The King's growing command (and demand)

Felix Hernandez is on the verge of being the most dominant right handed pitcher in the American League and he is only 23. He is finally realizing just how good his stuff is after four years of hit and miss{1} on his part and he has been one of the few bright spots on the Seattle Mariners during his tenure there. The Mariners had better not even think of trading King Felix, not now, not any time before 2011, and not after 2011{2} either.

Notes:

{1} Mostly hit but plenty of miss at times too.

{2} He is right now scheduled to become a free agent after the 2011 season.

Points to Ponder:

A fairly large sector of public opinion considers the Catholic Church, despite her former contributions to culture, very narrow-minded in this domain. It thinks she is dominated by attitudes of fear and apologetic reflexes of defense, and that she is on the outskirts of the cultural growth of modern times. The memory of anti-modernistic reactions in the areas of philosophy, history, and the sciences constitutes a wound that has not healed, a source of distrust.

Don't we have a tendency to want to circumscribe the domain of culture too narrowly, and to recogniuze its legitimate autonomy only reluctantly. Don't we practice a kind of dogmatic imperialism that leads us to make quick and empty judgments on all research findings as though faith gave us competence in every field? Don't we identify the theological affirmations of a given age with Christian truth as though theology consisted in lazily and unquestioningly repeating theses established once and for all? Haven't we minimized the pastoral value of human intelligence, that is, the concern for sanctity in intellectual activity?

Don't we still have a morbid fear of rationalism and the critical spirit without recognizing what is good in them?" [Auxiliary Bishop Elchinger of Strasbourg: Floor Intervention at The Second Vatican Council (circa November 5, 1964)]

Revisiting the Subject of Indefinite Detainment:

Since there are going to be those who are angered at President Barack Obama for backpedaling on the issue of indefinite detainment, it seems appropriate for me to defend this practice much the way I did when it was practiced under President George Bush. So with that in mind and accounting for the principle that what is right or wrong is determined by objective standards and not by subjective whims{1}, I will in a footnote to this posting{2} reiterate my position on this matter despite not liking the particular president under whom this practice will now be carried out.

Notes:

{1} On the Difference Between Objective Manifestation and Subjective Intention (circa February 27, 2007)

{2} On the Indefinite Detainment Complaint (circa April 17. 2007)

Acquainted with the Night:
(A Poem By Robert Frost)

I have been one acquainted with the night.
I have walked out in rain -- and back in rain.
I have outwalked the furthest city light.

I have looked down the saddest city lane.
I have passed by the watchman on his beat
And dropped my eyes, unwilling to explain.

I have stood still and stopped the sound of feet
When far away an interrupted cry
Came over houses from another street,

But not to call me back or say good-bye;
And further still at an unearthly height,
A luminary clock against the sky

Proclaimed the time was neither wrong nor right.
I have been one acquainted with the night.

Congresspeople to Thank and To Shame:

[Prefatory Note: This was written and published in another medium yesterday. -ISM]

First of all, the easy part is to thank your Republican congresspeople with only few exceptions (I will get to the exceptions shortly). So if the Republicans are not listed below, then call and thank them for taking a stand on this proposed "cap and trade" which even if the "global warming hypothesis was valid{1} nonetheless is highly imprudent to propose when the economy is struggling to right itself. It does not take a brain surgeon to realize that with a struggling economy the solution is not to raise taxes and regulations (the latter of which are a hidden tax increase) but instead to leave things alone or perhaps lighten the burden a little. But lest this appear to be a "thank Republicans and shame Democrats" thread, it is not that simple folks.

For there are also 44 Democrats who took a stand against so-called "cap and trade" and whatever their motivations for doing so{2}, you should thank them even if you do not want to.{3} Remember, if something passes the Senate there will be attempts to reconcile the two bills and another vote in both chambers so it is possible to turn some votes between now and then. But if those who took the stand now are not given props for what they did, they could very well be turned on the next vote in the wrong direction and if that happens, it is not a good thing. So I will now list the 44 Democrats to thank:

Bobby Bright (Alabama)
Artur Davis (Alabama)
Parker Griffith (Alabama)
Kirkpatrick (Arizona)
Robert Berry (Arkansas)
Mike Ross (Arkansas)
Jim Costa (California)
Fortney Stark (California)
John Salazar (Colorado)
John Barrow (Georgia)
James Marshall (Georgia)
Walt Minnick, (Idaho)
Bill Foster (Illinois)
Jerry Costello (Illinois)
Joe Donnelly (Indiana)
Brad Ellsworth (Indiana)
Peter Visclosky (Indiana)
Charles Melancon (Louisiana)
Travis Childers (Mississippi)
Gene Taylor (Mississippi)
Michael Arcuri (New York)
Eric Massa (New York)
Larry Kissel (North Carolina)
Mike McIntyre (North Carolina)
Pomoroy (North Dakota)
Boren (Oklahoma)
Dennis Kucinich (Ohio)
Charles Wilson (Ohio)
DeFazio (Oregon)
Jason Altmire (Pennsylvania)
Christopher Carney (Pennsylvania)
Kathy Dahlkemper (Pennsylvania)
Tim Holden (Pennsylvania)
Stephanie Hersteth-Sandlin (South Carolina)
Sandlin (South Dakota)
Lincoln Davis (Tennessee)
John Tanner (Tennessee)
Chet Edwards (Texas)
Solomon Ortiz (Texas)
Ciro Rodriguez (Texas)
Jim Mathison (Utah)
Glen Nye (Virginia)
Alan Mollohan (West Virginia)
Nick Rahall (West Virginia)

Just make sure you preface your thanks on them voting no for every attempted compromise bill that comes along and that you will be watching to see if they change their vote later on. Now for the Hall of Shame folks. In this you can place every Democratic representative not already covered above but also these 8 Republicans:

Mary Bono Mack (California)
Michael Castle (Delaware)
Mark Kirk (Illinois)
Leonard Lance (New Jersey)
Frank LoBiondo (New Jersey)
Christopher Smith (New Jersey)
John McHugh (New York)
Dave Reichert (Washington)

It really bothers me personally that Rep. Dave Reichart -who as sheriff in King County{4} was a long time member of the Green River Task Force and who spent twenty years chasing (and eventually catching) the Green River Killer- would turn around and endorse another killer in the form of this legislation.{5} But the roll call record does not lie so I am forced to have an abiding disrespect for Reichart now that I did not previously have and lament that Jennifer Dunn had to retire and give up her seat for election which Reichart won a few years back.{6}

Oh and for the representatives who did not bother to vote on this bill, we have two Republicans:

Jeff Flake (Arizona)
John Sullivan (Oklahoma)

and a Democrat:

Alcee Hastings (Florida)

I am not sure what to do with them but at the very least they are elected to make tough decisions so it seems to me they should not be allowed to get away with the "I did not vote for Cap and Trade" when they run for re-election since they also did not vote against it.{7} But anyway, these are the people to thank and the people to whose political futures should roll like heads from the guillotine. So kindly do not forget to thank those who deserve it and shame those who deserve it in the House before turning attention to the Senate who if I am reading things right will not be taking up this issue until after the July 4th recess.

Notes:

{1} Lets just say I am more than just a little bit skeptical to put it mildly.

{2} I say this as someone who has to be on the same side of a vote with Dennis Kucinich for the first time possibly ever.

{3} A proper political stand is one on issues and not personalities and that means even those you personally cannot stand if they do the right thing, to retain credibility in criticizing them for what they do wrong, you must commend them for what they do right.

{4} The largest county in Washington State population-wise.

{5} And yes, this proposal if enacted into law will kill the struggling economy.

{6} For those wondering how conservative Jennifer Dunn was, she named her eldest son (who is involved in state political movements himself) "Reagan Dunn."

{7} John Sullivan is legitimately excluded in my mind because I have learned he is in rehab (after a relapse) and could not make it to the vote.

Points to Ponder:

The willingness of the scientific community to accept any new idea is usually determined by "source" rather than "substance;" that is, who said it is considered to be far more important than what was actually said. Which attitude, to me, comes very close to outright insanity. [Arthur Jones]

Cheering for Deficits (L. Brent Bozell III)

Having gone over the hypocrisy on this matter myself in recent months{1}, I am pleased to see others pointing this out also. The bottom line is, the law of non-contradiction is violated on this matter to no small degree by those who cheer for in President Obama what they were critical of in President Bush. For that reason if nothing else, such persons are without any credibility whatsoever.

Note:

{1} Points to Ponder on Presidential Hypocrisy (circa March 4, 2009)

The "Level of Education Requirement" for Understanding Rerum Novarum According to a "Web Examination":
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

I originally intended to publish the quiz results I refer to in this posting on November 9, 2007 but it was shelved in favour of finishing and publishing a much more important expository musing which I had been working on bit by bit as I was inclined to. As it happens from time to time, when I take a few moments to peruse the archives and look in the drafts folder, I am reminded of unfinished materials. These are either ones I was not motivated at the time to finish or the circumstances that were involved in prompting me to draft them passed on in my mind to matters of greater contemporary importance.

With this being the 2700th posting to Rerum Novarum since its creation, I decided to resurrect this unfinished idea and complete it for posting at this time rather than go with a more customary posting. And as milestones such as this serve as good points of reference for reflection, I decided to expand slightly on what I wrote recently about what I called "writing photographs" in an expository musing from earlier in the month.{1}

As I noted in the aforementioned posting, I found it interesting to take a tour of sorts through some of my earliest essays from the college and high school days. Those writings are among the small percentage of papers I am keeping in the general recycling and shredding project which I am close to completing now.{2} I suppose it is a mixed bag that I rarely throw anything away from the drafts folder{3} and for this reason, there are even in draft form earlier sketches of materials that were later posted in completed form.{4} In the case of this "test" of the "reading level" of Rerum Novarum, I remember thinking at the time it would require some explanation because by posting it without a clarification it might appear to be a case of ego-feeding or potentially misconstrued that way anyway. And of course the text was no longer accessible so I had to tap into the Internet Archive to find working links to post it but in doing so, it gives me an opportunity perhaps to clarify something that I have long considered with this weblog: namely, its educational value to the extent there is one.

I should also note that I am not sure this is an accurate gauge quiz anyway because about the only way it could come off the way it did would be via an analysis of various words I use in composing the material for this weblog. The problem is, I have a larger vocabulary than most people and in order to facilitate that while at the same time keeping things to a reading level that someone of average or slightly below intelligence can comprehend without much need for clarifications, I as is my wont pepper in a few big words here and there. That factor is probably part of what triggered this sort of "high reading ability" weblog grade. But even if my presumption on this matter is incorrect, then perhaps pointing out what I aim for in blogging to the extent I aim at anything when involved in this endeavour will provide yet another piece to the mosaic that is the mind of your weblog host.

Though I have in mind a recapitulation thread to be published on the seventh anniversary of this weblog's founding to show some snapshots both of this weblog's development and my view of this medium as it has grown over time{5}, an encapsulated summary perhaps can be stated as follows:

I view this weblog as one of a variety of conduits{6} for the enunciation of various and sundry topics of interest that circulate in my mind on a regular basis or at a given time.

It is for the most part fortunate that I have accumulated a lot of knowledge on various subjects throughout my lifetime so far{7} but I was also fortunate to have certain circumstances which gave me an advantage over others including those whom I consider to be better people than myself.{8} But lest I tangent off on that subject, here without further ado are the links from the Internet Archive of the presumed "level of education requirement" for reading and understanding this weblog. The test generator can be viewed here:

Blog Test

And here is what the test generator said about this weblog as of early November 2007:



I ask of course that readers who try to read into this with anything less than honourable motivations to consider the clarification outlined in this posting in advance please because I frankly do not buy this assessment for an instant.{9} But enough on this matter for now.

