Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord and may thy perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace with all the souls of the faithfully departed. Amen.
Friday, June 12, 2009
There have been a number of deaths in the family and among friends in this millennium. But out of all of them, there is one which stands out from the pack as being the most difficult for me to deal with. Today is the eighth anniversary of the passing of my late father Richard Dunn McElhinney. All I will say about it at the present time is what I say every year at this time; namely, that prayers for the eternal repose of his soul would be most appreciated.
Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord and may thy perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace with all the souls of the faithfully departed. Amen.
Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord and may thy perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace with all the souls of the faithfully departed. Amen.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
The Gitmo Myth and the Torture Canard
This thread deals somewhat systematically with a lot of the garbage commonly paraded about by those who have for years publicly kvetched on these subjects. Hopefully for those who actually care about factual accuracy and take matters of ethics seriously, this thread will serve to inform them. Even if you do not agree with the manner in which the "war on terror"{1} has been conducted -in part or in whole- at the very least the rationale for what was done and why is well articulated in the thread above.
Note:
{1} Yeah, yeah I know overseas contingency operations. But much as I have never been fond of the term "war on terror", compared to the current nebulous construct I will continue to utilize it. (Though the term "war on terrorism" or "war on terrorists" would be preferable to both in my mind.)
This thread deals somewhat systematically with a lot of the garbage commonly paraded about by those who have for years publicly kvetched on these subjects. Hopefully for those who actually care about factual accuracy and take matters of ethics seriously, this thread will serve to inform them. Even if you do not agree with the manner in which the "war on terror"{1} has been conducted -in part or in whole- at the very least the rationale for what was done and why is well articulated in the thread above.
Note:
{1} Yeah, yeah I know overseas contingency operations. But much as I have never been fond of the term "war on terror", compared to the current nebulous construct I will continue to utilize it. (Though the term "war on terrorism" or "war on terrorists" would be preferable to both in my mind.)
Saturday, June 06, 2009
On D-Day and Writing Photographs:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I intend in this posting to cover two subjects but in reverse order from how they read in the title. Without further ado...
Today on a much lesser scale than the grand anniversary of D-Day is the anniversary of my public writing debut in terms of formal web essay style writing. I had been involved in a variety of discussion forums on various and sundry subject matters for a few years prior to that point{1} but June 6, 2000 was the debut of a pretty sprawling and ambitious book length project dealing in systematical fashion with a subject to which I had not seen a similar web treatment of anywhere else prior to that time. Others were to follow including the material on this weblog but I mention the project that debuted on the web nine years ago today as a point of reference for reasons that the rest of this note will make hopefully crystal clear.
Cleaning out storage areas and boxes is a treasure hunt or at least it can be and also on the writing front, in cleaning out boxes and boxes of papers I came across not a few of the essays I wrote back in high school and college for various classes (intensive English, Shakespearean studies, philosophy, economics, international business etc). It was interesting to go over them one by one and see my writing to the extent I have a discernible style take shape so to speak. I had written prior to that point of course but it was not until high school that I started developing the outlines of the approach to writing that I take and it was not without some occasional glitches here and there.
For one thing, I can remember in perusing these papers which ones I took at least a bit of time on and which ones I basically pulled an all-nighter on. It was not reflected in the grades per se{2} but the manner in which I went about it. There are some papers where I smile reading them now because they resonate well still with these older eyes{3} and there are some I smile at reading because of the naive nature of the boy who wrote them. There are some where I evince a sense of humour of the sort I am still misunderstood about.{4} There are also more than a few hints to put it mildly of a kind of hyper-dogmatism{5} of the sort that I now loathe when I see it in the work of what should be mature adults.{6} But that is neither here nor there.
A common theme in the papers taken as a corpus of work criticism wise was that they could have used more content -this was the case even with the straight A papers of which there were many more of them than of other grades. I wonder therefore when after college my written product would contain insane amounts of documentation if this was not some kind of internal reaction to seeing the criticism over and over again that more content was needed.{7} Of course then I was receiving criticism for too much content from various and sundry parties so Chesterton's dictum about something being "too tall, too short, too skinny, too fat, etc"{8} comes to mind.
But taken with what I remember of the discussion board material, the formal web essays, and the contents of this weblog, these old writings really paint a vivid picture of my development as a writer. It makes one realize the paths one travels on things like this from a writing standpoint. Anyway, though I am recycling boxes of papers and shredding a lot of stuff too of a financial nature, the folder of these essays is among the small percentage of stuff that I am saving. My handwriting on the ones which were handwritten was as a rule so much neater then so I want to have a record of the fact that I once had penmanship bordering on the beautiful lest anyone who sees what passes for my handwriting these days as a rule think otherwise. But that is a minor matter really.
The saving of some landmarks of one's life at various stages serves as a kind of written photo album and much as some real life photos may be embarrassing to look at when older, without them you can easily forget where you have been and how you have gotten to the point in time that you are at now. Forgetting history is far too common even for those who actually know their history{9} and that brings me to the historical event of today: D-Day.
The anniversary of D-Day of course has a hell of a lot more to commemorate it than the anniversary of anything to do with me. It was a grand day in the history of the Second World War -the start of the liberation of Europe from the Nazi stranglehold. But not often looked at is the way the invasion appeared to those who were not fighting on either side of the conflict; namely, the average people. With that in mind I want to close this note of musings with an approach to D-Day that will diverge from the standard treatments to some extent and include links that honour not only those who were willing to fight and die for what I would view as a just cause.{10}
So again with those thoughts in mind, I want to close this posting with two links to the invasion of Normandy from two different sides and of course to hope that people in general remember history (both personal as well as general) so that by better knowing where they have been{11} they can better discern where they may well be going.
The Boys of Pointe du Hoc -June 6, 1984 on the Fiftieth Anniversary of D-Day
Invasion of Normandy June 6, 1944 -A French Woman Remembers
Notes:
{1} I had originally intended to try and restore the hard drive of my old crashed Mac G3 which contained at one point literally hundreds of dialogual threads from a variety of different discussion boards on variegated subject matter spanning from 1998-2002 (I lost everything on the hard drive in May of 2002). I ultimately decided though to recycle the computer since I abandoned my plan to upgrade it a few years back for reasons of practicality and also because I knew that I was not about to expend the time necessary to format those dialogues for proper posting as I once intended to do.
{2} Though I almost always got notably better grades and created a better product on those where I spent more time or at least some degree of thought planning out where they were going.
{3} Of particular note I must say was a philosophical analysis I did on a C P Cavafy poem titled Ithaca which I remember writing literally in one take --I doubt I spent more than ten minutes on it if that-- and getting a perfect grade and significantly positive feedback from the teacher. Another was a paper I wrote on romantic love at around the same time before later life experiences obliterated nearly all the sunny-eyed optimism in that area I once had. Though a bit of the latter has been returning as of late, I see in the paper an kind of abstract innocence untainted by practical experience of the sort that makes my eyes roll when I see people enunciate it in various areas from politics to social issues to theology or whatever.
That is not to say the paper is bad mind you -I am actually surprised at some of the insights I had in it in retrospect. But it also has within it a bit of expecting more from people than is realistic even in the best of situations: something that part of acquiring wisdom means disabusing oneself of as I have come to see it.
{4} Probably about as often too because my approach to humour is significantly more implied or otherwise tongue-in-cheek now than it was at that time. (And I was actually writing comedy bits and stuff back then also so my focus at that time in that area was not lacking.)
{5} My philosophical paper on a dialogue with Christ and a Grand Inquisitor is a mixed bag in this area -got a good grade on the paper (A-) but the teacher's criticism of my Christ dialogue was spot on now that I think of it though at the time I sure did not think so. (My picture of Jesus at the time was practically a Jansenistic one warped by some of the ecclesial affiliations I had at that time.)
{6} This is one area where I have been particularly critical of those of an apologetics style mindset. Admittedly I had one of those myself at one point before transcending it -ironically perhaps it was when I knew least that I was the most dogmatic but then again, I have learned over the years that such is par for the course for humanity in general.
{7} I rarely if ever got criticism on the structure of papers -almost all points lost if any were was because of perceived lack of content to substantiate points made.
{8} This is a really crude paraphrase of the exact statement which I cannot readily recall offhand.
