On Irenic Dialogue, When It Will Not Be Undertaken, and When We Will Get Nasty To Certain Emailers of a Disgustingly Unethical Nature:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
This posting was occasioned by the following thread from Andrew Breitbart circa March 30, 2009:
Online Activists On the Right, Unite! (Andrew Breitbart)
I want to interact with a few samples of his content before I comment in expository fashion...
A digital war has broken out, and the conservative movement is losing. Read the comment sections of right-leaning blogs, news sites and social forums, and the evidence is there in ugly abundance. Internet hooligans are spewing their talking points to thwart the dissent of the newly-out-of-power. We must not let that go unanswered.
Oh I have never intended to.
Uninvited Democratic activists are on a mission to demoralize the enemy - us. They want to ensure that President Obama is not subject to the same coordinated, facts-be-damned, multimedia takedown they employed over eight long years to destroy the presidency - and the humanity - of George W. Bush.
And as far as I am concerned at least, they will not succeed.
During the Clinton impeachment scandal, a new group out of California called MoveOn.org employed a plan to get its members to dial into right-leaning talk radio shows with scripted talking points falsely claiming that they were Republicans.
It is funny that Andrew Breitbart mentions this because while not exactly the same thing, I have been party over the years to various emailers who have sought to take issue with me on what they perceive (rightly or wrongly) to be my views on persons and issues. Of course since I am not beholden to any political party and as my views do not fit neatly into any given category, there is inevitably as much missing as hitting the mark in what they send me. But I have noticed a pattern at times where I am sent tract like arguments supported with various references -as for whether or not I respond to them depends on the time I have and the extent to which a given subject matter interests me or not.
In an example of one of these received last week, I wrote a detailed response to it and posted the text to this blog{1} and in other mediums and sent a version of the text to the emailer only to get a bounced email reply with the mailer daemon claiming that the account "does not exist." This intrigued me a bit so I did some word searchs at my gmail account to find similar emails from months past and sent testing emails to two of them.
As the end result was bounced emails and claims from the mailer daemon that said accounts "do not exist", this makes it clear to me that some of these are the sorts of liberals from the Moveon.Org school. They sent me their stuff but did not have a return address indicating that they were not interested in a dialogue on issues but instead wanted to send me stuff opposing what they believe are my views from fake email accounts. This means they want to try and spout off whatever lies, mistruths, libels, and the like against others without feeling morally and ethically responsible for the content thereof. So while this brands such people as obviously a bunch of chickenshit cowards, I address the rest of this posting to them and their ilk right now.
Insofar as the emails you sorts send have the same patterns to them, I can now after a brief scanning of the text know if I am dealing with someone of goodwill or a spammer. Such emailers will have a "test email" sent to their account to see if it bounces and if it does not, I will if inclined respond amicably. But if it does bounce, I will from this point forward not only rationally refute what you sorts send but I will rip it to shreds and not be even the slightest bit irenic in doing so.
For I am not about to let the "weaker brethren" amongst my conservative positional allies be taken in by such things, those refutations will be circulated to people on my mailing list and in other mediums so that your efforts insofar as I have any say in the matter will fail and fail badly. This will be the policy of Rerum Novarum from this day forward in perpetuity insofar as I have time to deal with these matters and (when I do not) I may very well farm out for "target practice" to friends of mine pieces I personally do not have time to deal with as they see fit and will publish their responses with their concurrence and all rights reserved to them on this humble weblog.
All things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Note:
{1} I refer to this posting from March 26, 2009 where I responded to an emailer with regards to criticisms raised against Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal.
Friday, April 03, 2009
On Political "Front Runners" Historically, Sarah Palin's Prospects in 2012, Etc.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
To start with, talking heads in the msm are already (so soon after the last presidential election) opining about various political persons and their perceived viability or lack thereof in the 2012 contest. I however do not play the game of political prognosticating this far out for the simple fact that a year is an ice age in politics and four years might as well be like the Jurassic period metaphorically speaking. A lot can happen between now and then and I have traditionally been very accurate in my political prognosticating{1} to a good extent because I do not play this game that far out. However, there are certain trends politically that one can use to forecast with a greater degree of accuracy what will likely happen and I will at this time do that without currently making any definite predictions one way or the other.
To start with, politics as a vocation tends to be dynastic to a certain extent even though there have only been two presidential "dynasties" properly speaking thus far.{2} But to a certain extent, there are patterns one can refer to from the past to better help them forecast future probabilities. For one thing, though it is not by any means a universal, it is nonetheless true that presidents who are successful more often than not had previous experience as an executive in some capacity. This experience could come in a variety of ways from business owner to field commander in the military to mayor of a town or governor of a state but as a rule the best presidents have had this kind of experience and those who were not as good did not.
By contrast to those with executive experience, senators and representatives in Congress who later on become president are traditionally not as good though again this is not an absolute principle but instead more of a general rule. And having noted those things, we get to the issue of dynastic political elements which I will now touch on so the reader knows what I am talking about if they do not already.
Since the presidency of the businessman and general George Washington, those who were subsequently elected president have always had experience in government in some form or another. In Washington's cabinet was John Adams the vice president and Thomas Jefferson the secretary of state -both of whom had high profile government positions before serving in Washington's cabinet. Adams would succeed Washington as our second president and Jefferson was our second vice president and third president. Jefferson's secretary of state was James Madison who would succeed him as president and Madison's secretary of state was James Monroe who succeeded him. James Monroe's secretary of state was the heavily credentialed John Quincy Adams who had served in various government posts{3} prior to being Monroe's secretary of state.{4} Quincy Adams won the controversial 1824 election after not getting the popular vote against General Andrew Jackson who despite his popular image as the first "commoner" to be president{5} as well as the first of the Democratic party presidents{6} had previous experience as a senator from Tennessee, house member from Tennessee, judge on the Tennessee supreme court, general of the military, and military governor of Florida.
We could similarly trace this pattern throughout all of American political history but pointing to the patterns that we have seen since 1952 suffices to make this point. Let us begin the more modern era therefore starting with Richard M. Nixon who was the vice president for two terms under former army general and president Dwight D. Eisenhower. Nixon was the nominee for president in 1960 and we need not go over how the Democratic party machine in Chicago and other places cheated him out of victory in that election.{7} He later on was defeated in the California gubernatorial election of 1962. After losing that election (and claiming he was finished), Nixon came back in 1968 to capture the nomination and win the presidency and won re-election in 1972. Senator John F. Kennedy who narrowly failed to secure the vice presidential position at the 1956 Democratic party convention of course was the party nominee and "victor" in 1960.{8} His vice president Lyndon B. Johnson (Senate majority leader, former House member, and a candidate in the 1960 election) became president in 1963 when Kennedy was assassinated and won in his own right the following year.
Having already covered the Nixon election wins, it bears pointing out that when his successor Gerald Ford{9} ran unsuccessfully for president in 1976, he was very nearly upset by former California governor Ronald Reagan -winning the nomination by a mere hundred odd delegates out of a couple of thousand cast. Reagan of course went on to win the next two presidential elections by monumental victory margins. One of his adversaries in the 1980 election was George H. W. Bush who was then added as his vice presidential candidate when Reagan locked up the 1980 the nomination for president. (He was to succeed Reagan by winning in his own right in 1988.) One of the Democratic party failed presidential candidates of 1988 was Albert Gore Jr. who was added as Bill Clinton's vice presidential candidate in 1992. After eight years of serving as vice president, Gore was nominated as his party's candidate and ultimately lost the 2000 election by failing to win the electoral college. Gore was opposed by former President Bush's son George W. Bush who won the general election after fending off a tough challenge from Sen. John McCain in the Republican primaries. McCain as we all know was the Republican party nominee in the 2008 election.
I have traced this historical sketch out to provide a glimpse of sorts into how history has gone to better enable readers to better gauge how future election history will go. For one thing, those touting a possible future candidacy for Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal are already behind the curve in that my good friend Kevin M. Tierney in one of the frequent political conversations we have had was calling Jindal a possible "dark horse candidate" back in 2008 and already predicted he would run in 2012 and be the favourite for the nomination that year. I am not sure if he has changed his prediction or not in the aftermath of the political ascent of Alaska governor Sarah Palin but I have him on record picking Jindal as far back as at least eight months ago if not more.{10} In the meantime, I know of some people who are currently picking Palin as the front runner in 2012.
Speaking of Governor Sarah Palin, insofar as she goes as a front runner in the 2012 presidential election for the Republicans, a bit of history of former vice presidential candidates who later ran as presidential candidates seems in order. (I should note that when I say "ran" I mean was actually successfully nominated to run as representative of their respective political parties.) The first of the major parties to cover is the Federalist party and the only vice presidential candidate they had who later ran for president was President Washington's vice president John Adams but this example as well as the one from the elections of 1796 and 1800 cannot be used.{11} The opposition Democratic-Republican party{12} never had a vice presidential candidate who became president so we can rule them out as well. In the divisions of 1824 from which today's Democratic party takes its true origin to the present day, there have been several vice presidential candidates who have become president but in all but one case they succeeded to the presidency upon the death of the president.{13} The exception to the rule was the only vice presidential candidate who ever ran successfully as president later on and that was President Franklin D. Roosevelt.{14} There have been a number of former vice presidents from the Democratic party side who subsequently secured their parties nomination for president{15} but only FDR successfully won in his bid after securing the vice presidential nomination in a losing party effort.
On the side of the Whigs -a party that became the main opposition to the Democratic party in 1833 and eventually was replaced by the Republicans in 1854, two of their vice presidential candidates on winning presidential tickets became president but in both cases (Tyler in 1841 and Fillmore in 1850) it was because the president they ran under died in office.{16} On the Republican party side of things, seven successfully nominated vice presidential candidates ran for president later on. Of the seven, three succeeded to the presidency upon the death of the president before they made their runs{17} and two of them won election as president in their own right.{18} Of the others{19}, none of them successfully was elected president in their own right after failing to win the vice presidency earlier.
The history of political dynastic voting patterns points to Governor Sarah Palin being the logical front runner in 2012. However, only once in US history has a candidate from any major party successfully been elected president in their own right after failing to win the vice presidency on someone else's ticket. Does this mean that Governor Palin is certain to fail in this endeavour? Not necessarily. Senator Bob Dole after being nominated as President Ford's running mate failed to be elected vice president in 1976 and later on failed to win the presidency in 1996. There is no record of this sort to go on from the Democratic side of things other than the example of FDR. But before people read too heavily into these things as spelling certain death for Governor Palin's chances, they need to consider the circumstances behind the failed vp and successful bid of FDR and the failed bids both times of Senator Dole.
To start with, FDR did not have any executive experience when he ran in 1920 as James Cox's vice president and they ran on the tail end of President Woodrow Wilson from their own party who for a variety of reasons{20} was unpopular. No Democratic candidate was going to win that year basically under the climate of the times. Subsequent to that point, Roosevelt was successfully elected governor of New York in 1928 and thus by 1932 he had executive experience to make his presidential bid more credible than it otherwise would have been. He also in his presidential run had the benefit of opposing the boneheaded governance of the incumbent President Herbert Hoover who was no laissez-faire president by any means.{21} Senator Bob Dole ran as vice president on the ticket of a non-elected president who had previously been appointed as vice president himself two years after the previous vice president of his party (and later the president he replaced) resigned in disgrace.