Notes:

{1} On D-Day and "Writing Photographs" (circa June 6, 2009)

{2} I may very well have it completed by tomorrow -indeed after two weeks away from the project I am itching to finish it now whereas previously I was needed to take a break for a while to find the motivation to finish putting the lid on that veritable Pandora's Box of a project.

{3} If Blogger ever puts in place a feature that enables me to check off multiples of archive drafts and delete them all at once then the number of unfinished drafts will be cut down by at least 50% if not more. Out of 540 drafts as of this writing -some as old as January of 2005- about 50-60% of them are variations of pieces I later finished and published and the rest are either (i) to be finished as I am inclined to by virtue of time, circumstances, and motivations to do so or (ii) have been finished for some time and are awaiting a contemporary event or circumstance to justify their being published at that time. (And some of these threads are as old as two or three years.)

{4} Usually I remember if they were finished or not and (if not) I can usually figure it out in a matter of minutes. But the bad habit of being a "clutterbug" applies to more than just papers and files and also to some extent applies to the drafts folder of this humble weblog -though the kind of clutter found there is a lot easier to live with admittedly.

{5} This is an idea that just came to me in a flash when drafting this text -the intention of including that material in this posting itself would make things too overlong and unnecessary tangental to what the purpose of this posting ultimately is.

{6} Since its founding, this weblog was the predominant conduit of sorts for my musings but in the past year (particularly in the past six months), it has taken on more of secondary importance in some respects. This has happened for reasons I did not at the time anticipate but which nonetheless are what they are and for the indefinite future I do not foresee that changing.

{7} This is one benefit of learning to read at an early age and being from at least the second grade being "beyond test ranges" on measuring those capabilities. The hunger for knowledge fortunately has not dimmed as I have gotten older even if the amount of information I can assimilate and rapidly process due to time constraints and other reasons is not what it once was.

{8} To note two posts I can recall from the archives where I touch on one particularly notable example of what I am talking about:

Musings on My Father in Particular and the "Silent Generation" in General (circa August 22, 2002)

And then there are these excepts from a later collection of "miscellaneous musings":

I recall numerous times in my youth where it was said that I had "extraordinary" gifts or talents. No such accolades were ever laid at my fathers feet - quite the contrary actually. I believe that God takes greater joy in the ordinary than in the extraordinary. And that the ordinary is to be prized above the extraordinary because it is tested, it is reliable. And it often does not perceive of its true value... [My father] was by all statistical accounts an "ordinary" man. I assure you, statistics are woefully inadequate to express his true value: proof positive to me that what is classified as "extraordinary" is not of greater value than what is classified as "ordinary". Indeed arguably the "extraordinary" is of markedly lessor value and no one will convince me otherwise. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 19, 2002)]

I have rarely since that time gone into much detail on these subjects.

{9} For reasons I trust I have already enunciated adequately enough for now in this posting.

Rerum Novarum's
twenty seven hundreth post
will be published next
[Written on June 19, 2009]

On the Predictions of "Joestradamus" and Current Geopolitical Realities:

I want to start by reminding those who may have forgotten about this little gem from then-Senator Joe Biden:

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy...

Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy." [Joe Biden: Fundraising Speech in Seattle (circa October 19, 2008)]

Keeping those words in mind, I present to you this article for perusal by Andrea Tantaros circa yesterday:

Obama’s Red Phone Is Ringing and It’s Going Straight to Voicemail?

The only thing worse than President Obama's limp-wristed approach to the chaos in Iran is that this may spill over onto how we are going to handle North Korea who currently has a ship heading towards Singapore which is suspected of proliferating missile material.{1} There is also the possibility according to Japanese intelligence that North Korea may fire a missile at Hawaii on or around July 4th.{2}

I would be remiss if I failed to point out that there was a reason why President Bush classified these nations along with Iraq as an "Axis of Evil" back in early 2003. They were (in the case of Iraq) and are (in the case of Iran and North Korea) headed up by egotistical tyrants who not only have no interest in the liberty of their citizens but who govern their nations in ways that would make the Mafia look like Sunday school. The refusal to stand up when they attempt acts of provocation would result in them constantly trying to push the envelope. President Obama needs to stop his campaigning and start taking these things seriously. Unfortunately, he is proving what Alexander Hamilton so presciently noted in The Federalist about the importance of a strong executive for effective governance{3} by failing to provide that strength which is the hallmark of poor government.{4} Hopefully on national security issues and on dealing with Iran and North Korea, that pattern will not continue by President Obama but I would be lying if I said I was optimistic about that happening.

Notes:

{1} U.S. Military Tracking North Korean Ship Suspected of Proliferating Missiles, Nukes (Fox News)

{2} That is assuming of course that this story from the Daily Mail is an accurate one.

{3} Energy in the Executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks; it is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws; to the protection of property against those irregular and high-handed combinations which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice; to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy. [Alexander Hamilton: Excerpt from The Federalist #70 (circa March 18, 1788)]

{4} A feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government. [Alexander Hamilton: Excerpt from The Federalist #70 (circa March 18, 1788)]

Points to Ponder:
(On Life)

The dog that chases its tail will be dizzy. [George Clinton]

On Religion as a "Pure Good":
(Aka "From the Mailbag" Dept.)

An email received on June 12th inquired as to this question and I decided to respond with an email on the following day. There was a variety of bits to the note but the gist of the emailer's question is summarized in this question they raised:

Is religion a pure good in facilitating well-being during adulthood?

My response was as follows:

I would say that while one can through use of reason and logic reach certain core positions espoused by traditional religions at the same time, there is an intrinsic element to our beings that requires some degree of order and stability. There are of course those who can abuse this principle and frankly I think a lot of religions{1} are too stifling in the structures utilized. But that does not detract from the fact that psychologically however much one argues for more or less in that area there still has to be SOME order in one's life for the sake of their own well being.