{9} Which sadly enough is not nearly enough people -including not a few who would claim to yet manifest in what they write that their knowledge of it is superficial at best.
{10} I am aware of some even amongst friends who may dispute this view and while that may be a subject for discussion at a future date, I do not intend to entertain such a matter now.
{11} I later on expanded on this theme a bit in a posting which can be read here for those who are interested.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I intend in this posting to cover two subjects but in reverse order from how they read in the title. Without further ado...
Today on a much lesser scale than the grand anniversary of D-Day is the anniversary of my public writing debut in terms of formal web essay style writing. I had been involved in a variety of discussion forums on various and sundry subject matters for a few years prior to that point{1} but June 6, 2000 was the debut of a pretty sprawling and ambitious book length project dealing in systematical fashion with a subject to which I had not seen a similar web treatment of anywhere else prior to that time. Others were to follow including the material on this weblog but I mention the project that debuted on the web nine years ago today as a point of reference for reasons that the rest of this note will make hopefully crystal clear.
Cleaning out storage areas and boxes is a treasure hunt or at least it can be and also on the writing front, in cleaning out boxes and boxes of papers I came across not a few of the essays I wrote back in high school and college for various classes (intensive English, Shakespearean studies, philosophy, economics, international business etc). It was interesting to go over them one by one and see my writing to the extent I have a discernible style take shape so to speak. I had written prior to that point of course but it was not until high school that I started developing the outlines of the approach to writing that I take and it was not without some occasional glitches here and there.
For one thing, I can remember in perusing these papers which ones I took at least a bit of time on and which ones I basically pulled an all-nighter on. It was not reflected in the grades per se{2} but the manner in which I went about it. There are some papers where I smile reading them now because they resonate well still with these older eyes{3} and there are some I smile at reading because of the naive nature of the boy who wrote them. There are some where I evince a sense of humour of the sort I am still misunderstood about.{4} There are also more than a few hints to put it mildly of a kind of hyper-dogmatism{5} of the sort that I now loathe when I see it in the work of what should be mature adults.{6} But that is neither here nor there.
A common theme in the papers taken as a corpus of work criticism wise was that they could have used more content -this was the case even with the straight A papers of which there were many more of them than of other grades. I wonder therefore when after college my written product would contain insane amounts of documentation if this was not some kind of internal reaction to seeing the criticism over and over again that more content was needed.{7} Of course then I was receiving criticism for too much content from various and sundry parties so Chesterton's dictum about something being "too tall, too short, too skinny, too fat, etc"{8} comes to mind.
But taken with what I remember of the discussion board material, the formal web essays, and the contents of this weblog, these old writings really paint a vivid picture of my development as a writer. It makes one realize the paths one travels on things like this from a writing standpoint. Anyway, though I am recycling boxes of papers and shredding a lot of stuff too of a financial nature, the folder of these essays is among the small percentage of stuff that I am saving. My handwriting on the ones which were handwritten was as a rule so much neater then so I want to have a record of the fact that I once had penmanship bordering on the beautiful lest anyone who sees what passes for my handwriting these days as a rule think otherwise. But that is a minor matter really.
The saving of some landmarks of one's life at various stages serves as a kind of written photo album and much as some real life photos may be embarrassing to look at when older, without them you can easily forget where you have been and how you have gotten to the point in time that you are at now. Forgetting history is far too common even for those who actually know their history{9} and that brings me to the historical event of today: D-Day.
The anniversary of D-Day of course has a hell of a lot more to commemorate it than the anniversary of anything to do with me. It was a grand day in the history of the Second World War -the start of the liberation of Europe from the Nazi stranglehold. But not often looked at is the way the invasion appeared to those who were not fighting on either side of the conflict; namely, the average people. With that in mind I want to close this note of musings with an approach to D-Day that will diverge from the standard treatments to some extent and include links that honour not only those who were willing to fight and die for what I would view as a just cause.{10}
So again with those thoughts in mind, I want to close this posting with two links to the invasion of Normandy from two different sides and of course to hope that people in general remember history (both personal as well as general) so that by better knowing where they have been{11} they can better discern where they may well be going.
The Boys of Pointe du Hoc -June 6, 1984 on the Fiftieth Anniversary of D-Day
Invasion of Normandy June 6, 1944 -A French Woman Remembers
Notes:
{1} I had originally intended to try and restore the hard drive of my old crashed Mac G3 which contained at one point literally hundreds of dialogual threads from a variety of different discussion boards on variegated subject matter spanning from 1998-2002 (I lost everything on the hard drive in May of 2002). I ultimately decided though to recycle the computer since I abandoned my plan to upgrade it a few years back for reasons of practicality and also because I knew that I was not about to expend the time necessary to format those dialogues for proper posting as I once intended to do.
{2} Though I almost always got notably better grades and created a better product on those where I spent more time or at least some degree of thought planning out where they were going.
{3} Of particular note I must say was a philosophical analysis I did on a C P Cavafy poem titled Ithaca which I remember writing literally in one take --I doubt I spent more than ten minutes on it if that-- and getting a perfect grade and significantly positive feedback from the teacher. Another was a paper I wrote on romantic love at around the same time before later life experiences obliterated nearly all the sunny-eyed optimism in that area I once had. Though a bit of the latter has been returning as of late, I see in the paper an kind of abstract innocence untainted by practical experience of the sort that makes my eyes roll when I see people enunciate it in various areas from politics to social issues to theology or whatever.
That is not to say the paper is bad mind you -I am actually surprised at some of the insights I had in it in retrospect. But it also has within it a bit of expecting more from people than is realistic even in the best of situations: something that part of acquiring wisdom means disabusing oneself of as I have come to see it.
{4} Probably about as often too because my approach to humour is significantly more implied or otherwise tongue-in-cheek now than it was at that time. (And I was actually writing comedy bits and stuff back then also so my focus at that time in that area was not lacking.)
{5} My philosophical paper on a dialogue with Christ and a Grand Inquisitor is a mixed bag in this area -got a good grade on the paper (A-) but the teacher's criticism of my Christ dialogue was spot on now that I think of it though at the time I sure did not think so. (My picture of Jesus at the time was practically a Jansenistic one warped by some of the ecclesial affiliations I had at that time.)
{6} This is one area where I have been particularly critical of those of an apologetics style mindset. Admittedly I had one of those myself at one point before transcending it -ironically perhaps it was when I knew least that I was the most dogmatic but then again, I have learned over the years that such is par for the course for humanity in general.
{7} I rarely if ever got criticism on the structure of papers -almost all points lost if any were was because of perceived lack of content to substantiate points made.
{8} This is a really crude paraphrase of the exact statement which I cannot readily recall offhand.
{9} Which sadly enough is not nearly enough people -including not a few who would claim to yet manifest in what they write that their knowledge of it is superficial at best.
{10} I am aware of some even amongst friends who may dispute this view and while that may be a subject for discussion at a future date, I do not intend to entertain such a matter now.
{11} I later on expanded on this theme a bit in a posting which can be read here for those who are interested.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
On the Subject of Analyzing "Convert Stories" and Questions For Tim Enloe:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I have modified parts of the original text and shifted some material into footnotes, and added a new footnote. But without further ado...
Tim, though I have not been involved in apologetics stuff for years{1}, I must admit that this series you are posting is one I find interesting. I should also note at the outset that these comments are being written on the fly and without my usual concern for systematization and precision of phrasing so any defects they contain I want to apologize for in advance.
To start with, I am curious to know what you are trying to demonstrate with this series. If you want to use it to point out that a lot of conversion stories as they are presented have certain patterns to them and characteristics to the parties involved, this should be self-evident without a major examination like the one you intend to outline. People after all tend to gravitate towards similarity in patterns of thought and behaviour and few are genuinely original.
Even in a six month time frame{2} if someone is intensely reassessing themselves on a major aspect of their worldview, there are potentially dozens of points of reflection. This makes it difficult at times to point out more than a few of what a person views as significant turning points in their change of mind. There is also the supernatural element of this equation which I do not see reflected in your series so far.
