Challenge Revisitation/Reiussuance Thread (circa October 2, 2006)
{4} "Lions and Tigers and 'Neo-Cons', Oh My!!!" Dept. (circa January 31, 2007)
{5} I touched on this a bit in the following post:
Responding to the Blogosphere Book Meme (circa June 14, 2005)
{6} Points to Ponder as posted to Rerum Novarum (circa December 17, 2004)
{7} That party for those who are interested was Dale Vree. Mr. Vree's proposed definition and application were addressed in a March 2006 posting to Rerum Novarum which is viewable HERE.
Friday, July 04, 2008
There are a couple links from the archives of this humble weblog that I want to remind readers of before going off to celebrate the fourth. Without further ado...
Some Brief Biographical Bits on a Few Founding Fathers (circa January 23, 2007)
I sketched out a few for the benefit of the readers -some of them were involved in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, some in the Continental Congress of 1776, and some were involved in both pivotal events.
Rough Draft of a Book Review of Charles Cerami's Young Patriots (circa January 25, 2007)
Though that text was posted almost verbatim to Amazon earlier this year, that draft (originally written in mid 2006) has a few bits the Amazon review does not if memory serves.
On the Founding Fathers and Liberty's Greatest Advocate -By Rush H. Limbaugh Jr., Dr. Walter E. Williams, Plus Some Ultra Brief Musings from Your Blog Host (circa July 3, 2007)
For those who think that the Limbaugh in that thread is the talk show host, actually it is Rush's father.
Anyway, it is my hope that readers will find something of value in those threads and that they celebrate today the birth of a great nation and take note of both its tremendous achievements these past 232 years but also give a fair pause of some of the failings too. There is a reason why the writer of the song America the Beautiful included a verse not commonly known about America and "God mend her every flaw." Some have been mended over time and others await their day of reckoning still. Nonetheless, the structure set up by the Founders is one subject to amendment and revision without destroying the entire structure{1} and we should celebrate that achievement as well as our independence without forgetting that there is still a lot of work left to be done.
God Bless America!!!
Note:
{1} I go over at some length this principle in the following expository musing on one of the black marks of American history:
On Being Fair to Historical Figures in General and Revisiting the Subject of Slavery in American History (circa October 25, 2007)
Some Brief Biographical Bits on a Few Founding Fathers (circa January 23, 2007)
I sketched out a few for the benefit of the readers -some of them were involved in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, some in the Continental Congress of 1776, and some were involved in both pivotal events.
Rough Draft of a Book Review of Charles Cerami's Young Patriots (circa January 25, 2007)
Though that text was posted almost verbatim to Amazon earlier this year, that draft (originally written in mid 2006) has a few bits the Amazon review does not if memory serves.
On the Founding Fathers and Liberty's Greatest Advocate -By Rush H. Limbaugh Jr., Dr. Walter E. Williams, Plus Some Ultra Brief Musings from Your Blog Host (circa July 3, 2007)
For those who think that the Limbaugh in that thread is the talk show host, actually it is Rush's father.
Anyway, it is my hope that readers will find something of value in those threads and that they celebrate today the birth of a great nation and take note of both its tremendous achievements these past 232 years but also give a fair pause of some of the failings too. There is a reason why the writer of the song America the Beautiful included a verse not commonly known about America and "God mend her every flaw." Some have been mended over time and others await their day of reckoning still. Nonetheless, the structure set up by the Founders is one subject to amendment and revision without destroying the entire structure{1} and we should celebrate that achievement as well as our independence without forgetting that there is still a lot of work left to be done.
God Bless America!!!
Note:
{1} I go over at some length this principle in the following expository musing on one of the black marks of American history:
On Being Fair to Historical Figures in General and Revisiting the Subject of Slavery in American History (circa October 25, 2007)
Monday, June 30, 2008
On the Recent Supreme Court Second Amendment Case:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Though I recently noted one of the rare examples of where the John Roberts Court had gone astray when it came to a judgment on a case that conformed to judicial interpretation as opposed to judicial activism{1} -and furthermore said that I might cover it in more detail later on{2}, it would be remiss of me to not give them credit for getting right the decision in D.C. v. Heller. Before readers presume that I am saying a given case is "right" or "wrong" based on subjective whims, I remind them that my stance is and always has been one of taking an originalist approach to the Constitution and not merely saying that there are "Constitutional rights" whenever the issue is one that fits any individual's personal whims.