This can be approached a variety of ways but in traditional religions to some extent and in various ways there are checks on the impulses of people which if not there can make them prone to following those impulses into destructive behaviour. I think it is wrong to say that people cannot have order in their lives rationally but at the same time, most people do not respond to things rationally so religion can provide that for them.

As far as being a "pure good" that is a tough standard for argument because it means there is no admixture of anything involving other motives if I am understanding the concept correctly. I am not sure much of anything or anyone except God would qualify as being "pure good" because nearly everything imperfect beings do involves some kind of self-interest however small to them it may be.{2} If you look at St. Paul's definition of charity in 1 Corinthians and all that it involves, does anyone meet every single jot and tittle of that criteria very often if at all??? I would say no because even if you were to go through the list and make sure you get everything on it right, you have then shown via pride that you have ulterior motives and basically negated everything in the process.

For that reason, I view St. Paul's description not as a checklist of everything that has to be present but instead as traits that characterize charitable actions so they are recognizable in others. We should of course strive to meet that ideal as often as possible and put the rest in God's hands who surely would consider our broken nature. It is probably better to classify religion not as a "pure good" but instead as useful or helpful and I have the words of St. Paul to Timothy in mind here; namely, "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" all of which by logical extension facilitates well-being. That in my mind describes religion at least in potentia better than by calling it a "pure good."


Notes:

{1} Including Catholicism in some manifestations.

{2} I hesitate to say "everything" and make a universal statement on the matter of course.

Setting the Record Straight on the "Myth of Ronald Reagan" and More on the Problems of the GOP: 

(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum) 

[Prefatory Note: This was originally written and posted to another publishing medium on May 19, 2009 and slightly tweaked for use on this weblog at the present time. -ISM] 

The purpose of this posting is to build on one written earlier in the month and to deal to some extent with myths amongst many conservatives pertaining to the late great President Ronald Wilson Reagan. The note I want to build on in this posting is a shorter piece which can be read here: 

Briefly on the Real Problem With the GOP (circa June 2, 2009) 

Having clarified that, I want to start this thread by pointing out that I have posted bit and pieces at different times that involve the same basic theme: that of GOP party renewal. It may seem odd that a former Republican would concern themselves with what the GOP is doing right now but part of it perhaps is I see signs that the party is starting to get it again. I do not believe they have gotten it for twenty years -yes even in the era of the Republican controlled Congress in the pre-President Bush era they did not get it.{1} Or as I noted in a brief comment from May 4th of this year: 

[T]he GOP since Steele was elected RNC chairman looks like they finally are starting to get it for the first time in a long time...

Notice that I did not say they have gotten it but instead that they are starting to get it. And it seems to me that the last two election verdicts have stamped in the minds of many in the party that they need to do something different. For this reason, we may in the future view 2008 as 1964 redux but only if we do not allow ourselves to be deluded about the past. And because the possibility of the latter is more pervasive than many may realize; ergo the reason I have decided at this time to write on the "myth of Ronald Reagan." Now certainly one problem the GOP has had in the past twenty years is the attempt to placate moderate voters at the expense of principles. It is one thing to reach out to others -indeed this is always well and good. However, one can also take any good thing too far and the GOP was showing an unwillingness oftentimes to take stands on principle against the Democrats. There was also a perverse sense of entitlement to the GOP elections at the presidential level since 1988 and even before that time. Part of the problem with that kind of political entitlement mentality was that people presumed in 1988 that George H. W. Bush would be a worthy successor to Ronald Reagan rather than Jack Kemp and Bush won the nomination that year (followed by a healthy election landslide) by giving indications that he would continue to follow in Reagan's footsteps. He then betrayed this trust and that was what started the ball rolling in the direction we saw in the past twenty years. Another problem in that interim was the message that the GOP received in the 1994 midterms after Bill Clinton's election triumph over President Bush and Ross Perot two years earlier.

I have heard some try to posit the excuse that the GOP "did not know how to govern while in the majority" and while this may have been true in 1994{2}, it does not explain problems in subsequent years. It certainly does not explain what we saw when George H. W. Bush's son was elected and the GOP led congresses of the first six years of his presidency.{3} But there was also the sense of "entitlement" in the GOP where they viewed whoever came up short last time as "due" the next time. We saw this with Senator Bob Dole in 1996{4}, we also saw this in 2008 with Senator John McCain.{5} However, there is also a problem of nostalgia that while I have seen it addressed recently has been the source of criticism by some from the more conservative persuasion. 

If there is one thing that has become an annoyance as of late it is reading the words of those who present facile solutions to the GOP's problem. Yes there were problems with letting the so-called "RINOS" have too much control of the party apparatus. But there is also the problem of opposing extremes with extremes; namely, those who would respond to an overly wide tent mentality with one that is much too narrow. I had/have in mind with this criticism those whom I call the "true believers." That was the reason I posted this comment in another medium a while back:

[T]he squabbles between factions of the GOP [are] regrettable but at the same time [I remind] "true believer" and the "political pragmatist" alike that Reagan incorporated both sides into his vision. A common ground needs to be struck or we will have four more years of [President Barack Hussein Obama]. There is nothing gained by flying your political plane into a mountain for "moral victories" if politically you achieve nothing. [Written on May 4, 2009] 

I stand by every syllable of that statement much as I do this one: 

[I understand] based on years of experience why [new GOP converts] are agitated by the attitudes of many who consider themselves "more conservative than thou" towards those trying to retool the GOP who do not share the views of the "more conservative than thou" crowd to seemingly a 100% degree. It is part of the reason why though sympathies are much closer to the GOP [this writer] is an Independent voter himself. [Written on May 4, 2009] 

There are people who strangely enough think that politics is the art of the perfect or what they think things should be like without any deviation whatsoever. These are those who without rhyme or reason jump to any sliver group that they think represents the "pure and perfect" view of things -most prominent among the groups of irrelevancy is the Libertarians{6} but there are others also. 