Surely we all can agree that if God is involved in someone’s journey He can fill in for the weaknesses and lack of understanding of those He seeks to guide. There may be more or less “filling in” depending on the knowledge or predispositions of the persons involved but the God portrayed in the Bible had a tendency to pick those who were not in positions to boast of their superior learning or faculties of humanity as His chosen instruments. It therefore does not stretch credulity fora Christian to believe that he would do the same today at times and it is possible that at least some of those outlined in the stories you refer to are of that kind. At least Rabbi Gamaliel was willing to consider the possibility that a movement he did not view as of God could possibly be such. I am wondering if whatever defects you may find in the convert stories you intend to profile if this same caveat will be given in your series deliberations.
I would also remind you that people do not change their foundational presuppositions or those lenses whereby they filter all the information that they receive easily or without a lot of time. Furthermore, one person’s “burden of proof” is not the same as another. And I would be remiss if I did not point out that there are a lot of people who seem to expect others to challenge their foundational presuppositions who do not themselves engage in the same courtesy -my view is what is good for the goose is good for the gander on that score and it applies to not only apologists of various stripes but also those who would be their critics.
I have been critical of many people over the years who do not do this and without respect to persons or religious, political, social, or other views they advocated.{3} The bottom line is anyone can read a variety of evidences partially or with the mind towards confirming them in a belief they want to hold rather than in a way that challenges their “sacred cows” if you will. And this tendency applies to everyone not just certain select groups of people.
If you are intending to point out that many apologetics methods are faulty and that there are many Catholic convert apologists who engage in sophistic or superficial readings of historical and/or documentary evidences as presumed “definitive proofs” of their views, this again is no big admission and I could see Catholics or others doing the same thing conversely. But care should be taken that you do not criticize your neighbours of erecting straw men in their fields and then end up doing the same thing yourself: not saying you will do this of course but pointing it out as a warning of sorts.
I would also remind you that most treatments on any issue you will find are less than ideal and are often flawed to no small degree. This should not surprise as everyone who writes on a matter does so with a purpose or an agenda and rarely is any “study” done to do anything but confirm the presuppositions of those who administer it. And of course I am reminded of Arthur Jones’ dictum about “ninety-five percent of what is published on all subjects is hogwash.”{4} But again, I am interested in wanting to know the purpose of this sort of series.
I have not concealed my disgust for many of the purveyors of apologetics methods in recent years and trust me, as a Catholic I know where their real weaknesses are. But all sides have their weaknesses. If you want to try with this series to claim that most of what might be “convincing” to the “fundamentalist converts” you intend to portray would never convince you, that is fine of course but I remind you: no matter how much anyone knows, there is always more they will not know.
History itself the more you probe it reveals itself to be incapable of definitive verdicts and also more complex than many perceive. But even beyond that is the supernatural dimension and if you do not account for the supernatural element in this equation to some extent, no matter how thorough and documented your series is, it will be glaringly incomplete.
Notes:
{1} For a variety of reasons too numerous to go over here.
{2} One end of the time frame you mentioned for the "typical conversion story."
{3} For the sake of not making the list overlong, there are threads dealing with these matters primarily under the sub-categories The Good/The Bad/The Ugly -Apologetics but also occasionally (as warranted) under the Reason/Logic/Ethics and Theological categories. To my knowledge there is no overlap between the apologetics and theological subcategories -the latter being as a rule for more complex and deeper subject matter than the former and the only time some of this is put into the reason/logic/ethics category is when it pertains to certain deficiencies of apologists or their arguments in one or more of those areas respectively.
{4} I for one think he was with that assessment being a bit charitable and for that reason if no other have no doubt you will find lots of evidences to compile for your series.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I have modified parts of the original text and shifted some material into footnotes, and added a new footnote. But without further ado...
Tim, though I have not been involved in apologetics stuff for years{1}, I must admit that this series you are posting is one I find interesting. I should also note at the outset that these comments are being written on the fly and without my usual concern for systematization and precision of phrasing so any defects they contain I want to apologize for in advance.
To start with, I am curious to know what you are trying to demonstrate with this series. If you want to use it to point out that a lot of conversion stories as they are presented have certain patterns to them and characteristics to the parties involved, this should be self-evident without a major examination like the one you intend to outline. People after all tend to gravitate towards similarity in patterns of thought and behaviour and few are genuinely original.
Even in a six month time frame{2} if someone is intensely reassessing themselves on a major aspect of their worldview, there are potentially dozens of points of reflection. This makes it difficult at times to point out more than a few of what a person views as significant turning points in their change of mind. There is also the supernatural element of this equation which I do not see reflected in your series so far.
Surely we all can agree that if God is involved in someone’s journey He can fill in for the weaknesses and lack of understanding of those He seeks to guide. There may be more or less “filling in” depending on the knowledge or predispositions of the persons involved but the God portrayed in the Bible had a tendency to pick those who were not in positions to boast of their superior learning or faculties of humanity as His chosen instruments. It therefore does not stretch credulity fora Christian to believe that he would do the same today at times and it is possible that at least some of those outlined in the stories you refer to are of that kind. At least Rabbi Gamaliel was willing to consider the possibility that a movement he did not view as of God could possibly be such. I am wondering if whatever defects you may find in the convert stories you intend to profile if this same caveat will be given in your series deliberations.
I would also remind you that people do not change their foundational presuppositions or those lenses whereby they filter all the information that they receive easily or without a lot of time. Furthermore, one person’s “burden of proof” is not the same as another. And I would be remiss if I did not point out that there are a lot of people who seem to expect others to challenge their foundational presuppositions who do not themselves engage in the same courtesy -my view is what is good for the goose is good for the gander on that score and it applies to not only apologists of various stripes but also those who would be their critics.
I have been critical of many people over the years who do not do this and without respect to persons or religious, political, social, or other views they advocated.{3} The bottom line is anyone can read a variety of evidences partially or with the mind towards confirming them in a belief they want to hold rather than in a way that challenges their “sacred cows” if you will. And this tendency applies to everyone not just certain select groups of people.
If you are intending to point out that many apologetics methods are faulty and that there are many Catholic convert apologists who engage in sophistic or superficial readings of historical and/or documentary evidences as presumed “definitive proofs” of their views, this again is no big admission and I could see Catholics or others doing the same thing conversely. But care should be taken that you do not criticize your neighbours of erecting straw men in their fields and then end up doing the same thing yourself: not saying you will do this of course but pointing it out as a warning of sorts.
I would also remind you that most treatments on any issue you will find are less than ideal and are often flawed to no small degree. This should not surprise as everyone who writes on a matter does so with a purpose or an agenda and rarely is any “study” done to do anything but confirm the presuppositions of those who administer it. And of course I am reminded of Arthur Jones’ dictum about “ninety-five percent of what is published on all subjects is hogwash.”{4} But again, I am interested in wanting to know the purpose of this sort of series.
I have not concealed my disgust for many of the purveyors of apologetics methods in recent years and trust me, as a Catholic I know where their real weaknesses are. But all sides have their weaknesses. If you want to try with this series to claim that most of what might be “convincing” to the “fundamentalist converts” you intend to portray would never convince you, that is fine of course but I remind you: no matter how much anyone knows, there is always more they will not know.
History itself the more you probe it reveals itself to be incapable of definitive verdicts and also more complex than many perceive. But even beyond that is the supernatural dimension and if you do not account for the supernatural element in this equation to some extent, no matter how thorough and documented your series is, it will be glaringly incomplete.
Notes:
{1} For a variety of reasons too numerous to go over here.
{2} One end of the time frame you mentioned for the "typical conversion story."
{3} For the sake of not making the list overlong, there are threads dealing with these matters primarily under the sub-categories The Good/The Bad/The Ugly -Apologetics but also occasionally (as warranted) under the Reason/Logic/Ethics and Theological categories. To my knowledge there is no overlap between the apologetics and theological subcategories -the latter being as a rule for more complex and deeper subject matter than the former and the only time some of this is put into the reason/logic/ethics category is when it pertains to certain deficiencies of apologists or their arguments in one or more of those areas respectively.
{4} I for one think he was with that assessment being a bit charitable and for that reason if no other have no doubt you will find lots of evidences to compile for your series.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Miscellaneous Musings on Michelle Malkin, Sonya Sotomayor, "Compelling Stories", Activist Agendas, Etc:
First a link to Michelle's article and then my comments so without further ado...
