"Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain Redux" Dept.

This post is a continuation of sorts from some material posted yesterday to this weblog on certain Democratic Senators who have engaged in blatant contradictions on WMD's, their assessment of the danger posted to America by Iraq prior to March 17, 2003, and the necessity of dealing with Saddam Hussein.

To add to the passages cited there, I supply this link where not only the stuff I posted yesterday is contained but there are also similar quotes from other Democratic Senators or leaders. The persons on the list include:

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) circa 2002
Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) circa 2002
Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) circa 2002
Senator Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) circa 1998
Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) circa 2002
Madeline Albright circa 1998 and 1999{1}
Sandy Berger circa 1998{2}
President Clinton circa 1998{3}

I thank Glen Beck not only for those quote but also for supplying links to the sources of the quotes to substantiate my previous usage of some of them. Finally, to those who complain about the time it is taking in Iraq, I supply the following courtesy of another email received earlier today:

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

So those who complain about the time this war is taking can put those facts in your pipes and smoke them!!!

Notes:

{1} Both quotes are from her in her capacity as Secretary of State for President Clinton.

{2} Mr. Berger's quote is from him in his capacity as National Security Advisor to President Clinton.

{3} I remind you, these quotes were prior to the election of President George W. Bush.

Miscellaneous Mutterings on Michael Moore and Modern Ways to be Anti-Utility Oriented

More on President Bush and Arguments For His Re-Election:

Though the case for re-electing President George W. Bush is a decent one, it is by no means an airtight one as has been noted on not a few occasions at this humble weblog.{1} Nonetheless, most of the arguments against him are so patently stupid and illogical that it is difficult to take those who utilize them seriously. There is, however, an occasional self-admitted liberal who is willing to wrestle with their reactionary nature against President Bush and focus (however uncomfortably for them) on the real core issue defining the Bush presidency.{2} A liberal of breathtaking honesty and concern for principles deserves to be noted when they are discovered and in Tom Junod, we have such a liberal.

Mr. Junod's August 1, 2004 column The Case for George W. Bush (i.e., what if he's right?) is worth your time to read -regardless of your personal feelings for the President. We at Rerum Novarum do not completely concur with the text of the above article but (i) there is concurrence with a fair amount of it and (ii) it is imperative for those who froth at the mouth about President Bush to see how to honestly interact with the complex elements that go into the Bush weltanschauung.

In summary, We recommend this article concurrent with the manner outlined in this weblog's disclaimer on essay approval all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Notes:

{1} For some of my previous comments on this subject, see this link, this link, and this link.

{2} This is arguably the strongest defense one can make for Bush in this election cycle.

"Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain" Dept.
(On Democrat Lies and WMD's)

This is part of an email received this morning where the oft-attested assertion that the Democrats have flip flopped on the WMD subject has some supporting evidence presented to your humble servant. Far be it from Us at Rerum Novarum to fail to supply these quotes for you the reader who have Democratic sheep in your family who need rhetorical (among other kinds of) shearing:

"[We] urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." [Letter to President Clinton signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D-MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998]

Senators Carl Levin, Tom Dascle, and John Kerry are not telling us these things today; indeed they saying the exact opposite if We are not mistaken.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." [Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Sept. 27, 2002]

Senator Ted Kennedy today is not telling us these things now; indeed he is saying the exact opposite if We are not mistaken.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." [Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA), Oct. 9, 2002]

Senator John Kerry today is not telling us these things now; indeed he is saying the exact opposite if We are not mistaken.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." [Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Oct 10, 2002]

Senator Hillary Clinton today is not telling us these things now; indeed she is saying the exact opposite if We are not mistaken.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction...So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." [Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA), Jan. 23. 2003]

Senator John Kerry today is not telling us these things now; indeed he is saying the exact opposite if We are not mistaken. Let us recap briefly.

There is evidence to substantiate the assertion that the following Democratic Senate leaders believed prior to March 17, 2003 that Saddam Hussein had or was obtaining the capability for WMD's and posed a real thread to America:

---Senator John Kerry (1998, 2002, pre-March 2003)

---Senator Tom Daschle (199 8)

---Senator Carl Levin (1998)

---Senator Hillary Clinton (2002)

---Senator Ted Kennedy (2002)

But now, after no incontrovertible evidence of WMD's have been found (thus far), and as the 2004 election is upon us soon, the following Democratic Senators are now claiming that (i) President Bush lied about the presence of WMD's in Iraq (ii) there was never any WMD's, and (iii) President Bush took us to war unnecessarily:

---Senator John Kerry

---Senator Tom Daschle

---Senator Carl Levin

---Senator Hillary Clinton

---Senator Ted Kennedy

Your humble servant at Rerum Novarum -seeing a clear violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction in the above situation must ask you readers these questions:

1) Were the above "esteemed Senators" (falsely so-called) lying prior to March 17, 2003 or did they tell the truth then and start lying on these matters since March 17, 2003???