In saying this, I have taken issue with those who would look for so-called "litmus tests" for justices on the court of any sort{3} that they are involving themselves in judicial activism which as a principle is wrong period not merely wrong when those a person believes are morally wrong on their position utilize it but okay when those you believe are morally right are the asserters of it.{4}
For I have long said and on more than one occasion that there are certain positions I am not opposed to in principle but which I would never claim are "constitutional" because they are not. One is the concept of a federal right to privacy. Or as I noted briefly last year on one such matter:
I cannot recall if I have said this on the weblog in the past or not (as I cannot find anything in a quick archive search) but I am not opposed in principle to the idea of a federal right to privacy. The problem is, there is no constitutional foundation for such a position; ergo those who want to see one should do what they can to amend the Constitution to reflect that right. Otherwise, they should have the decency to admit that they do not give a damn about the Constitution at all. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 29, 2007)]
And on the matter of D.C. v. Heller, the Roberts Court led by the lucid reasoning of Justice Antonin Scalia took the view of the Second Amendment that the text itself conveys. It is interesting how the four justices who voted against the position of Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy would have no problem finding in the Constitution a supposed "constitutional right" to either a "federal right to privacy"{5}, a supposed "constitutional right" to an abortion{6} or to engage in sodomy{7}, or a "constitutional right" for stealing an individual's private property to sell to another private party in direct violation of the Fifth Amendment{8} yet these same proponents cannot see the simple language of the Second Amendment that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and somehow claim it does not say precisely what it says!!!
But this is why I have long endorsed the idea of involving those who would attempt to "reason" the way the proponents of an "evolving constitution" do in a game of Texas Hold'Em with "evolving rules" to illustrate the stupidity of their judicial pretensions.{9} But enough on that for now and I want to simply at this time give congrats to the four originalist justices for voting as they did out of principle, and to Justice Kennedy whose "judicial magic 8 ball"{10} came up on the originalist side of the vote this time. And lest I forget, to remind readers that this is an example of why the types of justices who are placed on the Supreme Court is a matter of no small importance and why votes for president in 2008 should take that factor heavily into account.
Notes:
{1} The cases I have in mind here are the ones purporting to give constitutional rights to foreign terrorists (Boumediene v. Bush) and the recent case that child rapists could not be given the death penalty because the latter was supposedly "unconstitutional" (Kennedy v. Lousiana). But I could also mention the case from 2006 which Chief Justice Roberts had to abstain on which applied Geneva Convention protocols to those who do not fit the criteria outlined by the Geneva Conventions for such protections to be granted to them.
{2} Though overall the Roberts Court has pleased me greatly compared to its predecessors of recent decades; nonetheless, the occasional decision such as this reminds us all that there are still some on the court whose vote essentially is tied to a lack of solid judicial philosophy and thus subject to personal inclinations. I may go over that in detail another time{1} if so inclined but for the time being that is all I intend to say on it. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 28, 2008)]
In the footnote of the above quote, the following clarification was made:
I will only note here briefly that the role of a justice is to interpret the law and not invent law. This may well mean rendering a ruling that is opposed to the individual justice's personal views on a matter. [(ibid.)]
{3} Whether it be (to give one example that comes readily to mind) the abolition of Roe v. Wade as favoured by pro life advocates or the assertion of abortion as a "constitutional right" by those who support Roe v. Wade. To understand my view on this subject, readers are advised to consider some of the threads in this weblog's archive on the subject of judicial activism. Here are several of them going back five years in order from most recent to oldest:
Clarification on Our Use of Judicial Terminology (circa March 13, 2008)
On Mitt Romney, Conservatives, and the Judiciary (circa December 16, 2007)
On Fundamental Rights, Common Law Principles, and Abortion (circa February 1, 2007)
On the Election, "Lost Causes", and Activism (circa December 7, 2006)
On the Election and the Attitudes of Self-Identified Conservatives (circa November 7, 2006)
Briefly on Originalism and Chief Justice John Roberts (circa March 7, 2006)
On the Miers Nomination and Activist Conservative Agendas (circa October 10, 2005)
"The Stupid [Republican] Party Strikes Back" Dept. (circa May 25, 2005)
Notations on Short and Long Term Approaches to Dealing With Judicial Activism (circa August 29, 2004)
Society's Ills, the Function of Law in a Just Society, Etc. (circa April 16, 2004)
On Judicial "Constructionists", "Whores", and "Termites" (circa June 24, 2003)
{4} Which is a form of what is called consequentialism that some who claim to have a problem with "consequentialism" irrationally involve themselves in: a subject I recently finished a draft text on which will be blogged in the coming days or weeks.