The Ford/Dole ticket faced a particularly stiff challenge from former California governor Ronald Reagan which while it galvanized the party contributed in the short term to narrow presidential defeat.{22} Twenty years later, Senator Bob Dole ran for president and in a situation where his party had moved to prevent the possibility of potential upsets akin to what Reagan nearly pulled off in 1976, the deck was stacked in the primaries to favour party insiders and make a repeat of the 1976 nomination scenario next to impossible.{23} As a result, the candidate who was the strongest party nominee by force of party connections (Dole) was probably not their best candidate for winning the general election against an incumbent president like William J. Clinton who had recently achieved some significant real and perceived victories against the opposition Republican congress.{24} Plus, Senator Dole though he ran for president in 1988 and also 1996 had not bothered in the time since he was Ford's vp candidate to acquire any executive experience.
So of the two examples we have of successfully nominated vice presidential candidates, we have one that succeeded (FDR) and one that failed (Dole). We can also point to circumstances of the times of the various elections that contributed in no small way to the success of FDR and the failure of Dole in their presidential aspirations. What this tells us ultimately is the general rule I spelled out at the beginning of this posting applied here and the successful example (FDR) had executive experience that the unsuccessful example (Dole) did not.
So readers need to take that into account ultimately when they attempt to write off the chances of Governor Sarah Palin to successfully get her party's nomination in 2012 and potentially win the general election. Like FDR and unlike Dole, she has executive experience having been both a mayor as well as a state governor. As for predicting a front runner for 2012, all I will say is if Palin and Jindal do not win their re-elections in 2010, they will not be the party nominee in 2012 and while I believe they will both be re-elected (particularly Jindal), I will not dare to make a political prediction of the overall viability for presidential candidacy of either of them until they do.
As far as Senator Hillary Clinton goes, her chances of running again depend on how she sees herself in 2012. If President Obama has a successful or average presidency, he will not have any opposition in his party to re-election. If however he is a trainwreck, then he may well receive the sort of stiff party challenge that Ted Kennedy gave President Carter in 1980. Senator Clinton came closer to a come-from-behind victory for the nomination than any presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan in 1976. If Obama really messes things up, she may well run again in 2012 for far from being "too old" she would know that she would be no older then (65) than Reagan was in 1976 when he challenged Ford (he was 65) and four years younger than Reagan was when he won the presidency in 1980 at 69 years of age.
If President Obama is a disaster as president, can anyone think of other Democratic party candidates besides former Senator and now Secretary of State Clinton to give him a political fight? Only two come to my mind offhand that could be similarly viable. One is former Indiana governor and current Indiana senator Evan Bayh and the other is Virginia governor Tim Kaine. Bayh is from a politically dynastic family and Kaine as of January 21, 2009 holds not only his position as Virginia governor (he is up for re-election in 2010) but also is chairman of the Democratic National Committee. It would seem far more probable to me that Kaine would be more the king (or queen) maker than the king himself in light of his new position as DNC chair so that would leave Bayh as the only candidate I can think of who could rival Secretary of State Clinton as a party challenger to President Obama if his presidency is floundering when 2012 approaches.
Furthermore, Secretary of State Clinton's current cabinet position as a political precursor to the presidency was touched on earlier in this note. While it is true that her cabinet position has not been as influential in the past hundred and fifty years as it was previously, it still bears noting that four of the first seven and six of the first fifteen presidents were secretaries of state for a previous president{25} before becoming president in their own right.
Notes:
{1} Though in 2008 I was less accurate than the norm because a lot of things went against type in that election year -the msm shedding the last vestiges of their pretenses of "objectivity" to whore for Barack Obama in a way that was both shocking as well as frightening.
{2} The first of these was John Adams and John Quincy Adams while the second was George Herbert Walker Bush and George Walker Bush.
{3} Including Ambassador to the Netherlands under President Washington, Ambassador to Prussia under his father President Adams, Member of the Massachussets state Senate from 1802-1803, Senator of Massachussets from 1803-1809, Ambassador to Russia under President Madison until 1814, negotiator at Ghent for an end to the War of 1812 (and subsequently Ambassador to England) under President Madison. He also served in the Massachussets House of Representatives after losing his bid for re-election in 1828 until his death twenty years later: the only former president to serve in "the people's chamber" after serving as president.
{4} See footnote three. Quincy Adams was also the mind behind the famous Monroe Doctrine as promulgated in 1823 by President James Monroe and one the more fervent early slavery abolitionists. To say that he got by far more on his own natural talents than riding his famous father's coattails than President George W. Bush did is well established and beyond any debate by rational people.
{5} Which to a certain extent is accurate in that he was the first president who was not from the aristocratic class of American society.
{6} The Democratic party does not date from the time of Thomas Jefferson however much modern Democrats may wish it did.
{7} Nixon wisely chose not to go the "Al Gore route" and accepted the election results.
{8} See footnote seven. I would like to add here that I do not think Kennedy personally had a hand in any of this though that his influential father did is pretty close to being beyond debate really.
{9} Who became president after he was appointed to succeed Spiro Agnew in 1973 as vice president and then sworn in when President Nixon resigned the presidency in August of 1974.
{10} I would have to check my archives to know for sure but I have to give Kevin his due for being ahead of the popular curve on Jindal.
{11} The reason is the current law of parties running specifically as designated presidential and vice president was not put into effect by constitutional amendment until after the election of 1800 when Jefferson and Burr tied in electoral votes despite Burr being intended initially to be the vice presidential not presidential candidate. Starting with the election of 1804, the practice as we know it today has been in force.
{12} Originally called the "Republican" party by its advocates who wanted to claim that they favoured republicanism and the opposing federalists were closet monarchists. The Federalists countered by calling them "Democrats" to associate them with the French Jacoban democrats who were the architects of the French Revolution and its anarchial aftermath. Today, they are referred to as the "Democratic-Republican" party to separate them from the later Democratic party formed by the Jacksonians and the later Republican party which originated from 1854 as a coalition of old Federalists and a good section of the then-dying Whig political party.
{13} These include Harry Truman in 1944 and Lyndon Johnson in 1963 -both of whom subsequently won elections to retain their hold on the presidency in the following presidential elections.
{14} Who was the vice presidential candidate on the losing ticket of 1920 to Ohio governor James Cox.
{15} These include John C. Breckenridge who was nominated vice president on the winning ticket in 1856 who ran in a split party election in 1860 (representing the south) and Hubert H. Humphrey who was nominated vice president on the winning 1964 ticket who ran as the party's nominee in 1968. There was also Walter F. Mondale who was nominated vice president on the winning ticket in 1976 and was the incumbent vice president on the losing 1980 ticket, and Al Gore who failed to be nominated in his own right in 1988 and was President Clinton's vice president for eight years. (And as we know, he failed to win in 2000.)
{16} Neither Tyler nor Fillmore despite running as incumbents were able to win the presidency in their own right later on.
{17} Chester A. Arthur (succeeded the assassinated President James Garfield in 1881), Theodore Roosevelt (succeeded the assassinated President William McKinley in 1901), and Calvin Coolidge (succeeded President Warren Harding who died in office in 1923).
{18} Roosevelt in 1904 and Coolidge in 1924.
{19} See footnote fifteen.
{20} Too numerous to go into here.
{21} Contrary to the revisionist historical nonsense paraded about today as "history" supposedly "teaches."
{22} President Ford made some pretty bad gaffes in debate against Georgia governor Jimmy Carter which also did not help him.
{23} This ultimately is why I told the Republicans to go to hell after the 1996 general election and have been an unaffiliated Independent voter ever since.
{24} See footnote twenty.
{25} Jefferson for Washington, Madison for Jefferson, Monroe for Madison, Quincy Adams for Monroe, Van Buren under Jackson, and Buchanan under Polk.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
To start with, talking heads in the msm are already (so soon after the last presidential election) opining about various political persons and their perceived viability or lack thereof in the 2012 contest. I however do not play the game of political prognosticating this far out for the simple fact that a year is an ice age in politics and four years might as well be like the Jurassic period metaphorically speaking. A lot can happen between now and then and I have traditionally been very accurate in my political prognosticating{1} to a good extent because I do not play this game that far out. However, there are certain trends politically that one can use to forecast with a greater degree of accuracy what will likely happen and I will at this time do that without currently making any definite predictions one way or the other.
To start with, politics as a vocation tends to be dynastic to a certain extent even though there have only been two presidential "dynasties" properly speaking thus far.{2} But to a certain extent, there are patterns one can refer to from the past to better help them forecast future probabilities. For one thing, though it is not by any means a universal, it is nonetheless true that presidents who are successful more often than not had previous experience as an executive in some capacity. This experience could come in a variety of ways from business owner to field commander in the military to mayor of a town or governor of a state but as a rule the best presidents have had this kind of experience and those who were not as good did not.
By contrast to those with executive experience, senators and representatives in Congress who later on become president are traditionally not as good though again this is not an absolute principle but instead more of a general rule. And having noted those things, we get to the issue of dynastic political elements which I will now touch on so the reader knows what I am talking about if they do not already.
Since the presidency of the businessman and general George Washington, those who were subsequently elected president have always had experience in government in some form or another. In Washington's cabinet was John Adams the vice president and Thomas Jefferson the secretary of state -both of whom had high profile government positions before serving in Washington's cabinet. Adams would succeed Washington as our second president and Jefferson was our second vice president and third president. Jefferson's secretary of state was James Madison who would succeed him as president and Madison's secretary of state was James Monroe who succeeded him. James Monroe's secretary of state was the heavily credentialed John Quincy Adams who had served in various government posts{3} prior to being Monroe's secretary of state.{4} Quincy Adams won the controversial 1824 election after not getting the popular vote against General Andrew Jackson who despite his popular image as the first "commoner" to be president{5} as well as the first of the Democratic party presidents{6} had previous experience as a senator from Tennessee, house member from Tennessee, judge on the Tennessee supreme court, general of the military, and military governor of Florida.
We could similarly trace this pattern throughout all of American political history but pointing to the patterns that we have seen since 1952 suffices to make this point. Let us begin the more modern era therefore starting with Richard M. Nixon who was the vice president for two terms under former army general and president Dwight D. Eisenhower. Nixon was the nominee for president in 1960 and we need not go over how the Democratic party machine in Chicago and other places cheated him out of victory in that election.{7} He later on was defeated in the California gubernatorial election of 1962. After losing that election (and claiming he was finished), Nixon came back in 1968 to capture the nomination and win the presidency and won re-election in 1972. Senator John F. Kennedy who narrowly failed to secure the vice presidential position at the 1956 Democratic party convention of course was the party nominee and "victor" in 1960.{8} His vice president Lyndon B. Johnson (Senate majority leader, former House member, and a candidate in the 1960 election) became president in 1963 when Kennedy was assassinated and won in his own right the following year.
Having already covered the Nixon election wins, it bears pointing out that when his successor Gerald Ford{9} ran unsuccessfully for president in 1976, he was very nearly upset by former California governor Ronald Reagan -winning the nomination by a mere hundred odd delegates out of a couple of thousand cast. Reagan of course went on to win the next two presidential elections by monumental victory margins. One of his adversaries in the 1980 election was George H. W. Bush who was then added as his vice presidential candidate when Reagan locked up the 1980 the nomination for president. (He was to succeed Reagan by winning in his own right in 1988.) One of the Democratic party failed presidential candidates of 1988 was Albert Gore Jr. who was added as Bill Clinton's vice presidential candidate in 1992. After eight years of serving as vice president, Gore was nominated as his party's candidate and ultimately lost the 2000 election by failing to win the electoral college. Gore was opposed by former President Bush's son George W. Bush who won the general election after fending off a tough challenge from Sen. John McCain in the Republican primaries. McCain as we all know was the Republican party nominee in the 2008 election.