LINK
Michelle basically outlines the Animal Farm mentality of Democrats on President Obama's high court pick because they are touting Sotomayor's "compelling life story" as a selling point despite not being too concerned about the "compelling life story" issue when it came to Judge Clarence Thomas, Judge Samuel Alito, or former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Heck, they would not even let Judge Miguel Estrada get a hearing for being seated on the federal appeals court and Estrada's personal life story was even more compelling than that of Sotomayor. The same argument can be made about Clarence Thomas.
But just as in Animal Farm the dictum was "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others" that is how the Democrats view the issue of "compelling life stories." They will brutally go after anyone whom they think might be a judicial danger to certain pet issues of theirs while expecting others to give those who are favourable to their little pet issues to play nice. They will excuse away her blatantly racist statements and rulings while attempting to crucify people like Estrada, Thomas, and Alito and smear them with every evil they can imagine. Pardon me for not feeling sorry for a racist judicial activist like Sonya Sotomayor but I am opposed to not only her racism but also her judicial activism.
I have never favoured judicial activism and I opposed the Republicans who attempted to endorse it on their pet issues -particularly in my opposition to President Bush's attempted nomination of Harriet Miers to the Roberts Court in 2005.{1} I am therefore as is my wont completely consistent in my stance here in opposing Sonia Sotomayor on that basis alone and apart from other matters which also go into framing my opposition to this candidate. (Such as her aforementioned racism.)
Note:
{1} Not a few threads were posted on this matter and the manner in which I analyzed the various opinions from different quarters. The substance of them can be noted (as well as some of those postings linked to) in this dialogue on judicial activism:
On the Miers Nomination and Activist Court Agendas -Dialogue With Kevin Tierney (circa October 10, 2005)
As I have said more times than I can count over the years, something is either right or wrong in and of itself not because of the persons who espouse the viewpoint: a criticism I have had for various and sundry pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists of an entire panopoly of special interests.
First a link to Michelle's article and then my comments so without further ado...
LINK
Michelle basically outlines the Animal Farm mentality of Democrats on President Obama's high court pick because they are touting Sotomayor's "compelling life story" as a selling point despite not being too concerned about the "compelling life story" issue when it came to Judge Clarence Thomas, Judge Samuel Alito, or former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Heck, they would not even let Judge Miguel Estrada get a hearing for being seated on the federal appeals court and Estrada's personal life story was even more compelling than that of Sotomayor. The same argument can be made about Clarence Thomas.
But just as in Animal Farm the dictum was "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others" that is how the Democrats view the issue of "compelling life stories." They will brutally go after anyone whom they think might be a judicial danger to certain pet issues of theirs while expecting others to give those who are favourable to their little pet issues to play nice. They will excuse away her blatantly racist statements and rulings while attempting to crucify people like Estrada, Thomas, and Alito and smear them with every evil they can imagine. Pardon me for not feeling sorry for a racist judicial activist like Sonya Sotomayor but I am opposed to not only her racism but also her judicial activism.
I have never favoured judicial activism and I opposed the Republicans who attempted to endorse it on their pet issues -particularly in my opposition to President Bush's attempted nomination of Harriet Miers to the Roberts Court in 2005.{1} I am therefore as is my wont completely consistent in my stance here in opposing Sonia Sotomayor on that basis alone and apart from other matters which also go into framing my opposition to this candidate. (Such as her aforementioned racism.)
Note:
{1} Not a few threads were posted on this matter and the manner in which I analyzed the various opinions from different quarters. The substance of them can be noted (as well as some of those postings linked to) in this dialogue on judicial activism:
On the Miers Nomination and Activist Court Agendas -Dialogue With Kevin Tierney (circa October 10, 2005)
As I have said more times than I can count over the years, something is either right or wrong in and of itself not because of the persons who espouse the viewpoint: a criticism I have had for various and sundry pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists of an entire panopoly of special interests.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Briefly On The Real Problem With The GOP:
I have been toying for some time with writing an expository musing on the subject of conservatism and what it entails because all too often we have people with no sense of history who confuse conservative philosophy with the views of a given person or group. This note is not intended to achieve that in general but instead will be much briefer and is intended to set down some shorthand notes which will go into the longer treatment I have planned. Hopefully it can provide some food for musing for those who read it though.
To start with, there is a general philosophy which can rightfully be called "conservative" and it revolves around the concept of freedom. However, conservatism to be realistic must be functional and not merely theoretical, practical and not merely abstract, realistic and not some myth based on what would be "ideal." We are faced with a situation in the coming years where huge grabs of power and diminishment of legitimate freedoms are likely to happen. This needs to be opposed but there needs to be a unified opposition. As I wrote in part in a previous posting{1} when talking about the tea party movement in general and the tea parties in particular:
There is...the downright annoying attitude of some of those whose methodologies approach what I call the "true believer" mentality. These are the people to whom politics is not the art of the possible but instead the art of demanding the perfect lest they refuse to participate at all. This could be in general but also on particular matters -be it their lack of participation a given agenda item, a given political movement, or whatever. I am one who believes that politically anything that can be reasonably foreseen to have potential positive effects and which has a reasonably feasible chance of working should be undertaken. However, it never fails to surprise me how many will attempt to excommunicate from political communion those who do not share their views on issues to a near 100% degree if not darn close to it. And ironically enough, self-identified "conservatives" who do this often laud President Ronald Reagan as their model ignoring how often (i) Reagan balanced political philosophy with political pragmatism and (ii) how often Reagan said essentially that those who agree with him 80% of the time were not his political foe.
The truth is, you need both philosophy and pragmatism if you can expect to be successful in any endeavour in life. Too often however, you have those more inclined towards pure political philosophy trying to narrow the tent too much while on the other side of the equation you have those who are far more politically pragmatic trying to widen the tent too much. What is needed between these two extreme tendencies is a more balanced approach -the political philosophers who have a map far too often do not know how to get anywhere on it. Conversely, the political pragmatists often excel in getting things done but lack a map to know where they are even going. It is my hope that these tea parties will in how they are organized and in those who participate in them can strive to find that balance required to make this movement a genuine success instead of a populist flame out of the sort that litters the political landscape spanning the centuries of America's existence. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 30, 2009)]
To summarize the problem in short form, that will suffice for now but more needs to be said because it is not as simple as just that unfortunately. I will endeavour as I have time and when I am in the mood to do so write further on this subject including covering the subject of conservatism in general, certain foundational principles that embody a conservative view of the world ethically, economically, etc., as well as certain diversities of thought that pertain to the application of the aforementioned principles.
I will also attempt to explain how those who place a value on reason and logic need to incorporate conservative philosophy for the greatest possible political success in the coming years. But first and foremost it will help to remember the old maxim that "a house divided against itself cannot stand" because that is the first principle that those of us who value freedom of speech, economic freedom, religious freedom, and any other freedom you can name over and against the ever-increasing totalitarian mentality of those who control the federal leviathan need to remember at all times. We need to in the timeless words of Benjamin Franklin "hang together or most assuredly we will hang separately." And that is the bottom line.
Note:
{1} Musings on the Tea Parties in Particular and the Tea Party Movement in General (circa May 30, 2009)
I have been toying for some time with writing an expository musing on the subject of conservatism and what it entails because all too often we have people with no sense of history who confuse conservative philosophy with the views of a given person or group. This note is not intended to achieve that in general but instead will be much briefer and is intended to set down some shorthand notes which will go into the longer treatment I have planned. Hopefully it can provide some food for musing for those who read it though.
To start with, there is a general philosophy which can rightfully be called "conservative" and it revolves around the concept of freedom. However, conservatism to be realistic must be functional and not merely theoretical, practical and not merely abstract, realistic and not some myth based on what would be "ideal." We are faced with a situation in the coming years where huge grabs of power and diminishment of legitimate freedoms are likely to happen. This needs to be opposed but there needs to be a unified opposition. As I wrote in part in a previous posting{1} when talking about the tea party movement in general and the tea parties in particular:
There is...the downright annoying attitude of some of those whose methodologies approach what I call the "true believer" mentality. These are the people to whom politics is not the art of the possible but instead the art of demanding the perfect lest they refuse to participate at all. This could be in general but also on particular matters -be it their lack of participation a given agenda item, a given political movement, or whatever. I am one who believes that politically anything that can be reasonably foreseen to have potential positive effects and which has a reasonably feasible chance of working should be undertaken. However, it never fails to surprise me how many will attempt to excommunicate from political communion those who do not share their views on issues to a near 100% degree if not darn close to it. And ironically enough, self-identified "conservatives" who do this often laud President Ronald Reagan as their model ignoring how often (i) Reagan balanced political philosophy with political pragmatism and (ii) how often Reagan said essentially that those who agree with him 80% of the time were not his political foe.