And I am sure there are plenty who would view what I am saying here as some kind of advocacy towards rubber-stamping anyone with an R by their name. That is not what I am saying. Personally, I have not rubber stamped anyone with an R by their name ever since I renounced the Republican party back in 1996 and I did not even do that in the years before that time. I am not saying that the GOP is without need of reform of course (heck, that is darn evident to anyone with a normal intact functioning brain at this point) but I am saying that there are a lot of areas where people with conservative outlooks are not going to agree on the precise prescription involved for fixing things.

Insisting on ideological purity as the price of political involvement inexorably results in political impotence -it always has and always will. What is needed is a convergence of points on which everyone whose views are for the most part "conservative" can all focus on. For under the umbrella of conservatism, there are certain principles that need to be advocated even if the precise approach advocated is not the same. This is what a lot of people who call themselves "conservatives" do not understand.{7} 

There is also the question of success politically which ties into what I just said. And I could go over numerous times where certain conservatives of the "true believer" variety have committed a form of political hari kiri and made matters worse rather than better simply because they were not getting everything they wanted. Politics again is the art of the possible not of the perfect. And those who presume that the path to the future is to spend time nostalgically dwelling in the past need to realize that they consign themselves to political obsolescence when they do that. 

It is all fine and well to raise the banner of Reagan as many do but you have to know what Reagan really stood for and how he operated politically or else you will not learn from the past so that it informs your future: learning from the past being a hallmark of proper conservative philosophy.{8} With that in mind, we have to ask ourselves honestly this kind of question: 

How many conservatives have been president in the past seventy-five years???

There was only one that I can think of and he won to no small part because of shrewd coalition building and connecting with the people. When Reagan did not have that coalition built (read: 1976) he did not get the nomination. Even Mr. Conservative himself{9} did not back Reagan in 1976 over Ford and it was not because Ford was more conservative. It was because Reagan did not have much of a chance of winning in the general election at that time. Reagan spent 1976-1980 canvassing the country and connecting with the people as he had in his GE days. As his GE activities represent a part of his biography that is not as well known, I want to dwell on it for a moment by referencing one of the biographies on the man that I have read in years past before picking up with the chronology of Reagan's political approach: 

Reagan's political education begin in 1954 when he gratefully accepted an offer by the General Electric Company to host the show General Electric Theatre and travel around the country as a motivational speaker and corporate ambassador for the company...

Reagan worked for General Electric for eight years from 1954 to 1962 and through his extensive travels, former GE executive Edward Langley says, Reagan discovered "the native conservatism of working America." Month after month Reagan would address workers on the factory floor, or stop in the cafeteria to chat with secretaries, or be forklifted into the air to converse with welders. By his own account, he sometimes gave as many as fourteen talks a day, visiting every GE plant and meeting all the company's 250,000 workers. 

His original speech to them focused on the virtues of the free market system and the benefits of GE's products. He attempted to establish a connection with people by telling them Hollywood stories. He was particularly eager to defend Hollywood against the charges of making debauchery seem glamorous. But he soon discovered that he was not addressing people's real concerns. 

It was not what he said to them but what they said to him that was important. They were the kind of people he grew up with, and he saw them as hard-working, decent Americas for whom life had not been easy. He became a convert to their way of thinking and, in time, a champion for their interests. Indeed, what Reagan heard in the course of countless conversations formed the basis of a philosophy that was in touch with the sentiments of mainstream America --and utterly opposed to the conventional wisdom of the elites at the time. [Dinesh D'Sousa: From Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader page 52 (c. 1997)] 

It was not long after he concluded his time with GE that Reagan made the speech that cemented his viability politically: a speech he authored called A Time of Choosing which was a last ditch effort to support the candidacy of the conservative Senator Barry Goldwater for president in 1964. Two years later, he won the governorship of California and held that position for two terms. 

I outline these things because with each move politically Reagan was building coalitions{10} which helped him succeed at different political levels and not only among those who shared all of his views. Yet this very sort of coalition-building is in the current climate being frowned upon by so many who consider themselves Republicans today. And among the biggest critics are those who wave most proudly the banner of Reagan today who do not appear to realize that they are condemning the very approach that Reagan himself took!!! 

Yes, I hate to say it but many of the very same people who are being critical of the Republicans currently claiming that party renewal is not to be made via "nostalgia" -and who are raising the banner of Reagan- often do not know very much about Reagan the man or his political approach. Reagan was in his time opposed in varying degrees by a variety of people only one of whom were the various liberal groups that everyone is familiar with. He was also opposed by people in his own party and not only those the "true believers" of today presume opposed him. It is true that the less philosophical and more pragmatic sorts (the extremes of which we would call RINOS today) opposed Reagan but he was also opposed by those who considered themselves the "philosophically pure" or "true believers." In the case of both the more moderate or pragmatic Republicans they admired Reagan as a man, his rapport with the American people, and they wanted to persuade Reagan to moderate a bit more. They also did not trust the "true believers" and wanted Reagan to not give them positions of influence. 

But by contrast and not as well known is that there were "true believers" who shared much of Reagan's personal philosophy but they did not understand what Reagan knew about the importance of having political coalitions to actually get things done. These people who also had their positions of influence in Reagan's administration wanted Reagan to fire all the pragmatists to prevent his administration from being "less pure" as a result. They also fought him on his approach to the Soviet Union when Reagan modified it later in his term from what it was earlier on and in other areas as well. Yet Reagan did not listen to them and kept a mixture of people in his administration. This was done in no small part I am sure because Reagan knew that "true believers" more often than not fail to achieve things of note politically. The reason for this is because left to their own devices, they tend to let their ideology blind them to where they cannot see the political "land mines" in their path and avoid them.{11} This is what I meant when I said in one of the quoted bits above that "[t]here is nothing gained by flying your political plane into a mountain for 'moral victories' if politically you achieve nothing." And that is a principle that more and more people today seem to lose perspective on unfortunately. 