I have traced this historical sketch out to provide a glimpse of sorts into how history has gone to better enable readers to better gauge how future election history will go. For one thing, those touting a possible future candidacy for Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal are already behind the curve in that my good friend Kevin M. Tierney in one of the frequent political conversations we have had was calling Jindal a possible "dark horse candidate" back in 2008 and already predicted he would run in 2012 and be the favourite for the nomination that year. I am not sure if he has changed his prediction or not in the aftermath of the political ascent of Alaska governor Sarah Palin but I have him on record picking Jindal as far back as at least eight months ago if not more.{10} In the meantime, I know of some people who are currently picking Palin as the front runner in 2012.
Speaking of Governor Sarah Palin, insofar as she goes as a front runner in the 2012 presidential election for the Republicans, a bit of history of former vice presidential candidates who later ran as presidential candidates seems in order. (I should note that when I say "ran" I mean was actually successfully nominated to run as representative of their respective political parties.) The first of the major parties to cover is the Federalist party and the only vice presidential candidate they had who later ran for president was President Washington's vice president John Adams but this example as well as the one from the elections of 1796 and 1800 cannot be used.{11} The opposition Democratic-Republican party{12} never had a vice presidential candidate who became president so we can rule them out as well. In the divisions of 1824 from which today's Democratic party takes its true origin to the present day, there have been several vice presidential candidates who have become president but in all but one case they succeeded to the presidency upon the death of the president.{13} The exception to the rule was the only vice presidential candidate who ever ran successfully as president later on and that was President Franklin D. Roosevelt.{14} There have been a number of former vice presidents from the Democratic party side who subsequently secured their parties nomination for president{15} but only FDR successfully won in his bid after securing the vice presidential nomination in a losing party effort.
On the side of the Whigs -a party that became the main opposition to the Democratic party in 1833 and eventually was replaced by the Republicans in 1854, two of their vice presidential candidates on winning presidential tickets became president but in both cases (Tyler in 1841 and Fillmore in 1850) it was because the president they ran under died in office.{16} On the Republican party side of things, seven successfully nominated vice presidential candidates ran for president later on. Of the seven, three succeeded to the presidency upon the death of the president before they made their runs{17} and two of them won election as president in their own right.{18} Of the others{19}, none of them successfully was elected president in their own right after failing to win the vice presidency earlier.
The history of political dynastic voting patterns points to Governor Sarah Palin being the logical front runner in 2012. However, only once in US history has a candidate from any major party successfully been elected president in their own right after failing to win the vice presidency on someone else's ticket. Does this mean that Governor Palin is certain to fail in this endeavour? Not necessarily. Senator Bob Dole after being nominated as President Ford's running mate failed to be elected vice president in 1976 and later on failed to win the presidency in 1996. There is no record of this sort to go on from the Democratic side of things other than the example of FDR. But before people read too heavily into these things as spelling certain death for Governor Palin's chances, they need to consider the circumstances behind the failed vp and successful bid of FDR and the failed bids both times of Senator Dole.
To start with, FDR did not have any executive experience when he ran in 1920 as James Cox's vice president and they ran on the tail end of President Woodrow Wilson from their own party who for a variety of reasons{20} was unpopular. No Democratic candidate was going to win that year basically under the climate of the times. Subsequent to that point, Roosevelt was successfully elected governor of New York in 1928 and thus by 1932 he had executive experience to make his presidential bid more credible than it otherwise would have been. He also in his presidential run had the benefit of opposing the boneheaded governance of the incumbent President Herbert Hoover who was no laissez-faire president by any means.{21} Senator Bob Dole ran as vice president on the ticket of a non-elected president who had previously been appointed as vice president himself two years after the previous vice president of his party (and later the president he replaced) resigned in disgrace.
The Ford/Dole ticket faced a particularly stiff challenge from former California governor Ronald Reagan which while it galvanized the party contributed in the short term to narrow presidential defeat.{22} Twenty years later, Senator Bob Dole ran for president and in a situation where his party had moved to prevent the possibility of potential upsets akin to what Reagan nearly pulled off in 1976, the deck was stacked in the primaries to favour party insiders and make a repeat of the 1976 nomination scenario next to impossible.{23} As a result, the candidate who was the strongest party nominee by force of party connections (Dole) was probably not their best candidate for winning the general election against an incumbent president like William J. Clinton who had recently achieved some significant real and perceived victories against the opposition Republican congress.{24} Plus, Senator Dole though he ran for president in 1988 and also 1996 had not bothered in the time since he was Ford's vp candidate to acquire any executive experience.
So of the two examples we have of successfully nominated vice presidential candidates, we have one that succeeded (FDR) and one that failed (Dole). We can also point to circumstances of the times of the various elections that contributed in no small way to the success of FDR and the failure of Dole in their presidential aspirations. What this tells us ultimately is the general rule I spelled out at the beginning of this posting applied here and the successful example (FDR) had executive experience that the unsuccessful example (Dole) did not.
So readers need to take that into account ultimately when they attempt to write off the chances of Governor Sarah Palin to successfully get her party's nomination in 2012 and potentially win the general election. Like FDR and unlike Dole, she has executive experience having been both a mayor as well as a state governor. As for predicting a front runner for 2012, all I will say is if Palin and Jindal do not win their re-elections in 2010, they will not be the party nominee in 2012 and while I believe they will both be re-elected (particularly Jindal), I will not dare to make a political prediction of the overall viability for presidential candidacy of either of them until they do.
As far as Senator Hillary Clinton goes, her chances of running again depend on how she sees herself in 2012. If President Obama has a successful or average presidency, he will not have any opposition in his party to re-election. If however he is a trainwreck, then he may well receive the sort of stiff party challenge that Ted Kennedy gave President Carter in 1980. Senator Clinton came closer to a come-from-behind victory for the nomination than any presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan in 1976. If Obama really messes things up, she may well run again in 2012 for far from being "too old" she would know that she would be no older then (65) than Reagan was in 1976 when he challenged Ford (he was 65) and four years younger than Reagan was when he won the presidency in 1980 at 69 years of age.
If President Obama is a disaster as president, can anyone think of other Democratic party candidates besides former Senator and now Secretary of State Clinton to give him a political fight? Only two come to my mind offhand that could be similarly viable. One is former Indiana governor and current Indiana senator Evan Bayh and the other is Virginia governor Tim Kaine. Bayh is from a politically dynastic family and Kaine as of January 21, 2009 holds not only his position as Virginia governor (he is up for re-election in 2010) but also is chairman of the Democratic National Committee. It would seem far more probable to me that Kaine would be more the king (or queen) maker than the king himself in light of his new position as DNC chair so that would leave Bayh as the only candidate I can think of who could rival Secretary of State Clinton as a party challenger to President Obama if his presidency is floundering when 2012 approaches.
Furthermore, Secretary of State Clinton's current cabinet position as a political precursor to the presidency was touched on earlier in this note. While it is true that her cabinet position has not been as influential in the past hundred and fifty years as it was previously, it still bears noting that four of the first seven and six of the first fifteen presidents were secretaries of state for a previous president{25} before becoming president in their own right.
Notes:
{1} Though in 2008 I was less accurate than the norm because a lot of things went against type in that election year -the msm shedding the last vestiges of their pretenses of "objectivity" to whore for Barack Obama in a way that was both shocking as well as frightening.
{2} The first of these was John Adams and John Quincy Adams while the second was George Herbert Walker Bush and George Walker Bush.
{3} Including Ambassador to the Netherlands under President Washington, Ambassador to Prussia under his father President Adams, Member of the Massachussets state Senate from 1802-1803, Senator of Massachussets from 1803-1809, Ambassador to Russia under President Madison until 1814, negotiator at Ghent for an end to the War of 1812 (and subsequently Ambassador to England) under President Madison. He also served in the Massachussets House of Representatives after losing his bid for re-election in 1828 until his death twenty years later: the only former president to serve in "the people's chamber" after serving as president.
{4} See footnote three. Quincy Adams was also the mind behind the famous Monroe Doctrine as promulgated in 1823 by President James Monroe and one the more fervent early slavery abolitionists. To say that he got by far more on his own natural talents than riding his famous father's coattails than President George W. Bush did is well established and beyond any debate by rational people.
{5} Which to a certain extent is accurate in that he was the first president who was not from the aristocratic class of American society.
{6} The Democratic party does not date from the time of Thomas Jefferson however much modern Democrats may wish it did.
{7} Nixon wisely chose not to go the "Al Gore route" and accepted the election results.
{8} See footnote seven. I would like to add here that I do not think Kennedy personally had a hand in any of this though that his influential father did is pretty close to being beyond debate really.
{9} Who became president after he was appointed to succeed Spiro Agnew in 1973 as vice president and then sworn in when President Nixon resigned the presidency in August of 1974.
{10} I would have to check my archives to know for sure but I have to give Kevin his due for being ahead of the popular curve on Jindal.
{11} The reason is the current law of parties running specifically as designated presidential and vice president was not put into effect by constitutional amendment until after the election of 1800 when Jefferson and Burr tied in electoral votes despite Burr being intended initially to be the vice presidential not presidential candidate. Starting with the election of 1804, the practice as we know it today has been in force.
{12} Originally called the "Republican" party by its advocates who wanted to claim that they favoured republicanism and the opposing federalists were closet monarchists. The Federalists countered by calling them "Democrats" to associate them with the French Jacoban democrats who were the architects of the French Revolution and its anarchial aftermath. Today, they are referred to as the "Democratic-Republican" party to separate them from the later Democratic party formed by the Jacksonians and the later Republican party which originated from 1854 as a coalition of old Federalists and a good section of the then-dying Whig political party.
{13} These include Harry Truman in 1944 and Lyndon Johnson in 1963 -both of whom subsequently won elections to retain their hold on the presidency in the following presidential elections.
{14} Who was the vice presidential candidate on the losing ticket of 1920 to Ohio governor James Cox.
{15} These include John C. Breckenridge who was nominated vice president on the winning ticket in 1856 who ran in a split party election in 1860 (representing the south) and Hubert H. Humphrey who was nominated vice president on the winning 1964 ticket who ran as the party's nominee in 1968. There was also Walter F. Mondale who was nominated vice president on the winning ticket in 1976 and was the incumbent vice president on the losing 1980 ticket, and Al Gore who failed to be nominated in his own right in 1988 and was President Clinton's vice president for eight years. (And as we know, he failed to win in 2000.)
{16} Neither Tyler nor Fillmore despite running as incumbents were able to win the presidency in their own right later on.
{17} Chester A. Arthur (succeeded the assassinated President James Garfield in 1881), Theodore Roosevelt (succeeded the assassinated President William McKinley in 1901), and Calvin Coolidge (succeeded President Warren Harding who died in office in 1923).
{18} Roosevelt in 1904 and Coolidge in 1924.
{19} See footnote fifteen.
{20} Too numerous to go into here.
{21} Contrary to the revisionist historical nonsense paraded about today as "history" supposedly "teaches."