The truth is, you need both philosophy and pragmatism if you can expect to be successful in any endeavour in life. Too often however, you have those more inclined towards pure political philosophy trying to narrow the tent too much while on the other side of the equation you have those who are far more politically pragmatic trying to widen the tent too much. What is needed between these two extreme tendencies is a more balanced approach -the political philosophers who have a map far too often do not know how to get anywhere on it. Conversely, the political pragmatists often excel in getting things done but lack a map to know where they are even going. It is my hope that these tea parties will in how they are organized and in those who participate in them can strive to find that balance required to make this movement a genuine success instead of a populist flame out of the sort that litters the political landscape spanning the centuries of America's existence. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 30, 2009)]
To summarize the problem in short form, that will suffice for now but more needs to be said because it is not as simple as just that unfortunately. I will endeavour as I have time and when I am in the mood to do so write further on this subject including covering the subject of conservatism in general, certain foundational principles that embody a conservative view of the world ethically, economically, etc., as well as certain diversities of thought that pertain to the application of the aforementioned principles.
I will also attempt to explain how those who place a value on reason and logic need to incorporate conservative philosophy for the greatest possible political success in the coming years. But first and foremost it will help to remember the old maxim that "a house divided against itself cannot stand" because that is the first principle that those of us who value freedom of speech, economic freedom, religious freedom, and any other freedom you can name over and against the ever-increasing totalitarian mentality of those who control the federal leviathan need to remember at all times. We need to in the timeless words of Benjamin Franklin "hang together or most assuredly we will hang separately." And that is the bottom line.
Note:
{1} Musings on the Tea Parties in Particular and the Tea Party Movement in General (circa May 30, 2009)
Saturday, May 30, 2009
On the Tea Parties in Particular and the Tea Party Movement in General:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Prefatory Note: This was originally written for another publishing medium on April 16, 2009 and published a day later. With a few revisions it is being presented in this medium at the present time. -ISM]
Honesty and the interest of disclosure compels me to admit at the outset that there are certain elements to this movement I do not agree with including but not limited to certain unsavoury elements which inexorably carry within them the seeds for potential destruction of the movement in general if they are not carefully monitored. (Of the latter I want no part whatsoever.) I will get to those factors in a moment. As a whole though, I was very pleased with the turnout at Westlakeyesterday even though I ended up unable to get out of a lane directly going into the carpool lane onto the freeway in the opposite direction from whence I came and had to backtrack when looking initially for parking. (It was a rare navigating snafu and I will relegate it to a footnote{1} to continue with my previous train of thought.)
Anyway, I got my Independent self to Westlake late for reasons outlined in the first footnote and because I had to park west of Pike Place Market and trek up the hill about probably a half a mile. I did however wear my NRA hat which I have never worn downtown before but this seemed as good a day as any in lieu of the DHS "report" which I have posted a few bits on already{2} and will write more on at some point{3} but enough on that lest I tangent off onto another matter altogether. I arrived at the scene to a sea of signs and while some of them made my eyes roll{4}, there were others I agreed with and one in particular which made me laugh as it was from what appeared to be the token counter-protester there.{5}
The people who were there represented every strata of society from what I could discern -almost everyone was informally dressed. I unfortunately missed Bob Williams' speech due to the driving snafu and also got there shortly after Tim Eyman's speech. I did however in short order affix my name to one of his latest initiatives -another one dealing with tax rollbacks that is all I needed to hear. The speeches I imbibed via my eardrums were both interesting and inspiring. I found myself sensing that this was the start of something even bigger to come: the start of the counter-offensive as I told my amigo Tim by email this morning. As a quick aside, Tim attended the Phoenix rally with his wife Annette{6} and told me there was between 3000 and 5000 people there.
Though there are many positives there are also some negatives I should take note of. The first is a more benign sort in that I sense many angry over unconstitutional usurpations of power by the federal government are approaching this matter from a strict literalist reading of the Constitution. This is an approach which historically has not only not worked{7} and even the Founders in general who are being cited in its favour were not as restrictive on the application of the Constitution as many from the "Ron Paul school"{8} seem to want to be. But that is a more benign matter when it comes to proper political pragmatism. I believe before we can talk about the manner in which the Constitution is to be interpreted, we need to clear the field as much as possible of those who do not care about the Constitution except as a political tool to be manipulated when it suits them and ignored when it does not. We need a mutual frame of reference basically and until we are able to do that, those who differ on Constitutional application should stand united against those who do not care about the Constitution whatever pious lip service they pay to it notwithstanding.
The much more serious negative in my mind is the extreme conspiracy theorists. I wrote a post a while back for this weblog and also for another publishing medium which explains the logical and rational problems I have with this crowd{9} but beyond those arguments is the issue of credibility in general. The mainstream media would LOVE to paint these Tea Parties as being run by or primarily populated by those who advance really oddball conspiracy views because it is all the more easy to dismiss the credibility of the movement. And this is the part of the movement I want personally no part of but fortunately these sorts seem to be a minority at the tea parties so far and may it stay that way if this is going to be a worthwhile and effective endeavour for positive and long-lasting effect.
There is also is the downright annoying attitude of some of those whose methodologies approach what I call the "true believer" mentality. These are the people to whom politics is not the art of the possible but instead the art of demanding the perfect lest they refuse to participate at all. This could be in general but also on particular matters -be it their lack of participation a given agenda item, a given political movement, or whatever. I am one who believes that anything that can be reasonably foreseen to have potential positive effects and which has a reasonably feasible chance of working should be undertaken provided that it is not unethical. However, it never fails to surprise me how many will attempt to excommunicate from political communion those who do not share their views on issues to a near 100% degree if not darn close to it. And ironically enough, self-identified "conservatives" who do this often laud President Ronald Reagan as their model ignoring how often (i) Reagan balanced political philosophy with political pragmatism and (ii) how often Reagan said essentially that those who agree with him 80% of the time were not his political foe.
The truth is, you need both philosophy and pragmatism if you can expect to be successful in any endeavour in life. Too often however, you have those more inclined towards pure political philosophy trying to narrow the tent too much while on the other side of the equation you have those who are far more politically pragmatic trying to widen the tent too much. What is needed between these two extreme tendencies is a more balanced approach. The political philosophers who have a map far too often do not know how to get anywhere on it. Conversely, the political pragmatists often excel in getting things done but lack a map to know where they are even going. It is my hope that these tea parties will in how they are organized and in those who participate in them can strive to find that balance required to make this movement a genuine success instead of a populist flame out of the sort that litters the political landscape spanning the centuries of America's existence.
Anyway, having noted these things, I must say it pleases me to see these gatherings which represent a true grassroots movement and not some bankrolled group of paid "protesters" or "volunteers" the way so many liberal movements{10} are. I am wondering if my idea for significant legislative reform long pondered over{11} and recently written on{12} can perhaps find some traction in this movement but that is a subject for another time altogether.
Notes:
{1} For those familiar with Seattle, I was stuck on the carpool lane up around Pine and forced onto the express lanes northbound. This resulted in me crossing Lake Union to the north, taking the first exit off, and getting quickly onto the University Bridge to Eastlake Avenue (along Lake Union) traveling under the I-5 Bridge from which I exited and coming back into Seattle that way. In short, it killed about thirty minutes of my day and made me an hour late to the tea party.
{2} Those bits were posted if memory serves in another publishing medium. I am probably not through berating that worthless pile of pig crap called a "report" yet. If I turned in a report in school with that much lack of source citation or complete lack of cogent argumentation for a given thesis, etc. I would have received an F grade. It must have been a Huffington Post staffer who ghostwrote it for Napolitano.
{3} I write things for various mediums and in a variety of contexts but usually what I write has some element of timeless principle to it which means it can serve a variety of purposes. But because the context of one posting may differ from another, sometimes a piece written for one medium needs to be reworked for posting in another medium, shortened, added to, etc.
{4} Mainly the ones that would seem to replace one Messiah (Obama) with another (Paul).