2) If the above "esteemed Senators" (falsely so-called) were lying prior to March 17, 2003, why should we trust them to tell us the truth now???

3) If the above "esteemed Senators" (falsely so-called) were telling the truth prior to March 17, 2003, then they are quite evidently lying now. Why therefore should we trust them now???

Oh what a tangled web they weave...

"Michelle Malkin" Dept.
(A Rerum Novarum Triple Slam)

The lovely and intelligent Michelle Malkin has a history of being quite politically incorrect. Indeed, in her latest column she has put together a list of questions for asking journalists -particularly those of colour. The way to score it is to give oneself (or the journalist being asked the questions) five points for every "yes" answer they give. Here are the questions of the quiz:

1. I have never voted for a Democrat in my life.
2. I think my taxes are too high.
3. I supported Bill Clinton's impeachment.
4. I voted for President Bush in 2000.
5. I am a gun owner.
6. I support school voucher programs.
7. I oppose condom distribution in public schools.
8. I oppose bilingual education.
9. I oppose gay marriage.
10. I want Social Security privatized.
11. I believe racial profiling at airports is common sense.
12. I shop at Wal-Mart.
13. I enjoy talk radio.
14. I am annoyed when news editors substitute the phrase "undocumented person" for "illegal alien."
15. I do not believe the phrase "a chink in the armor" is offensive.
16. I eat meat.
17. I believe O.J. Simpson was guilty.
18. I cheered when I learned that Saddam Hussein had been captured.
19. I cry when I hear "Proud to be an American" by Lee Greenwood.
20. I don't believe the New York Times.

Basically, I score a 90 on that quiz.{1}

My score: 100. Natch!

And as is usually the case with women such as this, they are married. Typical...

Also, Michelle will be in Seattle this week to promote her new book In Defense of Internment: The Case for "Racial Profiling"in World War II and the War on Terror. The launch of her book will officially will August 9th.

As one who has long supported the concept of internment during a time of war or other extraordinary circumstances,{2} I find this subject gutsy to discuss publicly. I certainly have never mentioned it publicly prior to now but then again, I have good reason for only discussing this matter privately prior to this time.{3} You see, my tan notwithstanding, I am (as my profile picture well illustrates) what is called a "white man." Fewer subjects could get someone of my skin hue crucified faster than coming out in support of internment measures in any circumstances.

The problem with too many people is that they either do not think or they suffer from mental disorders such as extreme liberalism or fundamentalism{4} which prevent them from being able to adequately utilize the tools of logic and reason. (Whereby to discuss subjects such as this intelligently and dispassionately.) And of course there is the tarbaby of racism{5} that a subject such as this inevitably creates in the minds of those who are emotionally overreactive mental midgets. I mean let us be honest here: if Michelle was a white man discussing this subject, she would be branded a racist.{6} Thankfully, she has two assets in her camp on this one being both female and non-white. Not that the media will go easy on her anyway of course but she has shown a trackrecord of being able to defend herself and do so admirably so she will be quite alright. And of course she will get plenty of support from likeminded readers of her work such as your humble servant. But I digress.

Interestingly enough, Michelle will be giving a talk on Friday, Aug. 6 at 7 pm. The location of the talk (Cedar Park Church in Bothell) is about fifteen-twenty minutes from where I am writing this message so I will try to make it there on Friday, business schedule and all permitting.

And finally, Michelle after a bad situation with the comments boxes at her weblog has vindicated (to some extent) some of the reasons why your humble servant -while he will utilize other means of allowing readers to express their opinions on this weblog- will nonetheless not have comments boxes at this weblog.

Notes:

{1} I have voted for Democrats before -almost always they were running unopposed but there was once when that was not the case: something which was not to my credit. However, lest people misconstrue this as me voting for Republicans all the time, I have (and do) vote for Libertarians, Independents, and others on occasion as well. (Remember, I have not been a Republican for nearly eight years now.) On the second point where my score diverges from Michelle's I do not cry when I hear the Lee Greenwood song but it does nonetheless move me. Other than that, I have a perfect score on the quiz.