{5} Cf. Griswold vs. Connecticut (circa 1965).
{6} Cf. Roe v. Wade (circa 1973).
{7} Cf. Lawrence v. Texas (circa 2003).
{8} Cf. Kelo v. New London (circa 2005).
{9} The writer of this post would like to take this opportunity to to invite anyone who believes in an evolving constitutional interpretation to email him if they are fans of Texas Hold 'Em and are interested in playing for money. For your humble servant is not only a pretty decent poker player but he also has in mind starting a game with people like you for money to illustrate by demonstration the logical absurdity of your positions: Texas Hold 'Em with "evolving rules."[...] Something tells your host that such a game would amply clarify the absurdity of the "evolving constitution" position in precise proportion to the amount of money the promoters of the "evolving constitutional interpretation" theory lost their cash in the afore-proposed card game. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 25, 2005)]
{10} [Supreme Conflict] well outlines how [lack of philosophical identity] was Kennedy's problem and why he ended up looking so promising to conservatives but has on key conservative issues been such a let-down. Kennedy started with conservative instincts and still to some extent has them but without a solid template of sorts from which to operate from, there were and are inconsistencies in how he comes down on a given issue. Too often without such a template the environment to some extent can play an influence that may well go unnoticed and a sequence of small shifts (each in and of themselves seemingly innocuous) can create over time the materials for a completely different paradigm altogether. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 7, 2007)]
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Though I recently noted one of the rare examples of where the John Roberts Court had gone astray when it came to a judgment on a case that conformed to judicial interpretation as opposed to judicial activism{1} -and furthermore said that I might cover it in more detail later on{2}, it would be remiss of me to not give them credit for getting right the decision in D.C. v. Heller. Before readers presume that I am saying a given case is "right" or "wrong" based on subjective whims, I remind them that my stance is and always has been one of taking an originalist approach to the Constitution and not merely saying that there are "Constitutional rights" whenever the issue is one that fits any individual's personal whims.
In saying this, I have taken issue with those who would look for so-called "litmus tests" for justices on the court of any sort{3} that they are involving themselves in judicial activism which as a principle is wrong period not merely wrong when those a person believes are morally wrong on their position utilize it but okay when those you believe are morally right are the asserters of it.{4}
For I have long said and on more than one occasion that there are certain positions I am not opposed to in principle but which I would never claim are "constitutional" because they are not. One is the concept of a federal right to privacy. Or as I noted briefly last year on one such matter:
I cannot recall if I have said this on the weblog in the past or not (as I cannot find anything in a quick archive search) but I am not opposed in principle to the idea of a federal right to privacy. The problem is, there is no constitutional foundation for such a position; ergo those who want to see one should do what they can to amend the Constitution to reflect that right. Otherwise, they should have the decency to admit that they do not give a damn about the Constitution at all. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 29, 2007)]
And on the matter of D.C. v. Heller, the Roberts Court led by the lucid reasoning of Justice Antonin Scalia took the view of the Second Amendment that the text itself conveys. It is interesting how the four justices who voted against the position of Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy would have no problem finding in the Constitution a supposed "constitutional right" to either a "federal right to privacy"{5}, a supposed "constitutional right" to an abortion{6} or to engage in sodomy{7}, or a "constitutional right" for stealing an individual's private property to sell to another private party in direct violation of the Fifth Amendment{8} yet these same proponents cannot see the simple language of the Second Amendment that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and somehow claim it does not say precisely what it says!!!
But this is why I have long endorsed the idea of involving those who would attempt to "reason" the way the proponents of an "evolving constitution" do in a game of Texas Hold'Em with "evolving rules" to illustrate the stupidity of their judicial pretensions.{9} But enough on that for now and I want to simply at this time give congrats to the four originalist justices for voting as they did out of principle, and to Justice Kennedy whose "judicial magic 8 ball"{10} came up on the originalist side of the vote this time. And lest I forget, to remind readers that this is an example of why the types of justices who are placed on the Supreme Court is a matter of no small importance and why votes for president in 2008 should take that factor heavily into account.