It is not often realized that there is a certain type of conservative today who while they most often call for another Reagan are of the mentality of some of the conservatives who opposed Reagan back in the day. One of the bones of contention among that group of Reagan's critics as I already noted was Reagan's refusal to cast out of his administration those the "true believers" did not believe were ideologically pure enough. I do not believe for a moment that these "true believers" of today would act differently today if they were back in Reagan's time and observed things as they happened rather than relying on their current nostalgia which omits to account for these things. 

To use a biblical analogy, they are like the Pharisees in Jesus' time who loved to build monuments to the prophets who lived in earlier times in the way they build monuments today to Reagan. Jesus noted that the Pharisees claimed that they would not have joined their ancestors and taken part in the stoning of the earlier prophets and bluntly stated that they would indeed have done so. In like manner, many of today's "true believers" who would build monuments to Reagan and who invoke his name would not have been his enthusiastic supporters but would have fought him the way those before them did. 

I have not a shred of doubt in my mind that today's "true believers" if left to their own devices and without some sort of check and balance would also oppose another Reagan if one were to appear on the political landscape. The reason is because ideological sorts have their benefits of course but they also have their liabilities -one of which is that they make far too many things a matter of unbending principle and will not support anything less than what they want. They look for the perfect in politics in other words not the possible. Ronald Wilson Reagan was not of that sort of temperament politically even if he shared many of the same philosophical positions of the "true believers." This is why he succeeded politically where so many conservatives before him (and since him) have failed. But having outlined Reagan's GE activities and the approaches he took to make himself politically aware and viable, we pick up the time line after his 1976 failure to get the Republican nomination for president. 

As I said, Reagan spent his time politically building coalitions at every step and when 1980 came around, he was finally ready to run. I should note that the coalitions that Reagan built were not just among people but also among ideas -to win elections you have to have broad support for certain ideas you choose to run on. By 1980, Reagan had built coalitions of people{12} and ideas that struck a chord with the public at large. And Reagan knew this because of his time traveling the country both in the late 1950's-early 1960's and also in the post-California governor years (1974-1980). If Reagan had taken the approach that many conservatives advocate now -namely kick out of his coalition those who did not agree with him on everything- he never would have won the governorship of California nor would he have won the presidency of the United States. 

I reprise what I asked earlier, namely: how many conservatives have been president in the past seventy-five years??? Other than Calvin Coolidge who became president when Harding died{12}, I ask you to name for me another conservative president of the twentieth century of the sort that some conservatives claim we "need to have to win" now. Hoover??? Nope, he was a major meddler in economic matters and made a recession worse. FDR??? Nope. Truman??? Compared to Democrats since 1972 he was quite conservative but he was no conservative. Eisenhower??? Goldwater called his administration a "dime store New Deal" and not without reason. Kennedy??? Nope.{14} Johnson??? Hell no!!! Nixon??? He implemented wage and price freezes and many other Great Society things. Ford??? He was perhaps more conservative than any president since Eisenhower in some respects but not in others. Bush Sr??? He ran as another Reagan but governed in another fashion altogether. Clinton??? Nope. Bush Jr??? Very little of what he implemented could be considered conservative by the general standards of conservative philosophy. 

So those who stake this claim, kindly tell me where it is proven that we either "need a conservative to win" or that an ideologically pure conservative without some kind of coalition support can win the general election. Goldwater failed in 1964 on the latter model and Reagan in 1976 could not get the nomination of the GOP with a similar approach. Only Reagan with a coalition of people -some of whom were not in agreement with one or more of his principled views- was able to do it. And for those who point to Reagan's landslide victories as "proof" of their assertions, Hoover won big in 1928, Eisenhower spanked Stevenson in 1952 and even worse in 1956, and Nixon after a healthy win in 1968 won by a landslide in 1972. Every one of these presidents had conservative support without which they would not have won either at all or in the fashion that they did. But conservatives trying to win without support from those who are not amongst those they would consider "ideologically pure"??? The last time that happened was 1964 and they won 52 electoral votes out of 538. 

I reiterate a third time: politics is the art of the possible not the art of the perfect. Furthermore, conservatism as a political philosophy admits of a variety of applications to political and social problems. Not all conservatives approach the Constitution the same way. Some follow the Jefferson theoretical approach{15} and say that unless it is explicitly outlined in the Constitution it is not permissible. Others follow the approach of the majority of the Founding Fathers who recognized that there had to logically be certain implied powers so that the Constitution could work as a governing document in reality and not just theory. I have gone over these divergent factors of Constitutional approach in a couple of other postings to this humble weblog before and do not want to do so at this time so I will note them in a footnote so I do not get offtrack in what I am writing now.{16} 

On matters where there is a divergence of opinions on how to apply conservative philosophy, there are some who view the idea of the federal government being limited in its power who are yet rather inconsistent in trying to force their religious beliefs onto others. There are conversely others who say the government has no business doing this. There are different approaches to trade{17}, different approaches to taxation and economic policy{18}, different approaches to national security and how that is best handled, etc. But I have found that most of whom I call "true believers" have no understanding or very little any of American and Constitutional history and the diversity of views under the conservative umbrella of philosophy. 

 To put it another way, conservatism is not merely what people like Rush Limbaugh say it is and while they are conservatives too and valuable allies, they do a disservice to conservatism when they try to present their views as the only ones permissible and sabotage politically anyone who does not agree with them in lockstep fashion. 