{22} President Ford made some pretty bad gaffes in debate against Georgia governor Jimmy Carter which also did not help him.
{23} This ultimately is why I told the Republicans to go to hell after the 1996 general election and have been an unaffiliated Independent voter ever since.
{24} See footnote twenty.
{25} Jefferson for Washington, Madison for Jefferson, Monroe for Madison, Quincy Adams for Monroe, Van Buren under Jackson, and Buchanan under Polk.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Points to Ponder:
There is a rank due to the United States, among nations, which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war. [George Washington]
On the Passing of Ron Silver and on Suffering for Truth:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
"[W]hat courage traditionally meant was risking the disapprobation of people you know. It was about losing friends, losing work and losing status where you live -- not alienating people you will never meet. Insulting people in Kansas when you live in Los Angeles is not speaking truth to power; it's speaking anything to serve power." [Ann Coulter on the Courage of Ron Silver]
I want to start this off with some articles on Ron Silver which were in the mainstream media in recent days so without further ado...
Silver Star
Obituary of Ron Silver (New York Times)
Silver's Bravery Not An Act (Ann Coulter)
To discuss the man himself, Ron Silver is a man I greatly respect. Yes I say I greatly respect in present and not past tense is used because in the Judeo-Christian tradition we believe the soul lives beyond this mortal coil. But lest this statement bring forth a host of predictable and erroneous presumptions, I want to touch on them at this point at least in brief.
To start with, I do not respect Ron Silver because he agreed with me -indeed I do not and never have based respect on this criteria though obviously if there is agreement it cannot hurt.{1} But more important than agreement is the principle of truth and a person's approach to the latter. For there are those I agree a lot with whom I do not have much if any respect for and conversely, there are those I agree very little with whom I have a great deal of respect for. In the case of Ron Silver as with anyone, this factor while helpful to some extent is not strictly speaking obligatory. It boils down as I have said many times over the years to someone being willing to access from time to time their foundational presuppositions or those lenses through which they filter all the information they receive and whether said presuppositions are true or not. This is something that Ron Silver did.
While Silver was not a conventional sort in Hollywood even in his liberal days{2}; however, 9/11 changed him. It wrought in him a change in his foundational presuppositions which caused him to view things differently than before. This set him at odds with a lot of his friends and colleagues. He could have done one of two things at this point for someone who was passionate about ideas.{3} One was close his eyes and pretend not to see what he saw for the sake of family accord and retaining the bonds of friendship and peer/colleague kinships. But Ron Silver of Jewish lineage followed however unconsciously the dictum of a Jewish rabbi named Jesus who said that those are not worthy who do not hate their father, mother, wife, children, etc. for the sake of what is true.{4}
Indeed, I am someone who has over the years their own degree of suffering in a variety of ways for following what my light of conscience tells me is true or at least probably so.{5} Therefore, when I see in someone else the willingness to follow their conscience to the point of suffering for it either through ostracizing by former colleagues, peers, acquaintances, friends, family, etc. it creates for me a kind of spiritual kinship with them. Having been there myself as I said, I understand at the very least in an approximate fashion what they are going through. As a result of such circumstances, I have been able to have friends that other friends have wondered how I could be friends with them and if I was to give an answer, this is it in a nutshell: I have a connection between those who suffer loss in following what they believe is true however much I believe they may or may not be mistaken in doing so.
So from this standpoint when you look at what Ron Silver lost for the sake of his convictions and following them, it should engender in anyone who takes ideas seriously at least a begrudging respect. In my case the respect is more than begrudging and I concur with Ann Coulter's words in the opening quote of this posting as well as those when she said that with Silver's passing "there is one less person in the world who never chooses his positions to feed a pompous ego or to stroke his self-image as a thinking person." The world never has enough of these kinds of people and now it has one less. I pray that through his trials and in his final bout with cancer that Ron may have been prepared for what is to come and and that his example may serve to educate others in what genuine bravery (as opposed to the pseudo "bravery" of self-righteous Hollywood sorts) actually entails. And of course that God may rest the soul of Ron Silver.
Notes:
{1} I say this because I believe on the lions share of issues and certainly in my general view of things I am right. However, I have had the same view before on some issues and found reasonable cause to reassess them at which time my view changed. So for that reason let it suffice to say that I believe I am either right or (at the very least) I have not been remotely persuaded to the contrary as of this writing.
{2} Meaning, he had certain views that did not jive with the predominant liberal weltanschauung.
{3} There is also the lethargic indifference option but it does not apply here.
{4} Hatred in this sense being properly understood as not actual hatred of course but having the disposition of not allowing anyone (whoever they are) to get between someone and their search for (or adherence to) what they believe in conscience. Hence Jesus said those who would follow him were not worthy of him if they put anyone as an impediment between themselves and Jesus if they believed He was Truth.
{5} What I mean by "probably so" is that one can only base their adherence to any principle or set of principles thereof on a basis of probabilities or what can be referred to as motives of credibility with the particular view being weighed in light of the latter. The greater the number and/or logical the arguments adduced for a particular view the more said view can be said to be "probable" in its pertinence to the truth. One should in the words of ex-atheist Antony Flew go "wherever the evidence leads" and trust that any mistakes honestly made in the process will be viewed mercifully by God.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
"[W]hat courage traditionally meant was risking the disapprobation of people you know. It was about losing friends, losing work and losing status where you live -- not alienating people you will never meet. Insulting people in Kansas when you live in Los Angeles is not speaking truth to power; it's speaking anything to serve power." [Ann Coulter on the Courage of Ron Silver]
I want to start this off with some articles on Ron Silver which were in the mainstream media in recent days so without further ado...
Silver Star
Obituary of Ron Silver (New York Times)
Silver's Bravery Not An Act (Ann Coulter)
To discuss the man himself, Ron Silver is a man I greatly respect. Yes I say I greatly respect in present and not past tense is used because in the Judeo-Christian tradition we believe the soul lives beyond this mortal coil. But lest this statement bring forth a host of predictable and erroneous presumptions, I want to touch on them at this point at least in brief.
To start with, I do not respect Ron Silver because he agreed with me -indeed I do not and never have based respect on this criteria though obviously if there is agreement it cannot hurt.{1} But more important than agreement is the principle of truth and a person's approach to the latter. For there are those I agree a lot with whom I do not have much if any respect for and conversely, there are those I agree very little with whom I have a great deal of respect for. In the case of Ron Silver as with anyone, this factor while helpful to some extent is not strictly speaking obligatory. It boils down as I have said many times over the years to someone being willing to access from time to time their foundational presuppositions or those lenses through which they filter all the information they receive and whether said presuppositions are true or not. This is something that Ron Silver did.
While Silver was not a conventional sort in Hollywood even in his liberal days{2}; however, 9/11 changed him. It wrought in him a change in his foundational presuppositions which caused him to view things differently than before. This set him at odds with a lot of his friends and colleagues. He could have done one of two things at this point for someone who was passionate about ideas.{3} One was close his eyes and pretend not to see what he saw for the sake of family accord and retaining the bonds of friendship and peer/colleague kinships. But Ron Silver of Jewish lineage followed however unconsciously the dictum of a Jewish rabbi named Jesus who said that those are not worthy who do not hate their father, mother, wife, children, etc. for the sake of what is true.{4}
Indeed, I am someone who has over the years their own degree of suffering in a variety of ways for following what my light of conscience tells me is true or at least probably so.{5} Therefore, when I see in someone else the willingness to follow their conscience to the point of suffering for it either through ostracizing by former colleagues, peers, acquaintances, friends, family, etc. it creates for me a kind of spiritual kinship with them. Having been there myself as I said, I understand at the very least in an approximate fashion what they are going through. As a result of such circumstances, I have been able to have friends that other friends have wondered how I could be friends with them and if I was to give an answer, this is it in a nutshell: I have a connection between those who suffer loss in following what they believe is true however much I believe they may or may not be mistaken in doing so.
So from this standpoint when you look at what Ron Silver lost for the sake of his convictions and following them, it should engender in anyone who takes ideas seriously at least a begrudging respect. In my case the respect is more than begrudging and I concur with Ann Coulter's words in the opening quote of this posting as well as those when she said that with Silver's passing "there is one less person in the world who never chooses his positions to feed a pompous ego or to stroke his self-image as a thinking person." The world never has enough of these kinds of people and now it has one less. I pray that through his trials and in his final bout with cancer that Ron may have been prepared for what is to come and and that his example may serve to educate others in what genuine bravery (as opposed to the pseudo "bravery" of self-righteous Hollywood sorts) actually entails. And of course that God may rest the soul of Ron Silver.
Notes:
{1} I say this because I believe on the lions share of issues and certainly in my general view of things I am right. However, I have had the same view before on some issues and found reasonable cause to reassess them at which time my view changed. So for that reason let it suffice to say that I believe I am either right or (at the very least) I have not been remotely persuaded to the contrary as of this writing.
{2} Meaning, he had certain views that did not jive with the predominant liberal weltanschauung.
{3} There is also the lethargic indifference option but it does not apply here.
{4} Hatred in this sense being properly understood as not actual hatred of course but having the disposition of not allowing anyone (whoever they are) to get between someone and their search for (or adherence to) what they believe in conscience. Hence Jesus said those who would follow him were not worthy of him if they put anyone as an impediment between themselves and Jesus if they believed He was Truth.
{5} What I mean by "probably so" is that one can only base their adherence to any principle or set of principles thereof on a basis of probabilities or what can be referred to as motives of credibility with the particular view being weighed in light of the latter. The greater the number and/or logical the arguments adduced for a particular view the more said view can be said to be "probable" in its pertinence to the truth. One should in the words of ex-atheist Antony Flew go "wherever the evidence leads" and trust that any mistakes honestly made in the process will be viewed mercifully by God.
Monday, March 30, 2009
First thing I remember was askin' papa, why? ,
For there were many things I didn't know.
And daddy always smiled; took me by the hand,
Sayin', someday you'll understand.
Well, I'm here to tell you now each and ev'ry mothers son
You better learn it fast; you better learn it young,
Cause, someday never comes.
Well, time and tears went by and I collected dust,
For there were many things I didn't know.
When daddy went away, he said, try to be a man,
And, someday you'll understand.
Well, I'm here to tell you now each and ev'ry mothers son
You better learn it fast; you better learn it young,
Cause, someday never comes.
And then, one day in april, I wasn't even there,
For there were many things I didn't know.
A son was born to me; mama held his hand,
Sayin' someday you'll understand.
Well, I'm here to tell you now each and ev'ry mothers son
You better learn it fast; you better learn it young,
Cause, someday never comes.
Think it was September, the year I went away,
For there were many things I didn't know.
And I still see him standing, tryin' to be a man;
I said, someday you'll understand.
Well, I'm here to tell you now each and ev'ry mothers son
You better learn it fast; you better learn it young,
Cause, someday never comes. [J C Fogerty]
And as many have presumed that this song was about war, here is John Fogerty the songwriter explaining the meaning of his song:
"Every parent tells their child "someday". "Gee daddy,can we go fishing?"... yeah, someday. My parents divorced when I was young and I ended up divorcing from my first wife... The song is basically talking about... here it happened to me when I was young and here I go doing the same damn thing. It's sad. I wanted to express what a kid feels, "Someday never comes."
For there were many things I didn't know.