Notes:
{1} The cases I have in mind here are the ones purporting to give constitutional rights to foreign terrorists (Boumediene v. Bush) and the recent case that child rapists could not be given the death penalty because the latter was supposedly "unconstitutional" (Kennedy v. Lousiana). But I could also mention the case from 2006 which Chief Justice Roberts had to abstain on which applied Geneva Convention protocols to those who do not fit the criteria outlined by the Geneva Conventions for such protections to be granted to them.
{2} Though overall the Roberts Court has pleased me greatly compared to its predecessors of recent decades; nonetheless, the occasional decision such as this reminds us all that there are still some on the court whose vote essentially is tied to a lack of solid judicial philosophy and thus subject to personal inclinations. I may go over that in detail another time{1} if so inclined but for the time being that is all I intend to say on it. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 28, 2008)]
In the footnote of the above quote, the following clarification was made:
I will only note here briefly that the role of a justice is to interpret the law and not invent law. This may well mean rendering a ruling that is opposed to the individual justice's personal views on a matter. [(ibid.)]
{3} Whether it be (to give one example that comes readily to mind) the abolition of Roe v. Wade as favoured by pro life advocates or the assertion of abortion as a "constitutional right" by those who support Roe v. Wade. To understand my view on this subject, readers are advised to consider some of the threads in this weblog's archive on the subject of judicial activism. Here are several of them going back five years in order from most recent to oldest:
Clarification on Our Use of Judicial Terminology (circa March 13, 2008)
On Mitt Romney, Conservatives, and the Judiciary (circa December 16, 2007)
On Fundamental Rights, Common Law Principles, and Abortion (circa February 1, 2007)
On the Election, "Lost Causes", and Activism (circa December 7, 2006)
On the Election and the Attitudes of Self-Identified Conservatives (circa November 7, 2006)
Briefly on Originalism and Chief Justice John Roberts (circa March 7, 2006)
On the Miers Nomination and Activist Conservative Agendas (circa October 10, 2005)
"The Stupid [Republican] Party Strikes Back" Dept. (circa May 25, 2005)
Notations on Short and Long Term Approaches to Dealing With Judicial Activism (circa August 29, 2004)
Society's Ills, the Function of Law in a Just Society, Etc. (circa April 16, 2004)
On Judicial "Constructionists", "Whores", and "Termites" (circa June 24, 2003)
{4} Which is a form of what is called consequentialism that some who claim to have a problem with "consequentialism" irrationally involve themselves in: a subject I recently finished a draft text on which will be blogged in the coming days or weeks.
{5} Cf. Griswold vs. Connecticut (circa 1965).
{6} Cf. Roe v. Wade (circa 1973).
{7} Cf. Lawrence v. Texas (circa 2003).
{8} Cf. Kelo v. New London (circa 2005).
{9} The writer of this post would like to take this opportunity to to invite anyone who believes in an evolving constitutional interpretation to email him if they are fans of Texas Hold 'Em and are interested in playing for money. For your humble servant is not only a pretty decent poker player but he also has in mind starting a game with people like you for money to illustrate by demonstration the logical absurdity of your positions: Texas Hold 'Em with "evolving rules."[...] Something tells your host that such a game would amply clarify the absurdity of the "evolving constitution" position in precise proportion to the amount of money the promoters of the "evolving constitutional interpretation" theory lost their cash in the afore-proposed card game. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 25, 2005)]
{10} [Supreme Conflict] well outlines how [lack of philosophical identity] was Kennedy's problem and why he ended up looking so promising to conservatives but has on key conservative issues been such a let-down. Kennedy started with conservative instincts and still to some extent has them but without a solid template of sorts from which to operate from, there were and are inconsistencies in how he comes down on a given issue. Too often without such a template the environment to some extent can play an influence that may well go unnoticed and a sequence of small shifts (each in and of themselves seemingly innocuous) can create over time the materials for a completely different paradigm altogether. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 7, 2007)]
On Coercion, the War on Terror, "Torture", and "Fantasy Situations":
The argument of the Christian revelation is that this is, not to put too fine a point on it, a lie from the pit of hell. Because the argument of the Christian revelation is that Christ intends our happiness and knows better than we do what is actually the best way for the human person to realize that. This involves a conception of Christ's commands as something other than impossible ideals or as cruel irrational restrictions on our freedom which we have to obey for no reason other than fear. In short, it involves the idea that the one who created us did so because he wills our happiness and obedience is actually ordered toward life and freedom, not toward our destruction.