To conclude these musings I want to reference something I wrote in another publishing medium to someone on the occasion of the passing of Jack Kemp: 

[T]o listen to many conservatives going into town hall meetings and meeting people face to face is not the solution -just sitting there and taking a "if they want us they can find us" approach is. Jack Kemp spent time in the inner cities, he spoke with the people. Jack Kemp's model is the model of the future for the GOP and for those worried about "abandoning Reagan" Kemp showed how you could both keep the past from determining who you are and yet have it be a part of what you will become. Hopefully others who claim a loyalty to Reagan akin to what Kemp had will before the 2010 & 2012 elections also realize this. [Written on May 4, 2009] 

It is my genuine hope that the opportunity that the next few years will present itself with will not be wasted by those who either believe there is no principle that cannot be compromised (i.e. the RINOS) or by those who believe that there is only one way to do anything and who try to undermine those who do not think on matters exactly as they do (i.e. the "true believers" of whom I spoke of earlier). The path of the future is indeed to learn from and implement the wisdom of the past but it must be a past rightly understood and not based only on myths. And for those Republicans who look to use the name of Reagan to rip down those who do not agree with them on everything, I will finish this note by reminding you of more things about Reagan that you obviously do not understand: 

"Anyone who agrees with me 80% of the time is my friend and not my enemy." 

This statement was enunciated by Ronald Reagan and encapsulated his political philosophy when it comes to coalition-building yet to listen to many of the conservatives on talk radio and in other places today, that approach is considered selling out. You read that right: by their own stated standards the same Ronald Reagan they claim to revere was a RINO!!! This is why I said earlier that the "true believers" despite building monuments to Reagan today nonetheless by their actions and statements condemn his view ala what the Pharisees did in Jesus' time with the prophets they claimed to revere. 

"Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican." 

I have not been a Republican for over twelve years but even I am more faithful to the second statement (aka "Reagan's Eleventh Commandment") than many who brandish the GOP label today. 

It would behoove those who take the approach of the media self-proclaimed "Reagan conservatives" towards the Republican party today -the party that after two consecutive election losses is giving every appearance of finally starting to get it and is returning to the basics including listening to the people- to learn a bit more about the man they claim to want to honour and whose electoral landslides they want to duplicate. Because there are a lot of details they are not familiar with obviously and the old proverb "God is in the details" applies here as much as it does anywhere else.

[Dedicated to the memories of Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp] 

Notes: 

{1} That is not to say they were all bad of course -heck they were the best congresses we have had in a long time. 

{2} I remember back in 1994-1996 being persuaded by this argument admittedly. 

{3} I blame the president more for this than the congresses because President George W. Bush was on almost all issues not a strong leader and as Alexander Hamilton noted back in the late eighteenth century, lack of strength in an executive does not make for good government. 

{4} Dole ran for unsuccessfully for the GOP nomination for president in 1980 and 1988.

{5} Who was the runner up in 2000 for the GOP party nomination. 

{6} And yes, any political group that in thirty-five years of existence has (i) never gotten more than 2% of the vote and (ii) has not come close to 2% in twenty-eight years is irrelevant. 

{7} I refer to the idea that there can be an agreement amongst people on conservative philosophical principles but less agreement perhaps on how those principles are best applied to society. 

{8} "Surely the first obligation of a political thinker is to understand the nature of man. The Conservative does not claim special powers of perception on this point, but he does claim a familiarity with the accumulated wisdom and experience of history, and he is not too proud to learn from the great minds of the past." [Senator Barry Goldwater: Excerpt from The Conscience of a Conservative as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa August 2, 2008)] 

{9} I refer here to Senator Barry Goldwater. 

{10} Among these was a group of self-made businessmen who after they watched Reagan's speech realized he would make a good political prospect for having a stance of non-compromise on the matters of freedom at home and abroad. They were the ones who offered to support a candidacy for governor of California if he promised to implement the principles of his speech while governor. (Reagan himself had not thought of running for political office but eventually he took them up on their offer.) 

{11} This kind of shortsightedness on their part is why Reagan did not have an administration of only "true believers" and furthermore why he did not listen to them and fire those in his administration who were of a more moderate outlook. 

{12} These consisted of conservatives and also some of who voted for him despite some misgivings or disagreements because of the alternative. 

{13} Coolidge later won in his own right in 1924. 

{14} Even those who would point to Kennedy's approach to taxes as being the same as Reagan's do not realize that conservatives of Kennedy's day did not support such approaches. 

{15} I say "theoretical approach" because for all of their talk about literal approaches, Jefferson and Madison acted this way when it was in their best interests to and opposed it when it was not. See the material in the next footnote (particularly the one from February 6th) for details on this. 

{16} Between Unconstitutionality and Unworkability (circa February 6, 2009) 

On the Constitutional Standing of Wars Fought Without a Formal Declaration (circa December 26, 2007) 

{17} Some support free trade either in theory or in practice while others support more protectionist approaches. {18} You would not know it by listening to many conservative pundits but "supply side economics" is not the only acceptable economic policy for conservatives to advocate.

A Collection of Treads on Claude Frederic Bastiat's Theory of the Three Fundamental Rights of Man and the Role of Law in a Just Society:
(A Rerum Novarum Recapitulation Thread)

It bears noting that this is the third such recapitulation thread containing archive material on these subjects. The first two will be noted in reverse chronological order in a footnote below{1} and the rest categorized in order from newest to oldest.

I post such connection threads at times because this approach to the subjects of rights is one that has been either explicit or implicit in so much of what I have written over the years. In light with what I noted yesterday about "writing photographs" this thread and the other three preceding it serve to point to my approach to these matters over time as applied to a whole host of issues.{2} Without further ado...