{5} I hesitate to post the slogans that protester used here because many may not understand what was being said and those who would understand would question either my prudence in posting them here or even why (perhaps) I know what they mean.
{6} Tim told me he did not get my voice mail when I contacted him because he was at the Phoenix gathering and he was talking with his mother and step father who were at a gathering in Monterrey.
{7} I went over this to some degree in a posting to this weblog earlier in the year:
Between Unconstitutionality and Unworkability (circa February 6, 2009)
{8} See my criticisms of this approach philosophically in the thread of footnote seven. With greater specificity on one issue (i.e. the constitutional requirement of declaring war), see this posting:
On the Constitutionality of Wars Undertaken Without a Formal Declaration (circa December 26, 2007)
{9} On the Problem With Conservatives Dabbling in So-Called "Conspiracy Theories" (circa March 18, 2009)
{10} I was informed by my very good friend Anna when we were talking about the tea parties that when she was campaigning for Senator John McCain she and some friends were approached by some of those "volunteering" for Senator Barack Obama asking them "how much was the McCain campaign paying you to volunteer???" or something along those lines. (This only confirmed my suspicions about the so-called "grassroots massive support for Obama and change" bandied about by that campaign and their willing and fawning sycophants in the mainstream media.)
{11} See footnote twelve. (This idea has been in my mind in some form or another for at least seven years.)
{12} Another Idea For Federal and State Legislative Reform (circa March 6, 2009)
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Prefatory Note: This was originally written for another publishing medium on April 16, 2009 and published a day later. With a few revisions it is being presented in this medium at the present time. -ISM]
Honesty and the interest of disclosure compels me to admit at the outset that there are certain elements to this movement I do not agree with including but not limited to certain unsavoury elements which inexorably carry within them the seeds for potential destruction of the movement in general if they are not carefully monitored. (Of the latter I want no part whatsoever.) I will get to those factors in a moment. As a whole though, I was very pleased with the turnout at Westlake
Anyway, I got my Independent self to Westlake late for reasons outlined in the first footnote and because I had to park west of Pike Place Market and trek up the hill about probably a half a mile. I did however wear my NRA hat which I have never worn downtown before but this seemed as good a day as any in lieu of the DHS "report" which I have posted a few bits on already{2} and will write more on at some point{3} but enough on that lest I tangent off onto another matter altogether. I arrived at the scene to a sea of signs and while some of them made my eyes roll{4}, there were others I agreed with and one in particular which made me laugh as it was from what appeared to be the token counter-protester there.{5}
The people who were there represented every strata of society from what I could discern -almost everyone was informally dressed. I unfortunately missed Bob Williams' speech due to the driving snafu and also got there shortly after Tim Eyman's speech. I did however in short order affix my name to one of his latest initiatives -another one dealing with tax rollbacks that is all I needed to hear. The speeches I imbibed via my eardrums were both interesting and inspiring. I found myself sensing that this was the start of something even bigger to come: the start of the counter-offensive as I told my amigo Tim by email this morning. As a quick aside, Tim attended the Phoenix rally with his wife Annette{6} and told me there was between 3000 and 5000 people there.
Though there are many positives there are also some negatives I should take note of. The first is a more benign sort in that I sense many angry over unconstitutional usurpations of power by the federal government are approaching this matter from a strict literalist reading of the Constitution. This is an approach which historically has not only not worked{7} and even the Founders in general who are being cited in its favour were not as restrictive on the application of the Constitution as many from the "Ron Paul school"{8} seem to want to be. But that is a more benign matter when it comes to proper political pragmatism. I believe before we can talk about the manner in which the Constitution is to be interpreted, we need to clear the field as much as possible of those who do not care about the Constitution except as a political tool to be manipulated when it suits them and ignored when it does not. We need a mutual frame of reference basically and until we are able to do that, those who differ on Constitutional application should stand united against those who do not care about the Constitution whatever pious lip service they pay to it notwithstanding.
The much more serious negative in my mind is the extreme conspiracy theorists. I wrote a post a while back for this weblog and also for another publishing medium which explains the logical and rational problems I have with this crowd{9} but beyond those arguments is the issue of credibility in general. The mainstream media would LOVE to paint these Tea Parties as being run by or primarily populated by those who advance really oddball conspiracy views because it is all the more easy to dismiss the credibility of the movement. And this is the part of the movement I want personally no part of but fortunately these sorts seem to be a minority at the tea parties so far and may it stay that way if this is going to be a worthwhile and effective endeavour for positive and long-lasting effect.
There is also is the downright annoying attitude of some of those whose methodologies approach what I call the "true believer" mentality. These are the people to whom politics is not the art of the possible but instead the art of demanding the perfect lest they refuse to participate at all. This could be in general but also on particular matters -be it their lack of participation a given agenda item, a given political movement, or whatever. I am one who believes that anything that can be reasonably foreseen to have potential positive effects and which has a reasonably feasible chance of working should be undertaken provided that it is not unethical. However, it never fails to surprise me how many will attempt to excommunicate from political communion those who do not share their views on issues to a near 100% degree if not darn close to it. And ironically enough, self-identified "conservatives" who do this often laud President Ronald Reagan as their model ignoring how often (i) Reagan balanced political philosophy with political pragmatism and (ii) how often Reagan said essentially that those who agree with him 80% of the time were not his political foe.
The truth is, you need both philosophy and pragmatism if you can expect to be successful in any endeavour in life. Too often however, you have those more inclined towards pure political philosophy trying to narrow the tent too much while on the other side of the equation you have those who are far more politically pragmatic trying to widen the tent too much. What is needed between these two extreme tendencies is a more balanced approach. The political philosophers who have a map far too often do not know how to get anywhere on it. Conversely, the political pragmatists often excel in getting things done but lack a map to know where they are even going. It is my hope that these tea parties will in how they are organized and in those who participate in them can strive to find that balance required to make this movement a genuine success instead of a populist flame out of the sort that litters the political landscape spanning the centuries of America's existence.
Anyway, having noted these things, I must say it pleases me to see these gatherings which represent a true grassroots movement and not some bankrolled group of paid "protesters" or "volunteers" the way so many liberal movements{10} are. I am wondering if my idea for significant legislative reform long pondered over{11} and recently written on{12} can perhaps find some traction in this movement but that is a subject for another time altogether.
Notes:
{1} For those familiar with Seattle, I was stuck on the carpool lane up around Pine and forced onto the express lanes northbound. This resulted in me crossing Lake Union to the north, taking the first exit off, and getting quickly onto the University Bridge to Eastlake Avenue (along Lake Union) traveling under the I-5 Bridge from which I exited and coming back into Seattle that way. In short, it killed about thirty minutes of my day and made me an hour late to the tea party.
{2} Those bits were posted if memory serves in another publishing medium. I am probably not through berating that worthless pile of pig crap called a "report" yet. If I turned in a report in school with that much lack of source citation or complete lack of cogent argumentation for a given thesis, etc. I would have received an F grade. It must have been a Huffington Post staffer who ghostwrote it for Napolitano.
{3} I write things for various mediums and in a variety of contexts but usually what I write has some element of timeless principle to it which means it can serve a variety of purposes. But because the context of one posting may differ from another, sometimes a piece written for one medium needs to be reworked for posting in another medium, shortened, added to, etc.
{4} Mainly the ones that would seem to replace one Messiah (Obama) with another (Paul).
{5} I hesitate to post the slogans that protester used here because many may not understand what was being said and those who would understand would question either my prudence in posting them here or even why (perhaps) I know what they mean.
{6} Tim told me he did not get my voice mail when I contacted him because he was at the Phoenix gathering and he was talking with his mother and step father who were at a gathering in Monterrey.
{7} I went over this to some degree in a posting to this weblog earlier in the year:
Between Unconstitutionality and Unworkability (circa February 6, 2009)
{8} See my criticisms of this approach philosophically in the thread of footnote seven. With greater specificity on one issue (i.e. the constitutional requirement of declaring war), see this posting:
On the Constitutionality of Wars Undertaken Without a Formal Declaration (circa December 26, 2007)
{9} On the Problem With Conservatives Dabbling in So-Called "Conspiracy Theories" (circa March 18, 2009)
{10} I was informed by my very good friend Anna when we were talking about the tea parties that when she was campaigning for Senator John McCain she and some friends were approached by some of those "volunteering" for Senator Barack Obama asking them "how much was the McCain campaign paying you to volunteer???" or something along those lines. (This only confirmed my suspicions about the so-called "grassroots massive support for Obama and change" bandied about by that campaign and their willing and fawning sycophants in the mainstream media.)