Notice the bait and switch here folks. Mark has now after creating no small amount of confusion with regards to certain concepts taken to wrapping his opinion up in the mantle of "the Christian revelation" to the exclusion of other views!!! It is all well and good to say that "obedience is actually ordered towards life and freedom" but when you advocate approaches as Mark does which endanger the very life you seek to protect, you cannot expect anyone who respects the natural God-given faculties of reason and logic along with the fundamental rights of man to take such rhetoric seriously.
I appreciate the fear that lies behind all this "How far can we go in really desperate situations?" hypothesizing. I really do. I am constitutionally Irish and I feel the temptation every day to imagine The Worst ("What would I do if my wife were killed? Or my children contracted a wasting disease? Or Seattle was nuked? Or the ferry I'm on is sunk by an Al-Quaeda agent? Or a thousand other terrifying things happened?") But I also recognize that such cultivation of fear is sinful.
The cultivation of libel and bearing false witness against one's neighbour is also sinful. And on this matter Mark has far more often than not engaged in these very things -the only exceptions being (it would seem) when he bumps up against someone who can impact his income.{1} This shows not a concern for moral and ethical principles on his part but instead one of expediency: ironically the very sort of thing he seeks to dress up in a giant strawman and accuse of what he is doing those who disagree with his interpretation of Christian principles.
It place me, for the most part, not in the "real world" but in a fantasy. In the real world is God and my duty to my family and my work. This is not speculation on my part. This is the command of the gospel. Jesus specifically forbids us to worry. St. Paul does not command us to constantly rehearse the horrible ways in which we and those we live might suffer (and this was a man who experienced more actual suffering than we ever will). Instead--from jail--he wrote:
Have no anxiety about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. 7 And the peace of God, which passes all understanding, will keep your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. 8 Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. 9* What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you.
Paul says that we must "be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of our minds." (Romans 12). It is significant that, for the world, readiness comes from being afraid, tense, jumping at the rustle of leaves, worried about what horrible thing *might* happen.
Readiness comes from preparing oneself for all possible contingencies, not acting like a bunch of geopolitical snake handlers. I had better explain what I mean by that term lest I do what I am critical of Mark of doing and not define my terms.
The reference to snake handling is part of an analogy I use to refer to certain fundamentalist Christian groups who take the phrasing from the end of the Gospel of Mark literally about picking up serpents and not being harmed by them. There are entire sects who have as a ritual the playing with poisonous snakes (usually rattlers) under the delusional belief that because they "believe in Jesus" that they will not be harmed. And yet not a few of them are harmed -indeed if not for the fact that there is an effective antidote against rattlesnake poison today, many of them would die as a result.
Geopolitical snake handlers are those who are similarly misguided as the fundamentalists are with their snakes except with regards to geopolitical matters such as enemy combatants who do not conform to the rubrics set down by the Geneva Conventions for treatment of prisoners of war even if they were signatories to them which (of course) they are not. But those factors aside, we apparently need to recoil at every individual's whim of what constitutes "torture" and put these people up in five star resorts with the best food and wine, the most comfortable of amenities, and somehow they will magically give us valuable information which we can use against Al Qaeda to insure their defeat.
Now I am sure people such as Mark would claim that my illustration of their position is ridiculously caricatured but at bottom that is what it logically implies. And without the attempt being made to define the terms of discussion, basically anything the government does to try and obtain information can be construed by some activist wacko as "torture." In true rational nominalist{2} fashion, words without accepted meanings can mean anything.
This is why the attempts on my part and presumably on the part of others to get people such as Mark to explain the terms they throw around so casually is so important. It is important because not only does an absence of definition of terms allow any person of Mark's general outlook{3} to ascribe any action they do not like as "torture" but it also allows someone whose general outlook is the opposite of Mark's{4} to ascribe anything they like as "coercion." There is in other words a need for understanding of terms so that excesses on either side are more easily recognized. As I noted previously, this will not result in agreement across the board by any means but it would help in making discourse on the matter a lot more civil and perhaps building some unexpected coalitions of sort which could work as a check and balance on both tendencies on these matters.
For Paul, readiness comes from peace. That's why he tells the Ephesians to let there feet be shod with "the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace" (Ephesians 6).
We start with the revelation, not with servile fear and concupiscence, in thinking about these matters.