Miscellaneous Musings on Michelle Malkin, Sonya Sotomayor, "Compelling Stories", Activist Agendas, Etc. (circa June 3, 2009)

On the Tea Parties in Particular and the Tea Party Movement in General (circa May 30, 2009)

Briefly on the Texas Governor and State Sovereignty Under the Tenth Amendment (circa April 15, 2009)

Responding to Various Statements About President Barack Hussein Obama (circa April 14, 2009)

"One From the Vault" With "Crimson Catholic" (circa March 4, 2009)

Points to Ponder From Dr. Walter E. Williams on True and False "Rights" (circa February 28, 2009)

On President Barack Obama's Political Mentor (circa February 28, 2009)

On President Barack Obama, Abortion, the Repeal of the "Mexico City Policy", and Fundamental Rights (circa January 29, 2009)

Sandro Magister on the Vatican, Hamas and Israel Plus Our Musings on a Fundamental Right that Must Underline All Genuine Dialogue (circa January 7, 2009)

Rider Reform Revisited (circa December 16, 2008)

On the Arrest of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (circa December 9, 2008)

Revisiting the Subject of the Underlying Weltanschauung of Language Control (circa November 25, 2008)

Points to Ponder From "Azvet" on Fundamentals of Income Redistribution (circa October 24, 2008)

On "Consequentialism", "Proportionalism", and a Lesson on General Norms of Interpretation Theological or Otherwise (circa October 6, 2008)

Points to Ponder on Viewing Political Candidates (circa September 10, 2008)

On Senator Barack Obama's Selection of Senator Joseph Biden (circa August 30, 2008)

Miscellaneous Musings and Threads Worth Noting on the Russia/Georgia War, Poland and a "Missile Shield", Undigested Bits on Senator Obama's Pick of Sen. Biden, and an Amazing Find By Japanese Scientists (circa August 25, 2008)

Miscellaneous Threads and Musings on Alexander Solzhentesyn, Russia, Georgia, Boycotting the Olympics, Etc. (circa August 8, 2008)

Notification of Some Upcoming Weblog Postings (circa August 2, 2008)

Excerpt From Senator Barry Goldwater's The Conscience of a Conservative on Conservative Philosophy and Fundamental Rights (circa August 2, 2008)

July Fourth Reflections on Liberty by Dr. Walter E. Williams, Rush H. Limbaugh Jr., and Your Humble Weblog Host (circa July 4, 2008)

Miscellaneous Threads Worth Noting on Che Guevara and Robert Mugabe (circa June 15, 2008)

The National D-Day Memorial (circa June 6, 2008)


On Free Speech, Persecution in Yemen, and Fundamental Rights (circa May 28, 2009)

On Memorial Day (circa May 27, 2008)

On Illegal Immigration and Fundamental Rights (circa May 6, 2008)

More on Senator John McCain, the Boundaries of Conservative Republican Thought Historically Speaking, and Certain Troubling Contemporary Ahistorical So-Called "Conservative" Trends Thereof --Parts I-V (circa April 26-May 14, 2008)

A Dialogue on John McCain and Conservatism (circa March 26, 2008)

Miscellaneous Mutterings (circa March 21, 2008)

On Reuben "Hurricane" Carter, Bob Dylan, and Ethics (circa March 7, 2008)

Miscellaneous Musings (circa February 20, 2008)

Points to Ponder From David J. Stoddard on True and False "Racism" (circa January 9, 2008)

On Mitt Romney, Conservatives, and the Judiciary--Dialogue With Kevin Tierney (circa December 16, 2007)

Points to Ponder From Sen. Barry Goldwater on Absolute Power (circa November 5, 2007)

On Being Fair to Historical Figures in General and Revisiting the Subject of Slavery in American History (circa October 25, 2007)

"The Drudgeford Files" Dept. (circa October 16, 2007)

"From the Mailbag" on Abortion (circa September 26, 2007)

"From the Mailbag" on Distributivism (circa September 10, 2007)

On the "Phantom Menace" of Distributivism (circa September 8, 2007)

Miscellaneous Musings on "Bush Derangement Syndrome", Debate Ethics, Infrastructure, the War on Poverty vs. the Iraq War, Death, Tragedies and Evil, Etc. (circa August 4, 2007)

Reflections on Liberty From Rush H. Limbaugh Jr. on the Founding Fathers and Dr. Walter E. Williams on Claude Frederic Bastiat (circa July 3, 2007)

Briefly on the Fall of Amnesty International (circa July 6, 2007)

Points to Ponder From Claude Frederic Bastiat on Perversion of the Law (circa June 30, 2007)

Miscellaneous Musings (circa June 29, 2007)

Points to Ponder From Claude Frederic Bastiat on the Proper Function of the Law (circa June 25, 2007)

On President Bush, Congress, the Law, the Common Good, and Fundamental Rights (circa June 8, 2007)


On Fundamental Rights, Private Property, and Authentic Dialogue: (circa May 31, 2007)

"The Empire Distributivist Strikes Back" Dept.(circa May 27, 2007)

To Defend "Aristocracy" in Society (circa May 26, 2007)

Revisiting Distributivism (circa May 25, 2007)

A Book Review and Briefly on Slavery and Fundamental Rights (circa May 5, 2007)

On a Possible Future Form of Enslavement (circa March 29, 2007)

On Hilaire Belloc and the Problems With Being Fair to Past Generations (circa March 11, 2007)

Points to Ponder From Claude Frederic Bastiat on The Illogical Approach of Socialists (circa February 13, 2007)

On Fundamental Rights, Common Law Principles, and Abortion (circa February 5, 2007)

Briefly on Stem Cell Research and Fundamental Rights (circa January 23, 2007)

On the Upcoming "Anniversary" of Roe vs. Wade and Some Upcoming Weblog Posts (circa January 20, 2007)


Note:

{1} A Collection of Threads on Claude Frederic Bastiat's Theory of the Three Fundamental Rights of Man and the Role of Law in a Just Society --October 30, 2003-January 5, 2007

A Collection of Treads on Claude Frederic Bastiat's Theory of the Three Fundamental Rights of Man and the Role of Law in a Just Society --September 30, 2002-October 30, 2003

{2} I am sure if I looked further I could find more threads where I approach the subjects of fundamental rights and the proper role of law in a just society with less explication than in the threads below but I do not have time for that sort of fine-tooth archive combing.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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)