{2} I am actually willing to go beyond that point and to support the internment of those with AIDS who knowing that they are infected yet choose anyway to engage in behaviour that puts others at risk of catching the disease. (I emphasize the key clarifying phrase above because otherwise those with short attention spans and who are serial prooftexters and/or mental midgets will miss my carefully qualified statement and assert erroneously that I support internment to a much wider degree than I have actually said I do.) In my view, this position is only common sense and it falls under the rubrics of taking into concern the common good of society's and right public order over and above an individual assertion of "rights." But common sense not being so common anymore, it bears inculcating these points yet again in brief.

{3} But of course with Ms. Malkin in my corner, it is a safer subject for me to discuss because she does her homework. She is one of the few writers whose work I will recommend unread and with this book out now, I can readily point to it and tell those critical of my basic position to educate themselves on the matter before bothering me about it. (And of course I will be buying and reading this book.)

{4} The fundamentalist sorts would probably support this measure but in many cases it would not be for the right reasons.

{5} Those who are not familiar with this analogy need to read up on the Disney movie on Brer Rabbit and the Tarbaby - a brief exposition of which can be read HERE.

{6} Though some of the elitist minorities who traffic in race pimping may well brand her with this label anyway. After all, the Animal Farm dictum "all creatures are equal but some are more equal than others" applies here in spades and do not forget it.

The Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG has been updated.

Miscellaneous Articles Worth a Read:
(With commentary from your host at Rerum Novarum)

The following are two articles that are in my humble opinion of a "must read" status. I will comment on them briefly after posting the links.

If the Dead Could Talk

Victor Davis Hanson writes an article you must read my friends. If the idiotic liberal propagandists have your goat as much as they do mine, the above piece explains in summary detail why they are so wrong and why their approach to the war on terror (and war in general) is an insult to previous generations whose sacrifices paved the way for our modern abundance. (And the political apathy that in many cases accompanies it.)

Michael Savage has noted in a memorable quip that "if these people were running things during WWII, we would all be speaking German today or be a lampshade." Hanson's article buttresses that assertion well -indeed his statement about preferring the wisdom of the noble dead to the ignorance of the shameful living is one that we all should take to heart: even those of us who have a healthy respect for those great people who made the ultimate sacrifice. (May they all rest in peace.)

In short, do as I have done and print that article out and keep it handy with the upcoming election being imminent my friends. I am not saying the article is perfect (it is not) but it is brief and it strikes so many targets cleanly and in a pithy manner that it is worth having in one's arsenal.

Has the counter-revolution begun?

This writer has often noted in the years since he was an avid Buchanan supporter{1} that Patrick J. Buchanan is a streaky kind of writer. I say this in the sense that when he is on, he is quite often not merely on target but indeed en fuego.{2} He opines in the above article that Congress may be about to begin reining in the Supreme Court using what he claims is an oft-neglected weapon from the US Constitution. Interestingly enough, your humble servant recently dialogued on this very weblog on the subject Buchanan raises as a subtext of a larger discussion theme.{3} I explained there why I am not sure this weapon is as sharp as some make it out to be;{4} however I am not a professional constitutional scholar so I may simply -out of a desire to avoid errors of an opposing extreme- be perhaps a bit overly cautious here.

In closing, though Buchanan is a streaky shooter, as I noted above, when he is on, he tends to get it on the bullseye. I for one hope that with the above article that his usual marksmenship when on target presents itself. (As that could be some of the best news to come out of Washington in a long time.)

Notes:

{1} A subject I have gone over elsewhere on this weblog but at the moment do not have the time to track down the links. (If interested, peruse the archives for those posts.)

{2} Whereas when he is off, he tends to miss just as consistently.

{3} Dialogue With an Unidentified Self-Identified "Traditionalist": (On Marriage, the Supreme Court, Law in General, Etc.)

{4} It would seem to me that the legislature would have the authority as you note to declare a certain judgment by the Supreme Court that so obviously controverted the Constitution as understood by the Framers*...by a kind of decree akin to church tribunal declaration of nullity of a marriage. It would essentially be a declaration that the decision so outlined was null and void. And it bears noting that as the judiciary requires the executive branch to enforce its decrees, that a declaration of nullity as I outlined which passed both houses of the legislature and was signed by the President would effectively put a check on the Supreme Court. [Excerpt from the post in footnote three]

On George Sims Johnston's Article "After the Council: Living Vatican II":
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

There has been a predictable barrage of anger at a recent George Sims Johnston Crisis article. Having read the article, I find little of real criticism about it in its essential outlines. However, in the area of presentation --and some of Mr. Johnston's presuppositions-- there is no shortage of room to be critical. This post will endeavour to do this out of a conscious sense of fair play and the recognition that objections -even those of the most veneer kind- are seldom without some degree of validity to them.