Again, Mark presumes without demonstrative warrant that those who disagree with his interpretation of things are not "start[ing] with revelation" on these matters and that is no small source of annoyance. It would be one thing for Mark to presume that those who do not agree with him reason from revelation erroneously on these matters but do not do so in bad faith but he quite clearly has not done this. Or shall I say he has not done this with anyone who does not potentially have a discernible impact on his ability to make a living off of apologetics.{5} That is the sort of noxious double standard that has no place amongst those who are truly interested in the cultivation and promotion of not only the God-given tools of reason and logic but also those who endeavour (however imperfectly) to take the councils of the spiritual masters of the Catholic tradition seriously when it comes to proper conduct towards others.{6}
While a lot more could be noted than this, I do not intend to do so at this time as enough has been covered in this thread already. And again, for those who think it strange that I would take time to do this they would do well to remember certain basic principles of ethics{7} which are at the foundation of how we do things here at Rerum Novarum.
Notes:
{1} For example, the whole Jimmy Akin incident from late 2006.
{2} Rational Nominalism: A mindset or foundational presupposition which wholeheartedly embraces the nominalist concept of using words in a variety of ways without concern for any universal or underlying coherency across the continuum of words, phrases, subjects, etc. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 21, 2007)]
{3} By this term I mean someone who is generally inclined against the efforts of the government when it comes to its handling of WOT.
{4} By this term I mean someone who is generally inclined towards the efforts of the government when it comes to its handling of WOT.
{5} See footnote one.
{6} To note one example of countless others which could be noted is the principle of charity:
Always be ready and willing to excuse the faults of your neighbour, and never put an unfavourable interpretation upon his actions. The same action, says St. Francis de Sales, may be looked upon under many different aspects: a charitable person will ever suppose the best, an uncharitable person will just as certainly choose the worst. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 24, 2004)]
By the principles of St. Francis de Sales, Mark is an "uncharitable person" on these matters the lions share of the time.
{7} Or to encapsulate a principle I have enunciated so often publicly and privately over the years that I feel like a broken record:
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. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 3, 2008)]
Unfortunately, the violators of this principle are either too blind or too stupid to figure this out or (if they do) they sure do not care to apply it across the board as anyone of integrity would seek to do.
(An Attempted Dialogue With the Words of Mark Shea -Part III of III)
To read the previous part to this thread, please go here. To start from the beginning of this series, please go here. Without further ado (and yet again with Mark Shea's words in dark green font)...
To read the previous part to this thread, please go here. To start from the beginning of this series, please go here. Without further ado (and yet again with Mark Shea's words in dark green font)...
Notice the bait and switch here folks. Mark has now after creating no small amount of confusion with regards to certain concepts taken to wrapping his opinion up in the mantle of "the Christian revelation" to the exclusion of other views!!! It is all well and good to say that "obedience is actually ordered towards life and freedom" but when you advocate approaches as Mark does which endanger the very life you seek to protect, you cannot expect anyone who respects the natural God-given faculties of reason and logic along with the fundamental rights of man to take such rhetoric seriously.
I appreciate the fear that lies behind all this "How far can we go in really desperate situations?" hypothesizing. I really do. I am constitutionally Irish and I feel the temptation every day to imagine The Worst ("What would I do if my wife were killed? Or my children contracted a wasting disease? Or Seattle was nuked? Or the ferry I'm on is sunk by an Al-Quaeda agent? Or a thousand other terrifying things happened?") But I also recognize that such cultivation of fear is sinful.
The cultivation of libel and bearing false witness against one's neighbour is also sinful. And on this matter Mark has far more often than not engaged in these very things -the only exceptions being (it would seem) when he bumps up against someone who can impact his income.{1} This shows not a concern for moral and ethical principles on his part but instead one of expediency: ironically the very sort of thing he seeks to dress up in a giant strawman and accuse of what he is doing those who disagree with his interpretation of Christian principles.
It place me, for the most part, not in the "real world" but in a fantasy. In the real world is God and my duty to my family and my work. This is not speculation on my part. This is the command of the gospel. Jesus specifically forbids us to worry. St. Paul does not command us to constantly rehearse the horrible ways in which we and those we live might suffer (and this was a man who experienced more actual suffering than we ever will). Instead--from jail--he wrote:
Have no anxiety about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. 7 And the peace of God, which passes all understanding, will keep your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. 8 Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. 9* What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you.
Paul says that we must "be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of our minds." (Romans 12). It is significant that, for the world, readiness comes from being afraid, tense, jumping at the rustle of leaves, worried about what horrible thing *might* happen.