{11} See footnote twelve. (This idea has been in my mind in some form or another for at least seven years.)
{12} Another Idea For Federal and State Legislative Reform (circa March 6, 2009)
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Points to Ponder:
(On the Popularity of Obama and That of His Policies)
[W]hat will it take to wake these people up? Look at the polls, very few people like anything that Obama has done, yet they still say he is doing a good job. It's like owning a Corvette, in which nothing works, but it has a great paint job. ["Bigone5555J" -comment on YouTube (circa mid May 2009)]
(On the Popularity of Obama and That of His Policies)
[W]hat will it take to wake these people up? Look at the polls, very few people like anything that Obama has done, yet they still say he is doing a good job. It's like owning a Corvette, in which nothing works, but it has a great paint job. ["Bigone5555J" -comment on YouTube (circa mid May 2009)]
Obama Vindicates Bush
Charles Krauthammer as he so often does hits the nail on the head in the above article. Hopefully this trend will continue and the Bush tax cuts will also be renewed and made permanent but that may be asking for too much. One thing is for sure though, if President Obama is an astute enough politician, he will want the economy to be doing well enough to assist him in running for re-election and letting those tax cuts expire will not aid him in that endeavour.
Charles Krauthammer as he so often does hits the nail on the head in the above article. Hopefully this trend will continue and the Bush tax cuts will also be renewed and made permanent but that may be asking for too much. One thing is for sure though, if President Obama is an astute enough politician, he will want the economy to be doing well enough to assist him in running for re-election and letting those tax cuts expire will not aid him in that endeavour.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Points to Ponder:
(For the Fallen Soldiers)
"Our young friends -- yes, young friends, for in our hearts you will always be young, full of the love that is youth, love of life, love of joy, love of country -- you fought for your country and for its safety and for the freedom of others with strength and courage. We love you for it. We honor you. And we have faith that, as He does all His sacred children, the Lord will bless you and keep you, the Lord will make His face to shine upon you and give you peace, now and forever more." [President Ronald Reagan: Note Inserted into the Vietnam Veterans Memorial (circa November 11, 1988)]
(For the Fallen Soldiers)
"Our young friends -- yes, young friends, for in our hearts you will always be young, full of the love that is youth, love of life, love of joy, love of country -- you fought for your country and for its safety and for the freedom of others with strength and courage. We love you for it. We honor you. And we have faith that, as He does all His sacred children, the Lord will bless you and keep you, the Lord will make His face to shine upon you and give you peace, now and forever more." [President Ronald Reagan: Note Inserted into the Vietnam Veterans Memorial (circa November 11, 1988)]
I have little that I could add now or am inclined to anyway to what I wrote on the subject of Memorial Day last year. I will however at this point encapsulate the substance of everything in that note. This will be done by pointing out what I believe is an important (albeit secondary) principle that permeates my outlook on these matters; namely this:
If there is not something you are willing to fight and possibly die for, then you are not worthy to live.
That is my view in a nutshell{1} and though I see value in everything I said in the above posted material, at bottom the rest is mere commentary on that fundamental principle really.
Note:
{1} If you need a theological principle to anchor this to, consider Jesus' statement about how one cannot show greater love than by laying down their life for another.
If there is not something you are willing to fight and possibly die for, then you are not worthy to live.
That is my view in a nutshell{1} and though I see value in everything I said in the above posted material, at bottom the rest is mere commentary on that fundamental principle really.
Note:
{1} If you need a theological principle to anchor this to, consider Jesus' statement about how one cannot show greater love than by laying down their life for another.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Al Gore Rakes in the Green
Joseph D'Hippolito writes on the racket called "cap and trade" and the whole so-called "global warming crisis." It is pleasing to see his inclusion of information about Lord Christopher Monckton of whom we recently wrote on at this humble weblog.{1} As we see it, the more people know about people like Lord Monckton and those like him who fly in the face of the attempted snowjob on this matter, the better.
Note:
{1} My Views on Lord Monckton (circa April 26, 2009)
Joseph D'Hippolito writes on the racket called "cap and trade" and the whole so-called "global warming crisis." It is pleasing to see his inclusion of information about Lord Christopher Monckton of whom we recently wrote on at this humble weblog.{1} As we see it, the more people know about people like Lord Monckton and those like him who fly in the face of the attempted snowjob on this matter, the better.
Note:
{1} My Views on Lord Monckton (circa April 26, 2009)
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Radio Host Savage Seeks Clinton's Help Over Ban
Here is a sample from the article before I comment:
Attorneys for the controversial San Francisco host of the syndicated "Savage Nation" radio show, say the ban is of a blatant human rights violation and formally asked Clinton on Thursday to demand that British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith "rescind the arbitrary and capricious decision" last week to "name and shame" 16 individuals, including Savage, who have been barred from entry into the country.
Smith made headlines - and raised eyebrows - when she included Savage on a list that also includes Islamic terrorists, Russian skinhead killers and neo-Nazis, saying that the individuals don't represent the United Kingdom's "values."
...
Savage - whose show reaches an estimated 8 million to 10 million listeners on nearly 400 stations nationwide, according to industry sources - told The Chronicle in an exclusive interview Thursday that "I've been very harsh on Hillary and Bill (Clinton) over the years."
"But precisely for this reason, she should take my case. It would show that she can rise above partisan politics," he said, "because Jacqui Smith is in violation of the European Union's laws themselves."
The bottom line on this issue is simple: though Michael Savage and Hillary Clinton do not agree on very much issue-wise, that he has been lumped in on the list with people who are murderers, terrorists, Nazi's and the like is blatant and vicious libel.
It is one thing to disagree with someone on issues (even stridently at that) but it is another to tolerate the smearing of other people for their views. A person who would not stand to see this happen to someone they did not agree with if (i) that person was not advocating violence and (ii) if they have any semblance of character.
It is the hope of this writer that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recognizes the principle of respect for freedom of speech in reality by standing by someone whose speech she would not agree with and not just in theory and for those for whom she agrees with. Again, right and wrong cannot depend on who agrees with you but instead on the objective nature of a position intrinsically if we are to believe in anything at all. This is something that a lot of people these days do not seem to realize but it is nonetheless a principle that once again requires being mentioned as well as defended by those who take concepts such as reason, logic, ethics, and principles seriously. I hope on this matter that Secretary of State Clinton does the right thing and stands for free speech and against defamation of character.
Here is a sample from the article before I comment:
Attorneys for the controversial San Francisco host of the syndicated "Savage Nation" radio show, say the ban is of a blatant human rights violation and formally asked Clinton on Thursday to demand that British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith "rescind the arbitrary and capricious decision" last week to "name and shame" 16 individuals, including Savage, who have been barred from entry into the country.
Smith made headlines - and raised eyebrows - when she included Savage on a list that also includes Islamic terrorists, Russian skinhead killers and neo-Nazis, saying that the individuals don't represent the United Kingdom's "values."
...
Savage - whose show reaches an estimated 8 million to 10 million listeners on nearly 400 stations nationwide, according to industry sources - told The Chronicle in an exclusive interview Thursday that "I've been very harsh on Hillary and Bill (Clinton) over the years."
"But precisely for this reason, she should take my case. It would show that she can rise above partisan politics," he said, "because Jacqui Smith is in violation of the European Union's laws themselves."
The bottom line on this issue is simple: though Michael Savage and Hillary Clinton do not agree on very much issue-wise, that he has been lumped in on the list with people who are murderers, terrorists, Nazi's and the like is blatant and vicious libel.
It is one thing to disagree with someone on issues (even stridently at that) but it is another to tolerate the smearing of other people for their views. A person who would not stand to see this happen to someone they did not agree with if (i) that person was not advocating violence and (ii) if they have any semblance of character.