And daddy always smiled; took me by the hand,
Sayin', someday you'll understand.
Well, I'm here to tell you now each and ev'ry mothers son
You better learn it fast; you better learn it young,
Cause, someday never comes.
Well, time and tears went by and I collected dust,
For there were many things I didn't know.
When daddy went away, he said, try to be a man,
And, someday you'll understand.
Well, I'm here to tell you now each and ev'ry mothers son
You better learn it fast; you better learn it young,
Cause, someday never comes.
And then, one day in april, I wasn't even there,
For there were many things I didn't know.
A son was born to me; mama held his hand,
Sayin' someday you'll understand.
Well, I'm here to tell you now each and ev'ry mothers son
You better learn it fast; you better learn it young,
Cause, someday never comes.
Think it was September, the year I went away,
For there were many things I didn't know.
And I still see him standing, tryin' to be a man;
I said, someday you'll understand.
Well, I'm here to tell you now each and ev'ry mothers son
You better learn it fast; you better learn it young,
Cause, someday never comes. [J C Fogerty]
And as many have presumed that this song was about war, here is John Fogerty the songwriter explaining the meaning of his song:
"Every parent tells their child "someday". "Gee daddy,can we go fishing?"... yeah, someday. My parents divorced when I was young and I ended up divorcing from my first wife... The song is basically talking about... here it happened to me when I was young and here I go doing the same damn thing. It's sad. I wanted to express what a kid feels, "Someday never comes."
Saturday, March 28, 2009
"War On Terror" Rebranded As "Overseas Contingency Operations" (Telegraph/UK)
Though it is not something I have spoken of very often, I did not like the term "war on terror" coined by President Bush's administration because it was too vague. A better term as I see it would have been a "war on terrorists" or "war on terrorism." But having said that, the term "overseas contingency operations" is even vaguer still and what will happen when{1} your greater blurring of distinctions gets us attacked again by terrorists re-emboldened by evidence that you do not take their thread to national security with the seriousness it deserves??? Will the attacks on our soil still be "overseas contingency operations" or will you attempt to re-euphemize things once again to an even more vague terminology like "non-overseas domestic contingency containment operative protocols" or whatever???
For reasons that should be obvious to the reader, I will despite my not liking the term "war on terror" continue to use it much as I will continue to stand by my assertion that water boarding as the CIA did it -which differed from how the Japanese in WWII and others who have utilized it have done it{2}- is not torture when the term "torture" is properly understood.{3} Pound sand President Obama, words do not change their meanings at your mere whim.
Notes:
{1} Yes I said "when and not if" because within the next four years or however long President Obama occupies the White Hizzouse we will be attacked again.
{2} I commented on this matter most recently in this posting from yesterday:
Points to Ponder on Waterboarding and Distinctions With a Difference (circa March 27, 2009)
My point in the above thread material was not to take a position one way or the other but only to point out that there is a distinction with a difference in various methods of what is called "water boarding" and while some methods would fit the criteria for torture properly defined, others (such as the CIA's method) would not whatever one happens to think about it personally.
{3} On Torture and General Norms of Theological Interpretation --Parts I-III (circa October 13, 2006)
Though it is not something I have spoken of very often, I did not like the term "war on terror" coined by President Bush's administration because it was too vague. A better term as I see it would have been a "war on terrorists" or "war on terrorism." But having said that, the term "overseas contingency operations" is even vaguer still and what will happen when{1} your greater blurring of distinctions gets us attacked again by terrorists re-emboldened by evidence that you do not take their thread to national security with the seriousness it deserves??? Will the attacks on our soil still be "overseas contingency operations" or will you attempt to re-euphemize things once again to an even more vague terminology like "non-overseas domestic contingency containment operative protocols" or whatever???
For reasons that should be obvious to the reader, I will despite my not liking the term "war on terror" continue to use it much as I will continue to stand by my assertion that water boarding as the CIA did it -which differed from how the Japanese in WWII and others who have utilized it have done it{2}- is not torture when the term "torture" is properly understood.{3} Pound sand President Obama, words do not change their meanings at your mere whim.
Notes:
{1} Yes I said "when and not if" because within the next four years or however long President Obama occupies the White Hizzouse we will be attacked again.
{2} I commented on this matter most recently in this posting from yesterday:
Points to Ponder on Waterboarding and Distinctions With a Difference (circa March 27, 2009)
My point in the above thread material was not to take a position one way or the other but only to point out that there is a distinction with a difference in various methods of what is called "water boarding" and while some methods would fit the criteria for torture properly defined, others (such as the CIA's method) would not whatever one happens to think about it personally.
{3} On Torture and General Norms of Theological Interpretation --Parts I-III (circa October 13, 2006)
Friday, March 27, 2009
Points to Ponder:
(On Waterboarding and Distinctions With a Difference)
[Prefatory Note: I decided for the sake of not making the original posting today overlong to run it in a day or two and preface it with this material. -ISM]
It is rather disingenuous to not note that there are a variety of ways of doing water boarding and that the method the US government has used is in certain respects markedly different than what the Japanese and others have done. The failure of this article to note the differences (and also to claim that the method is torture) is profoundly disappointing for a source which is supposed to present a neutral point of view. As someone else correctly noted "[t]his article... is taking sides in a controversial issue while simplifying the nuances of that issue."...
Now while you could claim that source is taken second hand, I can respond to that by noting that I took the quote and the link being quoted from a site that does not support my view on this -to the extent that I have even made my view known here which I have not. My underlying point all along is that this article is not demonstrating neutral point of view in treating on the issue fairly which means (by definition) not taking sides or appearing to take sides.
Now then, you claimed "XXXXXXX" that there are "no sources" which posit a difference in the methods that I claimed there was. But as noted above, the Japanese were pouring water into noses and throats of those so subjected to their method and according to the CIA's instruction manual, the CIA method did not do this. And whatever trick the CIA method plays on the body there is nonetheless no actual suffocation that takes place with the CIA method; ergo no "torture" takes place even by your own definition of that word. The same cannot be said for the method utilized by the Japanese during the war where water was poured into the nose and throat. Or other methods of water boarding where the person's head is dunked in water. In other words, arguments can be made that some uses of this method could constitute torture and others may well not. [Excerpts from an Email Correspondence (circa March 8-10, 2008)]
(On Waterboarding and Distinctions With a Difference)
[Prefatory Note: I decided for the sake of not making the original posting today overlong to run it in a day or two and preface it with this material. -ISM]
It is rather disingenuous to not note that there are a variety of ways of doing water boarding and that the method the US government has used is in certain respects markedly different than what the Japanese and others have done. The failure of this article to note the differences (and also to claim that the method is torture) is profoundly disappointing for a source which is supposed to present a neutral point of view. As someone else correctly noted "[t]his article... is taking sides in a controversial issue while simplifying the nuances of that issue."...
Now while you could claim that source is taken second hand, I can respond to that by noting that I took the quote and the link being quoted from a site that does not support my view on this -to the extent that I have even made my view known here which I have not. My underlying point all along is that this article is not demonstrating neutral point of view in treating on the issue fairly which means (by definition) not taking sides or appearing to take sides.
Now then, you claimed "XXXXXXX" that there are "no sources" which posit a difference in the methods that I claimed there was. But as noted above, the Japanese were pouring water into noses and throats of those so subjected to their method and according to the CIA's instruction manual, the CIA method did not do this. And whatever trick the CIA method plays on the body there is nonetheless no actual suffocation that takes place with the CIA method; ergo no "torture" takes place even by your own definition of that word. The same cannot be said for the method utilized by the Japanese during the war where water was poured into the nose and throat. Or other methods of water boarding where the person's head is dunked in water. In other words, arguments can be made that some uses of this method could constitute torture and others may well not. [Excerpts from an Email Correspondence (circa March 8-10, 2008)]
Thursday, March 26, 2009
"Tales From the Crypt Mailbag" Dept.
The emailers words will be in dark red font. Without further ado...
A month ago, when Republican hopeful Bobby Jindal stood at a press conference and ridiculed federal money spent on volcano monitoring, many observers marveled at the sheer stupidity of a Louisiana governor belittling a system that could give advance warning of a natural disaster.
First of all, I am curious to know who these "many" observers were. Secondly, if memory serves, the subject at the time was economic stimulus and federal money on volcano monitoring is not going to help with economic stimulus. Or are you claiming it would??? Because if so I have my own "marvel[ing]" to do but that is neither here nor there.
But before the governor could take his foot out of his mouth, an Alaskan volcano erupted five times, a volcano that, thanks to promised stimulus money, will be monitored more closely in the future.
Again, volcano monitoring money is not an economic stimulus. And care to bet that the volcano you mentioned in its five eruptions did more to the environment of a detrimental nature than all of human industry in the past two hundred plus years??? Yet you probably are one of those who stand in the blizzards claiming we need to stop "global warming" under the presumption that man's activity is somehow more damaging than that of nature's.
Cleary, Mr. Jindal doesn't think much about volcanoes. If he can't fathom what pre-disaster monitoring could do for his home state, he can't be expected to know that between 1980 and 1990, volcanoes worldwide killed at least 26,000 people and caused 450,000 people to flee their homes.
First of all, you are not staying on target here. The issue at the time was a proposed government economic "stimulus" by President Obama and the Democratic congress: that is what "stimulus" money is for. If you want to claim that federal monitoring money would "stimulate" the economy you would only reveal how little you really know about economics. Of course that would probably earn you a spot in BHO's cabinet since competence does not seem to be a pre-qualification.
But even that point aside, there is also the issue of whether volcano monitoring is something the federal government should be involving itself in to begin with or if this is a function of state government. Jindal probably views it as the latter and that makes this a philosophical issue not one of Jindal thinking that volcano monitoring is not of importance. That is the problem with people like you: you think someone who opposes federal intervention into an area or program means that there is opposition to an intervention or program period. The two are not synonymous at all.
And one can assume that on May 18th, 1980, when Mt. St. Helen's erupted, claiming 65 lives and causing $1.2 billion in damage, Mr. Jindal was reading the funny papers.
One can assume that when economics was taught in school you were not even in class if you think federal volcano monitoring would help with economic "stimulus."
In reality, Mr. Jindal is not as thickheaded as he seems. Rather, he's a Republican, and thus, spends his days taking random shots at any and all federal expenditure, no matter how crucial.
In fairness to you, I do not think you are as off the reservation intellectually as your email to me appears. It seems to me that you are so opposed to Governor Jindal that you are attempting to go after the only thing he said that with a bit of clever twisting can appear to be an argument against him. But you need to keep focused on the issue at hand. For apart from the question of if it is a federal or state matter and whether the federal government has any business putting funds for this sort of thing in the federal budget, the question is if this is something that would "stimulate" the economy. So unless you are going to claim it would "stimulate the economy"{1}, your entire line of purported "argument" against Governor Jindal is irrelevant.
Notes:
{1} This would be an interesting argument to see you try and make: good luck with it!!!
{2} See footnote one.
The emailers words will be in dark red font. Without further ado...
A month ago, when Republican hopeful Bobby Jindal stood at a press conference and ridiculed federal money spent on volcano monitoring, many observers marveled at the sheer stupidity of a Louisiana governor belittling a system that could give advance warning of a natural disaster.
First of all, I am curious to know who these "many" observers were. Secondly, if memory serves, the subject at the time was economic stimulus and federal money on volcano monitoring is not going to help with economic stimulus. Or are you claiming it would??? Because if so I have my own "marvel[ing]" to do but that is neither here nor there.