Readiness comes from preparing oneself for all possible contingencies, not acting like a bunch of geopolitical snake handlers. I had better explain what I mean by that term lest I do what I am critical of Mark of doing and not define my terms.
The reference to snake handling is part of an analogy I use to refer to certain fundamentalist Christian groups who take the phrasing from the end of the Gospel of Mark literally about picking up serpents and not being harmed by them. There are entire sects who have as a ritual the playing with poisonous snakes (usually rattlers) under the delusional belief that because they "believe in Jesus" that they will not be harmed. And yet not a few of them are harmed -indeed if not for the fact that there is an effective antidote against rattlesnake poison today, many of them would die as a result.
Geopolitical snake handlers are those who are similarly misguided as the fundamentalists are with their snakes except with regards to geopolitical matters such as enemy combatants who do not conform to the rubrics set down by the Geneva Conventions for treatment of prisoners of war even if they were signatories to them which (of course) they are not. But those factors aside, we apparently need to recoil at every individual's whim of what constitutes "torture" and put these people up in five star resorts with the best food and wine, the most comfortable of amenities, and somehow they will magically give us valuable information which we can use against Al Qaeda to insure their defeat.
Now I am sure people such as Mark would claim that my illustration of their position is ridiculously caricatured but at bottom that is what it logically implies. And without the attempt being made to define the terms of discussion, basically anything the government does to try and obtain information can be construed by some activist wacko as "torture." In true rational nominalist{2} fashion, words without accepted meanings can mean anything.
This is why the attempts on my part and presumably on the part of others to get people such as Mark to explain the terms they throw around so casually is so important. It is important because not only does an absence of definition of terms allow any person of Mark's general outlook{3} to ascribe any action they do not like as "torture" but it also allows someone whose general outlook is the opposite of Mark's{4} to ascribe anything they like as "coercion." There is in other words a need for understanding of terms so that excesses on either side are more easily recognized. As I noted previously, this will not result in agreement across the board by any means but it would help in making discourse on the matter a lot more civil and perhaps building some unexpected coalitions of sort which could work as a check and balance on both tendencies on these matters.
For Paul, readiness comes from peace. That's why he tells the Ephesians to let there feet be shod with "the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace" (Ephesians 6).
We start with the revelation, not with servile fear and concupiscence, in thinking about these matters.
Again, Mark presumes without demonstrative warrant that those who disagree with his interpretation of things are not "start[ing] with revelation" on these matters and that is no small source of annoyance. It would be one thing for Mark to presume that those who do not agree with him reason from revelation erroneously on these matters but do not do so in bad faith but he quite clearly has not done this. Or shall I say he has not done this with anyone who does not potentially have a discernible impact on his ability to make a living off of apologetics.{5} That is the sort of noxious double standard that has no place amongst those who are truly interested in the cultivation and promotion of not only the God-given tools of reason and logic but also those who endeavour (however imperfectly) to take the councils of the spiritual masters of the Catholic tradition seriously when it comes to proper conduct towards others.{6}
While a lot more could be noted than this, I do not intend to do so at this time as enough has been covered in this thread already. And again, for those who think it strange that I would take time to do this they would do well to remember certain basic principles of ethics{7} which are at the foundation of how we do things here at Rerum Novarum.
Notes:
{2} Rational Nominalism: A mindset or foundational presupposition which wholeheartedly embraces the nominalist concept of using words in a variety of ways without concern for any universal or underlying coherency across the continuum of words, phrases, subjects, etc. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 21, 2007)]
{3} By this term I mean someone who is generally inclined against the efforts of the government when it comes to its handling of WOT.
{4} By this term I mean someone who is generally inclined towards the efforts of the government when it comes to its handling of WOT.
{5} See footnote one.
{6} To note one example of countless others which could be noted is the principle of charity:
Always be ready and willing to excuse the faults of your neighbour, and never put an unfavourable interpretation upon his actions. The same action, says St. Francis de Sales, may be looked upon under many different aspects: a charitable person will ever suppose the best, an uncharitable person will just as certainly choose the worst. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 24, 2004)]
By the principles of St. Francis de Sales, Mark is an "uncharitable person" on these matters the lions share of the time.
{7} Or to encapsulate a principle I have enunciated so often publicly and privately over the years that I feel like a broken record:
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. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 3, 2008)]
Unfortunately, the violators of this principle are either too blind or too stupid to figure this out or (if they do) they sure do not care to apply it across the board as anyone of integrity would seek to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)