It is the hope of this writer that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recognizes the principle of respect for freedom of speech in reality by standing by someone whose speech she would not agree with and not just in theory and for those for whom she agrees with. Again, right and wrong cannot depend on who agrees with you but instead on the objective nature of a position intrinsically if we are to believe in anything at all. This is something that a lot of people these days do not seem to realize but it is nonetheless a principle that once again requires being mentioned as well as defended by those who take concepts such as reason, logic, ethics, and principles seriously. I hope on this matter that Secretary of State Clinton does the right thing and stands for free speech and against defamation of character.
Gingrich: Pelosi 'Lied,' 'Despicable,' 'Dishonest,' 'Vicious,' 'Trivial'
To follow up on the Pelosi matter which has been in the media in recent days, we have former Speaker Gingrich giving urrent Speaker Pelosi a much deserved reaming for either lying and/or being incompetent. The law of non-contradiction is in play folks so take your pick because based on the evidence{1} she is cannot escape being at least one or the other (if not both) at this point.
Note:
{1} Certainly CIA Director Leon Panetta by all appearances as we noted recently has the goods on Pelosi and more than reasonable evidence that she is lying through her teeth about this.
To follow up on the Pelosi matter which has been in the media in recent days, we have former Speaker Gingrich giving urrent Speaker Pelosi a much deserved reaming for either lying and/or being incompetent. The law of non-contradiction is in play folks so take your pick because based on the evidence{1} she is cannot escape being at least one or the other (if not both) at this point.
Note:
{1} Certainly CIA Director Leon Panetta by all appearances as we noted recently has the goods on Pelosi and more than reasonable evidence that she is lying through her teeth about this.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Obama Breaks Major Campaign Promise as Military Commissions Resume, Says Amnesty International
Depending on who you ask (and when you asked them), there had been between seven{1}, eleven{2}, and eighteen{3} promises broken prior to this one already. Meanwhile the O-bots will continue to treat this guy like he can change water into wine and complain that Bush is the embodiment of evil.
The disturbing truth is, President Barack Obama has shown more of a wanton disregard for campaign promises than any president I have ever witnessed and at times with promises that he could very easily have kept at that!!!
Say what you will about someone like Cindy Sheehan{4} but at least when President Obama broke his promise to get all the troops out of Iraq in sixteen months{5}, she did not hesitate to call him a "war monger" much as she has his predecessor. At least she is showing consistency on this issue and not giving President Obama a pass where she would not give one to President Bush. Would that more of the O-bots have a concern for consistency but I digress.
Notes:
{1} Obama's Broken Promises (circa February 17, 2009)
{2} Obama Racks Up a List of Broken Promises (circa March 12, 2009)
{3} 100 Days, Almost As Many Expired Campaign Promises (circa April 29, 2009)
{4} And Lord knows I have from time to time in years past.
{5} A promise I might add that I am glad he has broken.
Depending on who you ask (and when you asked them), there had been between seven{1}, eleven{2}, and eighteen{3} promises broken prior to this one already. Meanwhile the O-bots will continue to treat this guy like he can change water into wine and complain that Bush is the embodiment of evil.
The disturbing truth is, President Barack Obama has shown more of a wanton disregard for campaign promises than any president I have ever witnessed and at times with promises that he could very easily have kept at that!!!
Say what you will about someone like Cindy Sheehan{4} but at least when President Obama broke his promise to get all the troops out of Iraq in sixteen months{5}, she did not hesitate to call him a "war monger" much as she has his predecessor. At least she is showing consistency on this issue and not giving President Obama a pass where she would not give one to President Bush. Would that more of the O-bots have a concern for consistency but I digress.
Notes:
{1} Obama's Broken Promises (circa February 17, 2009)
{2} Obama Racks Up a List of Broken Promises (circa March 12, 2009)
{3} 100 Days, Almost As Many Expired Campaign Promises (circa April 29, 2009)
{4} And Lord knows I have from time to time in years past.
{5} A promise I might add that I am glad he has broken.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
U.S. Attorney's office tells employees not to log on to Drudge Report
Oh brother. Look, I have been accessing The Drudge Report for probably ten years from a variety of computers and have never had a problem. This has all the earmarks of attempts to curb the rights of people to access whatever information they want at work that is not in violation of basic workplace ethics.{1} The attempt to blame ESPN for the same thing is also pretty lame because I have been accessing their sites at least as long as I have The Drudge Report with nary a problem there either.
Maybe these offices need to utilize these newfangled devices called "virus protection software" and "firewalls" that someone such as myself who is no computer tech sort utilizes. I have to admit that a story like this really makes me wonder about the quality of intelligence of those we hire for federal positions even more so than I already did{2} but enough on that for now.
Notes:
{1} I mean, it is not as if they were looking at porn at work
{2} This is not rocket science after all.
Oh brother. Look, I have been accessing The Drudge Report for probably ten years from a variety of computers and have never had a problem. This has all the earmarks of attempts to curb the rights of people to access whatever information they want at work that is not in violation of basic workplace ethics.{1} The attempt to blame ESPN for the same thing is also pretty lame because I have been accessing their sites at least as long as I have The Drudge Report with nary a problem there either.
Maybe these offices need to utilize these newfangled devices called "virus protection software" and "firewalls" that someone such as myself who is no computer tech sort utilizes. I have to admit that a story like this really makes me wonder about the quality of intelligence of those we hire for federal positions even more so than I already did{2} but enough on that for now.
Notes:
{1} I mean, it is not as if they were looking at porn at work
{2} This is not rocket science after all.
Panetta to CIA employees: We told Pelosi the truth
The whole article has to be read and for those who want to know where I stand on the matter, I will tell you but observe her body language in the clip above.{1} Also, here are some offhand comments I made in another publishing medium in recent days:
[I] wonder if Nancy Pelosi knows what the underside of a bus looks like... [5/14/09 @1:14pm]
That one was amplified by this clarification:
[I]t is amusing to see and hear Pelosi's pathetic ass kissing of the president. Folks, SHE KNOWS she is next to be thrown under the bus and to watch her struggle to try and avoid it brings me no small amount of schadenfraude :) [5/15/09 @9:06am]
One of two things are going to come out of this and one of them is not greater power and prestige for Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Basically, she will either have to resign her position in the Congress or if she survives she will become a major kiss ass rubber-stamp for the president's agenda beyond what she even is now. Either way though, she has lost any remaining pretense of credibility she may have still had{2} in the eyes of anyone with a normal intact functioning brain. Heck folks, when Bob Beckel of all people on the Democratic side says that someone in his party is a liar, you know they are in more than a bit of trouble.{3} To paraphrase the late Gorilla Monsoon: "stick a fork in her, she's done!!!"
Notes:
{1} While not an expert on body language myself, I am nonetheless reasonably informed on the matter and that Pelosi is lying on this matter is crystal clear when you look at what her face say -to the extent that her heavily Botoxed face can be read of course. (Pay particular attention to her eyes.)
{2} However small it was.
{3} I say this because Beckel defends a lot of stuff that no one who was not a party ideologue would even attempt to defend.
The whole article has to be read and for those who want to know where I stand on the matter, I will tell you but observe her body language in the clip above.{1} Also, here are some offhand comments I made in another publishing medium in recent days:
[I] wonder if Nancy Pelosi knows what the underside of a bus looks like... [5/14/09 @1:14pm]
That one was amplified by this clarification:
[I]t is amusing to see and hear Pelosi's pathetic ass kissing of the president. Folks, SHE KNOWS she is next to be thrown under the bus and to watch her struggle to try and avoid it brings me no small amount of schadenfraude :) [5/15/09 @9:06am]
One of two things are going to come out of this and one of them is not greater power and prestige for Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Basically, she will either have to resign her position in the Congress or if she survives she will become a major kiss ass rubber-stamp for the president's agenda beyond what she even is now. Either way though, she has lost any remaining pretense of credibility she may have still had{2} in the eyes of anyone with a normal intact functioning brain. Heck folks, when Bob Beckel of all people on the Democratic side says that someone in his party is a liar, you know they are in more than a bit of trouble.{3} To paraphrase the late Gorilla Monsoon: "stick a fork in her, she's done!!!"
Notes:
{1} While not an expert on body language myself, I am nonetheless reasonably informed on the matter and that Pelosi is lying on this matter is crystal clear when you look at what her face say -to the extent that her heavily Botoxed face can be read of course. (Pay particular attention to her eyes.)
{2} However small it was.
{3} I say this because Beckel defends a lot of stuff that no one who was not a party ideologue would even attempt to defend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)