But before the governor could take his foot out of his mouth, an Alaskan volcano erupted five times, a volcano that, thanks to promised stimulus money, will be monitored more closely in the future.
Again, volcano monitoring money is not an economic stimulus. And care to bet that the volcano you mentioned in its five eruptions did more to the environment of a detrimental nature than all of human industry in the past two hundred plus years??? Yet you probably are one of those who stand in the blizzards claiming we need to stop "global warming" under the presumption that man's activity is somehow more damaging than that of nature's.
Cleary, Mr. Jindal doesn't think much about volcanoes. If he can't fathom what pre-disaster monitoring could do for his home state, he can't be expected to know that between 1980 and 1990, volcanoes worldwide killed at least 26,000 people and caused 450,000 people to flee their homes.
First of all, you are not staying on target here. The issue at the time was a proposed government economic "stimulus" by President Obama and the Democratic congress: that is what "stimulus" money is for. If you want to claim that federal monitoring money would "stimulate" the economy you would only reveal how little you really know about economics. Of course that would probably earn you a spot in BHO's cabinet since competence does not seem to be a pre-qualification.
But even that point aside, there is also the issue of whether volcano monitoring is something the federal government should be involving itself in to begin with or if this is a function of state government. Jindal probably views it as the latter and that makes this a philosophical issue not one of Jindal thinking that volcano monitoring is not of importance. That is the problem with people like you: you think someone who opposes federal intervention into an area or program means that there is opposition to an intervention or program period. The two are not synonymous at all.
And one can assume that on May 18th, 1980, when Mt. St. Helen's erupted, claiming 65 lives and causing $1.2 billion in damage, Mr. Jindal was reading the funny papers.
One can assume that when economics was taught in school you were not even in class if you think federal volcano monitoring would help with economic "stimulus."
In reality, Mr. Jindal is not as thickheaded as he seems. Rather, he's a Republican, and thus, spends his days taking random shots at any and all federal expenditure, no matter how crucial.
In fairness to you, I do not think you are as off the reservation intellectually as your email to me appears. It seems to me that you are so opposed to Governor Jindal that you are attempting to go after the only thing he said that with a bit of clever twisting can appear to be an argument against him. But you need to keep focused on the issue at hand. For apart from the question of if it is a federal or state matter and whether the federal government has any business putting funds for this sort of thing in the federal budget, the question is if this is something that would "stimulate" the economy. So unless you are going to claim it would "stimulate the economy"{1}, your entire line of purported "argument" against Governor Jindal is irrelevant.
Notes:
{1} This would be an interesting argument to see you try and make: good luck with it!!!
{2} See footnote one.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Saturday, March 21, 2009
"One From the Vault" Dept.
(On Presidential Legacies)
[Prefatory Note: This was drafted on August 14, 2008 but for some reason it was never published. Having just re-discovered it when perusing various unpublished drafts and seeing as the principles underlying what I say in it are applicable to a variety of circumstances, I post it at this time. -ISM]
He is not even out of office yet...
The Bush legacy cannot be fairly judged when the person in question is still in office. It takes time and distance to attain a proper historical perspective. For example, in 1952 Harry Truman was viewed by most people in the same light as Bush is now. But now Truman is considered one of the best presidents of the twentieth century.
(On Presidential Legacies)
[Prefatory Note: This was drafted on August 14, 2008 but for some reason it was never published. Having just re-discovered it when perusing various unpublished drafts and seeing as the principles underlying what I say in it are applicable to a variety of circumstances, I post it at this time. -ISM]
He is not even out of office yet...
The Bush legacy cannot be fairly judged when the person in question is still in office. It takes time and distance to attain a proper historical perspective. For example, in 1952 Harry Truman was viewed by most people in the same light as Bush is now. But now Truman is considered one of the best presidents of the twentieth century.
Then there is the "tax cuts for the rich" crap which others have commented on which tells me the unmentioned side of the story: these "historians" have agendas to push and cannot allow themselves to approach matters with even a pretense of objectivity.
I predict Bush will look a little bit better to posterity than Clinton for a variety of reasons but neither of them will be considered a great president. And neither of them was or is as completely incompetent as Jimmy Carter was. Apparently these "historians" to the tune of 98% have forgotten about the peanut farmer which tells us all we need to know about the integrity of their presumed "poll" on this matter.
Friday, March 20, 2009
"One From the Vault" Dept.
(On "Global Warming")
I intended to post this last year but for some reason it was not tended to; ergo it seems fitting at this time to do so considering all the cold weather we have been seeing -particularly at "global warming" rallies.
2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved (Telegraph/UK)
Of course this writer has never subscribed to this hysteria and written on the absurdity of this matter on its face not a few times over the years.{1} It is nothing more than another of the many masks of marxism{2} which the latter uses to try and advance covertly as opposed to overtly as all deceitful agendas noxious to basic human sensibilities must be if they are to have the greatest chance at success. Throw in the multitude of people who react emotionally rather than rationally to the myriad of issues under which the marxists hitch their wagon to{3} and it only complicates matters further. But as the writer of the Telegraph article noted, 2008 was the year that history will show the fallacy of "man-made global warming" from both a climate standpoint as well as that of the so-called "scientific consensus"{4} was likewise disproved.
Notes:
{1} To note a few offhand:
On the Fraud of "Global Warming" With Greg Mockeridge and Kevin Tierney (circa April 13, 2006)
[I]ndeed readers of this weblog know that we pronounced on the global warming matter some time ago[...] but it does not hurt to remind readers of this considering the magnitude of the confidence trick many are attempting to pull with the so-called "global warming" schtick. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 29, 2007)]
On the subject of the environment, McCain gets a B. If not for his stance on global warming which is (at best) an unproven hypothesis, he would get an A. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 26, 2008)]
{2} Again to note a few posts from the archives on the matter at hand:
Points to Ponder on the Many Masks of Marxism (circa July 3, 2005)
More on Marxists and Their Many Masks (circa July 8, 2005)
On Marxists and Their Methodology (circa July 22, 2006)
{3} Points to Ponder on the Many Masks of Marxism (circa July 3, 2005)
{4} Those who appeal to consensus of anybody are obligated under the rubrics of logic and reason as well as ethics to approach these matters utilizing a proper as opposed to an improper appeal to authority. I go over the latter distinction many times at my weblog -here are two from the archives that come to mind offhand:
"Argumentation Fallacy" Dept. (circa August 27, 2004)
On Proper and Improper Approaches to Argumentation (circa May 14, 2005)
On the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Fallacious Appeals Thereof (circa March 8, 2007)
More on the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Fallacious Appeals Thereof--Dialogue With Jonathan Prejean (circa March 24, 2007)
The thread from 2005 is a reworking of the one from 2004 which redacts the text down to basically the most elemental facets of the subject being covered in the latter thread. The dialogual one with Jonathan Prejean was interacting with his comments and criticisms of the thread from March 8, 2007 originally posted in another medium subsequent to being posted to this weblog.
(On "Global Warming")
I intended to post this last year but for some reason it was not tended to; ergo it seems fitting at this time to do so considering all the cold weather we have been seeing -particularly at "global warming" rallies.
2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved (Telegraph/UK)
Of course this writer has never subscribed to this hysteria and written on the absurdity of this matter on its face not a few times over the years.{1} It is nothing more than another of the many masks of marxism{2} which the latter uses to try and advance covertly as opposed to overtly as all deceitful agendas noxious to basic human sensibilities must be if they are to have the greatest chance at success. Throw in the multitude of people who react emotionally rather than rationally to the myriad of issues under which the marxists hitch their wagon to{3} and it only complicates matters further. But as the writer of the Telegraph article noted, 2008 was the year that history will show the fallacy of "man-made global warming" from both a climate standpoint as well as that of the so-called "scientific consensus"{4} was likewise disproved.
Notes:
{1} To note a few offhand:
On the Fraud of "Global Warming" With Greg Mockeridge and Kevin Tierney (circa April 13, 2006)
[I]ndeed readers of this weblog know that we pronounced on the global warming matter some time ago[...] but it does not hurt to remind readers of this considering the magnitude of the confidence trick many are attempting to pull with the so-called "global warming" schtick. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 29, 2007)]
On the subject of the environment, McCain gets a B. If not for his stance on global warming which is (at best) an unproven hypothesis, he would get an A. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 26, 2008)]
{2} Again to note a few posts from the archives on the matter at hand:
Points to Ponder on the Many Masks of Marxism (circa July 3, 2005)
More on Marxists and Their Many Masks (circa July 8, 2005)
On Marxists and Their Methodology (circa July 22, 2006)
{3} Points to Ponder on the Many Masks of Marxism (circa July 3, 2005)
{4} Those who appeal to consensus of anybody are obligated under the rubrics of logic and reason as well as ethics to approach these matters utilizing a proper as opposed to an improper appeal to authority. I go over the latter distinction many times at my weblog -here are two from the archives that come to mind offhand:
"Argumentation Fallacy" Dept. (circa August 27, 2004)
On Proper and Improper Approaches to Argumentation (circa May 14, 2005)
On the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Fallacious Appeals Thereof (circa March 8, 2007)
More on the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Fallacious Appeals Thereof--Dialogue With Jonathan Prejean (circa March 24, 2007)
The thread from 2005 is a reworking of the one from 2004 which redacts the text down to basically the most elemental facets of the subject being covered in the latter thread. The dialogual one with Jonathan Prejean was interacting with his comments and criticisms of the thread from March 8, 2007 originally posted in another medium subsequent to being posted to this weblog.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
The White House Misfires on Limbaugh (Karl Rove)
Conservatives need to wise up to what the Obama Administration is doing -they are trying to use Rush Limbaugh as not only a diversionary tactic but also to give a personal face to the opposition. Or as President Obama's ideological mentor{1} put it in his "rules for radicals":
The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
The rationale for this was as follows:
In conflict tactics there are certain rules that the organizer should always regard as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and "frozen." By this I mean that in a complex, interrelated, urban society, it becomes increasingly difficult to single out who is to blame for any particular evil. There is a constant, and somewhat legitimate, passing of the buck....
It should be borne in mind that the target is always trying to shift responsibility to get out of being the target....
One of the criteria in picking your target is the target's vulnerability--where do you have the power to start? Furthermore, the target can always say, "Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?" When you "freeze the target," you disregard these arguments and, for the moment, all others to blame.
Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all of the "others" come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target.
The other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract...
Conservatives need to wise up on this and fast and that includes using the tactics of the Obama Administration{2} against them by making President Obama the personification of what they are opposing. This also falls into the rules of President Obama's mentor who stated the following as "rule four:"
The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.
When General Erwin "Desert Fox" Rommel wrote his treatise on tank warfare strategies, it was studied by many students of that craft including a young Colonel by the name of George S. Patton Jr. Later on, as a general in his own right, General George S. Patton was able to defeat "The Desert Fox" in battle and according to legend screamed "I read your book!!!" In like manner, conservatives would be wise to familiarize themselves with the book of tactics followed by those of the same school of "community organizing" as President Barack Obama and the rest of his Chi-Town amigos{3} to have the best odds of beating Obama at his own game as Patton beat Rommel.
Notes:
{1} President Barack Obama's Mentor on Mass Organizing Tactics (circa March 14, 2009)
{2} See footnote one.
{3} To the extent this can be done morally and ethically of course: books dedicated "to Lucifer the first radical" need to be taken with a grain of salt and not have any of their prescriptions applied indiscriminately.
Conservatives need to wise up to what the Obama Administration is doing -they are trying to use Rush Limbaugh as not only a diversionary tactic but also to give a personal face to the opposition. Or as President Obama's ideological mentor{1} put it in his "rules for radicals":
The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
The rationale for this was as follows:
In conflict tactics there are certain rules that the organizer should always regard as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and "frozen." By this I mean that in a complex, interrelated, urban society, it becomes increasingly difficult to single out who is to blame for any particular evil. There is a constant, and somewhat legitimate, passing of the buck....
It should be borne in mind that the target is always trying to shift responsibility to get out of being the target....
One of the criteria in picking your target is the target's vulnerability--where do you have the power to start? Furthermore, the target can always say, "Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?" When you "freeze the target," you disregard these arguments and, for the moment, all others to blame.
Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all of the "others" come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target.
The other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract...
Conservatives need to wise up on this and fast and that includes using the tactics of the Obama Administration{2} against them by making President Obama the personification of what they are opposing. This also falls into the rules of President Obama's mentor who stated the following as "rule four:"
The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.
When General Erwin "Desert Fox" Rommel wrote his treatise on tank warfare strategies, it was studied by many students of that craft including a young Colonel by the name of George S. Patton Jr. Later on, as a general in his own right, General George S. Patton was able to defeat "The Desert Fox" in battle and according to legend screamed "I read your book!!!" In like manner, conservatives would be wise to familiarize themselves with the book of tactics followed by those of the same school of "community organizing" as President Barack Obama and the rest of his Chi-Town amigos{3} to have the best odds of beating Obama at his own game as Patton beat Rommel.
Notes:
{1} President Barack Obama's Mentor on Mass Organizing Tactics (circa March 14, 2009)
{2} See footnote one.
{3} To the extent this can be done morally and ethically of course: books dedicated "to Lucifer the first radical" need to be taken with a grain of salt and not have any of their prescriptions applied indiscriminately.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
MSNBC Cooks the Books on Their Obama Poll:
[Prefatory Note: This was written in another medium on March 14, 2009. -ISM]
If we need any proof, look at the other day when they had 51% A, 13odd% voting B, and 7odd% voting C. That totaled 71% at a time when Rasmussen{1} had Obama at about 55% approval which is a difference of about 16% if we presume that anyone giving Obama a grade higher than D has some degree of approval of his performance thus far. So I suppose if MSNBC were to admit that their poll had a "margin of error" of "+/- 16%"{2} then there would be no problem...though it would basically make the poll useless. Of course that polls are even newsworthy shows you just how much "fark" passes for news these days but I digress...
Notes:
{1} The most reliable pollster the past two elections and one of the few that uses only "likely voters" which is the true measure of these things, not the opinions of those who have no likelihood of voting.
{2} Even if we went at the highest poll in the RCP batch of polling (62%) there would still be a +/- 9% difference. I went with Rasmussen despite not being either the highest or the lowest because for the reasons noted in footnote one.
[Prefatory Note: This was written in another medium on March 14, 2009. -ISM]
If we need any proof, look at the other day when they had 51% A, 13odd% voting B, and 7odd% voting C. That totaled 71% at a time when Rasmussen{1} had Obama at about 55% approval which is a difference of about 16% if we presume that anyone giving Obama a grade higher than D has some degree of approval of his performance thus far. So I suppose if MSNBC were to admit that their poll had a "margin of error" of "+/- 16%"{2} then there would be no problem...though it would basically make the poll useless. Of course that polls are even newsworthy shows you just how much "fark" passes for news these days but I digress...
Notes:
{1} The most reliable pollster the past two elections and one of the few that uses only "likely voters" which is the true measure of these things, not the opinions of those who have no likelihood of voting.
{2} Even if we went at the highest poll in the RCP batch of polling (62%) there would still be a +/- 9% difference. I went with Rasmussen despite not being either the highest or the lowest because for the reasons noted in footnote one.
On the Problem With Conservatives Dabbling in So-Called "Conspiracy Theories":
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum}
I have seen over the years time and again something that has long compelled me to cover the subject of conspiracy theories. And a few recent circumstances I have been privy to have finally pushed this point to one of critical mass and I do not feel I can go without saying something on the matter at this time however brief it may be so that is the purpose of what you are reading at this time.
To start with, I have long realized when you get any group of conservatives together there are always going to be some who put forth the idea of a grand overarching conspiracy to explain all of the problems they see. For I approach these matters as someone who had my own affiliation with the cult of the conspiracy theorist. The affiliation was not long (a few years) but it certainly influenced my views on not a few matters particularly after I intellectually worked my way through it, routed it as a viable theory and cast it aside as logically and rationally specious (to put it nicely). And I want to provide in this note a schemata of sorts for others to similarly navigate these issues without being led down the myriad of blind alleys that such approaches inevitably entail.
In stating that, I want to explain some of the building blocks of rational thought because society today suffers because of those who are unfamiliar with such things. I define three steps to establish a theory. One reason I have a problem with the term "conspiracy theorist" should be evident after I explain those steps if you will. The first point of contact with rational thought is deciding upon a thesis which I have defined{1} as follows:
Thesis: An abstract principle or proposition to be advanced and maintained by argument.
A thesis is essentially a position that you assert before it has been substantiated by argument. Those who make statements for or against a position essentially are both on the same playing field. That takes us to the realm of the hypothesis. The latter can be defined{2} as follows:
Hypothesis: An explanation of a subject, circumstance, or event which is advanced on tentative grounds by a proposed thesis or series of theses and is open to further examination or being potentially disproved before it reaches the stature of a viable theory.
I define it that way because not all hypotheses are equal in merit. A hypothesis by this understanding is a thesis or a coordinative series of theses which are set forth in explanatory form for examination and testing, and for potential flaws which could invalidate it. Among the potential flaws are errors of fact, errors in logic, and formal contradiction. If a hypothesis withstands this kind of scrutiny and remains intact, it can validly be considered a theory. And as one of my early intellectual mentors Mike Mentzer used to like to define the latter term{3}:
Theory: a set of non-contradictory abstract ideas (or as philosophers like to call them, principles) which purports to give either a correct description of reality or a guideline for successful action.
A theory in other words is a solid point of reference and is not to be dismissed as a mere whim. This is where I have a problem with the "conspiracy theory" phrasing because definitions are the tools of thought. Therefore, to utilize logic and reason efficaciously the terms we use have to be given precise or at least workable definitions if we are to give as accurate a description as we can. So conspiracy theorists should be called "conspiracy hypothesizers" to be properly classified. Then when we look at how many internal contradictions these people have entertained over the decades -not to mention how many predictions they have made that have not come true- this shows us the true worth of their worldview.
Getting back to where I said I "worked my way through it", etc. I am not saying that I solved every previous puzzle involved in the conspiracy hypothesizing mindset of course. However, by identifying the root causes or foundational presuppositions that guided that particular world view, I was able in applying them to so many of the positions taken by the conspiracy sorts to see the viability of the overarching purported theory itself melt away like ice cream on a hot July day. Hence, when I set that outlook aside definitively, I basically imposed a kind of self-agnosticism on the areas I had not yet solved because I had realized that the outlook was not tenable rationally. Over time and with greater research and reflection on a host of issues, most of them have resolved themselves without the need for active intellectual involvement on my part. (And on occasion in responding to conspiracy-hypothesizing sorts on issues I once set aside in this fashion, I was able to intellectually overcome them when revisiting said matters anew.) The very few that remain will likely go by the wayside in the same fashion as most of the others; ergo I see no reason to alter my approach to them taken lo these past twelve odd years.
But noting these things, it may help to consider why people latch onto these things as they do. For one thing, the world is a very complex place. And people who face the whirlwind of complex factors and do not understand them often will look for anything they can find to help them make sense of it all.{4} And one thing that conspiracy hypothesizers do is give what they purport to be a correct description of reality. And because it all fits together apparently so nice and neat, their approach is a seductive one. However, any hypothesis is only as good as the arguments that sustain it and in science a hypothesis that cannot sustain itself when subjected to testing is cast aside as unviable.
The core problem with conspiracy hypothesizers is they do not admit of anything that can serve as an invalidation of their view. They often misuse sources they cite{5} and even go as far as to entertain mutually contradictory positions without realizing that in doing so they have made any attempts to apply logic to the matter inoperable. This is the same mindset that blames in true xenophobic fashion all perceived "outsiders" as being the source of any and all "evils" -can anyone say Jewish blood libel trials of the Middle Ages??? How about blaming everything from the assassination of Lincoln and Kennedy to any calamity of the past four hundred years to the "Papists", the "Jews", the "Masons", or the "Jesuits"??? More could be noted but the bottom line is this: it is always easier to comfort oneself in dealing with issues that have a befuddling complexity to them by having recourse to simplistic "explanations" and then ignoring or refusing to come to grips with the problems of reason and logic (not to mention fact) that such "explanations" may have.
I do not in saying these things deny that there are conspiracies out there or people who conspire with others. Nor would I claim that there are not members of various groups past (or present) often considered to be Borg-like in their machinations for some kind of global governance who do not have an outlook that is what would be called "globalist" in many respects. The fallacy is the claim that all members have the same views which is its own form of stereotyping.
The charm of these various hypotheses is that they purport to give a simplistic explanation for much more complex geopolitical strata. But hopefully what is outlined in this note makes it clear that there are significant problems with this kind of outlook as a rule and taken to too much of an extent. I furthermore hope that this short note of musings adequately explains why those who would claim to respect reason and logic as valuable tools for ascertaining reality should think long and hard before either espousing such views themselves or giving any kind of endorsement to others who would.
Notes:
{1} Defining the Term "Thesis" -A Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG Post (circa January 14, 2004)
{2} A Workable Definition of "Hypothesis" -A Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG Post (circa August 21, 2006)
{3} Defining the Term "Theory" -A Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG Post (circa January 14, 2004)
{4} They are also big on playing the provincialism card and blaming ills on various groups of people (i.e. Jews, Masons, Catholics, International Bankers, etc) which is a classic tactic of a cult: try to scare those "inside" of others who are "outside" all the better to practice mind control over them but I digress.
{5} One that is often misrepresented to no small degree (to put it nicely) is the work of the late Professor of Georgetown Carroll Quigley whose tome Tragedy and Hope is treated as practically Sacred Scripture by conspiracy hypothesizers. I happen to have perused this book myself in years past and to say that it has been misappropriated or that only part of Quigley's views (and a very small part) have been accurately represented by those who attempt to cite him as an "ally" for various conspiracy hypotheses would not be inaccurate.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum}
I have seen over the years time and again something that has long compelled me to cover the subject of conspiracy theories. And a few recent circumstances I have been privy to have finally pushed this point to one of critical mass and I do not feel I can go without saying something on the matter at this time however brief it may be so that is the purpose of what you are reading at this time.
To start with, I have long realized when you get any group of conservatives together there are always going to be some who put forth the idea of a grand overarching conspiracy to explain all of the problems they see. For I approach these matters as someone who had my own affiliation with the cult of the conspiracy theorist. The affiliation was not long (a few years) but it certainly influenced my views on not a few matters particularly after I intellectually worked my way through it, routed it as a viable theory and cast it aside as logically and rationally specious (to put it nicely). And I want to provide in this note a schemata of sorts for others to similarly navigate these issues without being led down the myriad of blind alleys that such approaches inevitably entail.
In stating that, I want to explain some of the building blocks of rational thought because society today suffers because of those who are unfamiliar with such things. I define three steps to establish a theory. One reason I have a problem with the term "conspiracy theorist" should be evident after I explain those steps if you will. The first point of contact with rational thought is deciding upon a thesis which I have defined{1} as follows:
Thesis: An abstract principle or proposition to be advanced and maintained by argument.
A thesis is essentially a position that you assert before it has been substantiated by argument. Those who make statements for or against a position essentially are both on the same playing field. That takes us to the realm of the hypothesis. The latter can be defined{2} as follows:
Hypothesis: An explanation of a subject, circumstance, or event which is advanced on tentative grounds by a proposed thesis or series of theses and is open to further examination or being potentially disproved before it reaches the stature of a viable theory.
I define it that way because not all hypotheses are equal in merit. A hypothesis by this understanding is a thesis or a coordinative series of theses which are set forth in explanatory form for examination and testing, and for potential flaws which could invalidate it. Among the potential flaws are errors of fact, errors in logic, and formal contradiction. If a hypothesis withstands this kind of scrutiny and remains intact, it can validly be considered a theory. And as one of my early intellectual mentors Mike Mentzer used to like to define the latter term{3}:
Theory: a set of non-contradictory abstract ideas (or as philosophers like to call them, principles) which purports to give either a correct description of reality or a guideline for successful action.
A theory in other words is a solid point of reference and is not to be dismissed as a mere whim. This is where I have a problem with the "conspiracy theory" phrasing because definitions are the tools of thought. Therefore, to utilize logic and reason efficaciously the terms we use have to be given precise or at least workable definitions if we are to give as accurate a description as we can. So conspiracy theorists should be called "conspiracy hypothesizers" to be properly classified. Then when we look at how many internal contradictions these people have entertained over the decades -not to mention how many predictions they have made that have not come true- this shows us the true worth of their worldview.
Getting back to where I said I "worked my way through it", etc. I am not saying that I solved every previous puzzle involved in the conspiracy hypothesizing mindset of course. However, by identifying the root causes or foundational presuppositions that guided that particular world view, I was able in applying them to so many of the positions taken by the conspiracy sorts to see the viability of the overarching purported theory itself melt away like ice cream on a hot July day. Hence, when I set that outlook aside definitively, I basically imposed a kind of self-agnosticism on the areas I had not yet solved because I had realized that the outlook was not tenable rationally. Over time and with greater research and reflection on a host of issues, most of them have resolved themselves without the need for active intellectual involvement on my part. (And on occasion in responding to conspiracy-hypothesizing sorts on issues I once set aside in this fashion, I was able to intellectually overcome them when revisiting said matters anew.) The very few that remain will likely go by the wayside in the same fashion as most of the others; ergo I see no reason to alter my approach to them taken lo these past twelve odd years.
But noting these things, it may help to consider why people latch onto these things as they do. For one thing, the world is a very complex place. And people who face the whirlwind of complex factors and do not understand them often will look for anything they can find to help them make sense of it all.{4} And one thing that conspiracy hypothesizers do is give what they purport to be a correct description of reality. And because it all fits together apparently so nice and neat, their approach is a seductive one. However, any hypothesis is only as good as the arguments that sustain it and in science a hypothesis that cannot sustain itself when subjected to testing is cast aside as unviable.
The core problem with conspiracy hypothesizers is they do not admit of anything that can serve as an invalidation of their view. They often misuse sources they cite{5} and even go as far as to entertain mutually contradictory positions without realizing that in doing so they have made any attempts to apply logic to the matter inoperable. This is the same mindset that blames in true xenophobic fashion all perceived "outsiders" as being the source of any and all "evils" -can anyone say Jewish blood libel trials of the Middle Ages??? How about blaming everything from the assassination of Lincoln and Kennedy to any calamity of the past four hundred years to the "Papists", the "Jews", the "Masons", or the "Jesuits"??? More could be noted but the bottom line is this: it is always easier to comfort oneself in dealing with issues that have a befuddling complexity to them by having recourse to simplistic "explanations" and then ignoring or refusing to come to grips with the problems of reason and logic (not to mention fact) that such "explanations" may have.
I do not in saying these things deny that there are conspiracies out there or people who conspire with others. Nor would I claim that there are not members of various groups past (or present) often considered to be Borg-like in their machinations for some kind of global governance who do not have an outlook that is what would be called "globalist" in many respects. The fallacy is the claim that all members have the same views which is its own form of stereotyping.
The charm of these various hypotheses is that they purport to give a simplistic explanation for much more complex geopolitical strata. But hopefully what is outlined in this note makes it clear that there are significant problems with this kind of outlook as a rule and taken to too much of an extent. I furthermore hope that this short note of musings adequately explains why those who would claim to respect reason and logic as valuable tools for ascertaining reality should think long and hard before either espousing such views themselves or giving any kind of endorsement to others who would.
Notes:
{1} Defining the Term "Thesis" -A Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG Post (circa January 14, 2004)
{2} A Workable Definition of "Hypothesis" -A Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG Post (circa August 21, 2006)
{3} Defining the Term "Theory" -A Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG Post (circa January 14, 2004)
{4} They are also big on playing the provincialism card and blaming ills on various groups of people (i.e. Jews, Masons, Catholics, International Bankers, etc) which is a classic tactic of a cult: try to scare those "inside" of others who are "outside" all the better to practice mind control over them but I digress.
{5} One that is often misrepresented to no small degree (to put it nicely) is the work of the late Professor of Georgetown Carroll Quigley whose tome Tragedy and Hope is treated as practically Sacred Scripture by conspiracy hypothesizers. I happen to have perused this book myself in years past and to say that it has been misappropriated or that only part of Quigley's views (and a very small part) have been accurately represented by those who attempt to cite him as an "ally" for various conspiracy hypotheses would not be inaccurate.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
President Barack Obama's Mentor on Mass Organizing Tactics...
[Prefatory Note: This material was first posted to another medium on February 21, 2009. -ISM]
This is from the founder of Chicago style "community organizing" Saul Alinsky and his book Rules For Radicals, a book incidentally that along with its writer{1} influenced Barack Obama in his community organizing days and which Alinsky himself dedicated "To Lucifer the first radical." It was also a book which Michelle Obama quoted from in her speech at the Democratic Convention. Without further ado...
Tactics mean doing what you can with what you have. Tactics are those conscious deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them. In the world of give and take, tactics is the art of how to take and how to give. Here our concern is with the tactic of taking; how the Have-Nots can take power away from the Haves.
For an elementary illustration of tactics, take parts of your face as the point of reference; your eyes, your ears, and your nose. First the eyes; if you have organized a vast, mass-based people's organization, you can parade it visibly before the enemy and openly show your power. Second the ears; if your organization is small in numbers, then...conceal the members in the dark but raise a din and clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more than it does. Third, the nose; if your organization is too tiny even for noise, stink up the place.
Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people. When an action is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.
The fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.
The sixth rule is: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. If your people are not having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.
The seventh rule is: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time, after which it becomes a ritualistic commitment...
The eighth rule: Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
The ninth rule: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
The tenth rule: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative...
The twelfth rule: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying "You're right--we don't know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us."
The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
In conflict tactics there are certain rules that the organizer should always regard as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and "frozen." By this I mean that in a complex, interrelated, urban society, it becomes increasingly difficult to single out who is to blame for any particular evil. There is a constant, and somewhat legitimate, passing of the buck....
It should be borne in mind that the target is always trying to shift responsibility to get out of being the target....
One of the criteria in picking your target is the target's vulnerability--where do you have the power to start? Furthermore, the target can always say, "Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?" When you "freeze the target," you disregard these arguments and, for the moment, all others to blame.
Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all of the "others" come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target.
The other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract such as a community's segregated practices or a major corporation or City Hall. It is not possible to develop the necessary hostility against, say, City Hall, which after all is a concrete, physical, inanimate structure, or against a corporation, which has no soul or identity, or a public school administration, which again is an inanimate system. [Saul Alinsky: From Rules For Radicals pgs. 126-140 (c. 1971)]
If anything, some of these tactics can be used against the agenda of President Obama now.
Note:
{1} On President Barack Obama's Political Mentor (circa February 28, 2009)
[Prefatory Note: This material was first posted to another medium on February 21, 2009. -ISM]
This is from the founder of Chicago style "community organizing" Saul Alinsky and his book Rules For Radicals, a book incidentally that along with its writer{1} influenced Barack Obama in his community organizing days and which Alinsky himself dedicated "To Lucifer the first radical." It was also a book which Michelle Obama quoted from in her speech at the Democratic Convention. Without further ado...
Tactics mean doing what you can with what you have. Tactics are those conscious deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them. In the world of give and take, tactics is the art of how to take and how to give. Here our concern is with the tactic of taking; how the Have-Nots can take power away from the Haves.
For an elementary illustration of tactics, take parts of your face as the point of reference; your eyes, your ears, and your nose. First the eyes; if you have organized a vast, mass-based people's organization, you can parade it visibly before the enemy and openly show your power. Second the ears; if your organization is small in numbers, then...conceal the members in the dark but raise a din and clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more than it does. Third, the nose; if your organization is too tiny even for noise, stink up the place.
Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people. When an action is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.
The fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.
The sixth rule is: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. If your people are not having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.
The seventh rule is: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time, after which it becomes a ritualistic commitment...
The eighth rule: Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
The ninth rule: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
The tenth rule: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative...
The twelfth rule: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying "You're right--we don't know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us."
The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
In conflict tactics there are certain rules that the organizer should always regard as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and "frozen." By this I mean that in a complex, interrelated, urban society, it becomes increasingly difficult to single out who is to blame for any particular evil. There is a constant, and somewhat legitimate, passing of the buck....
It should be borne in mind that the target is always trying to shift responsibility to get out of being the target....
One of the criteria in picking your target is the target's vulnerability--where do you have the power to start? Furthermore, the target can always say, "Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?" When you "freeze the target," you disregard these arguments and, for the moment, all others to blame.
Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all of the "others" come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target.
The other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract such as a community's segregated practices or a major corporation or City Hall. It is not possible to develop the necessary hostility against, say, City Hall, which after all is a concrete, physical, inanimate structure, or against a corporation, which has no soul or identity, or a public school administration, which again is an inanimate system. [Saul Alinsky: From Rules For Radicals pgs. 126-140 (c. 1971)]
If anything, some of these tactics can be used against the agenda of President Obama now.
Note:
{1} On President Barack Obama's Political Mentor (circa February 28, 2009)
Obama's Poll Numbers Are Falling to Earth
When we have a president who continually says one thing and then does another (or does one thing and says another) why does this news surprise??? The bloom has come off the Obama rose already and for those who think President George W. Bush was unpopular (as he was in the latter half of his presidency), it bears reflecting that GWB was more popular than BHO was at this point in his presidency.
When we have a president who continually says one thing and then does another (or does one thing and says another) why does this news surprise??? The bloom has come off the Obama rose already and for those who think President George W. Bush was unpopular (as he was in the latter half of his presidency), it bears reflecting that GWB was more popular than BHO was at this point in his presidency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)