To start with, the manner whereby Mr. Johnston seems to view some of his audience is in need of being mentioned. I do think the "training wheels" analogy of pre-Vatican II Catholics that Mr. Johnston used to explain some prevalent outlooks in the period prior to the Council was (to put it mildly) inappropriate. Mr. Johnston's intention seems was to point out that the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council called much more explicitly for lay involvement than was previously the case. There is a significant amount of truth in this assertion. Likewise, there is a significant degree of merit in pointing out that prior to Vatican II, the Tridentine model of the church had many cases where there was an ever-widening disconnect between the church at different levels -particularly the church and the laity.{1} The model of the Church commonly espoused was certainly more medieval essentially -and not in many respects in the best way. It is also undeniable that the over-focus on rules and disciplines after Trent was internally detrimental.{2} As I noted in an essay written earlier this year:

[I]n light of many unsavoury elements that had been prevalent in various sectors of Church for a long time--such as an acute anti-intellectualism, a profound suspicion of science and scholarship, a loss of the sense of the local church and local customs, and also an unhealthy and untraditional legalistic outlook-- the credibility of the faith to anyone whose head was not buried in the sand was clearly at stake. For these and other reasons, it was long overdue for the Church to once again interact with the world - to engage critically and credibly the philosophical trends that had for a couple of centuries been undermining society. This kind of critical engagement was something that --with few notable exceptions--had been neglected in the Church for some time. (Particularly since the so-called "enlightenment" period onward.) [I. Shawn McElhinney: excerpt from the essay The 'Tradition is Opposed to Novelty' Canard (c. 2004)]

It appears that Mr. Johnston was attempting to enunciate points parallelling the above ones in his article. I am however not pleased at all with his apparent view that prior generations did not "take their vocations as Christians seriously." One can point to problematical approaches and methodology without at the same time blaming those who in good faith utilized them.

Mr. Johnston appears to blame the people themselves and then writes about such people needing to "remove their training wheels." I find this condescending manner to be frankly apalling. Mr. Johnston was obviously trying to reach people of various dispositions with his article -the flow of the text and the divers subjects touched on makes this clear. But in utilizing this kind of mocking manner, he will only put off those who call themselves "traditionalists."

How does he expect people of good will such as Jeff Culbreath, Charles de Nunzio, Kevin Tierney, Mark Cameron or others who are inclined towards a presumed "traditionalist' weltanschauung to be persuaded by his arguments when he takes this kind of dismissive tactic with them??? Indeed I am aware of certain periodicals or publications that cater to that outlook which have already seized on this demeaning caricature and are using it to dismiss the article wholesale. Well done Mr. Johnston, you have alienated some of those you were trying to reach. There is one additional point to touch on at this time and then this post will be concluded: Mr. Johnston's reference to the aggiornamento of Vatican II as called for by Pope John XXIII of blessed memory.

Yes aggiornamento as a concept was part of the approach taken with Vatican II. Mr. Johnston refers to the term twice -once in quoting the philosophical titan Jacques Maritain. However, it was not aggiornamento for its own sake which was the goal of Vatican II. Instead, Vatican II was the culmination of a methodology of aggiornamento through a ressourcement approach: a point I have gone over at sundry times and in divers manners at this humble weblog.{3}

Referring to aggiornamento apart from ressourcement is to miss the forest for the trees.{4} That to me is a noticeable weakness of the article. Methodologically though, it is not the most significant problem. I would submit that the most significant problem with the article is with fostering an apparent contempt for those who repine in varying ways for the so-called "good old days."{5} Mr. Johnston by this approach detracts significantly from an otherwise pretty on target article and succeeds only in alienating a portion of whom he was trying to reach: honest Catholics of good-will who are inclined in various ways towards forms of what is often (legitimately or otherwise) called Traditionalism.

Though he attempts to cover his tracks later on in the piece, the damage has already been done by that point. Because by then, later admissions that there were some "good and holy Catholics in the old days—even some saints" sound pretty hollow when Mr. Johnston has essentially have consigned the beliefs and practices of these same people as childish earlier in the article.{6} Nor will on target admissions along the lines of "since the council we have lost much that is good" be picked up by the bulk of these people. No, they will instead focus on the condescending inferences to them as "immature children" and everything of worth in Mr. Johnston's article will be ignored.

Again, this is not the tone deaf Remnant/SSPX/SSPV/CAItanic crowd we are talking about here --those who are not going to listen except to find tidbits in your work to caricature in their building of strawmen.{7} No, this is those who are Indult-goers trying their best to sort out a lot of what has been thrust upon them as "truth." By alienating them, Mr. Johnston turn off a good portion of people who are our allies in this fight. It is the hope of this commentator that Mr. Johnston tries to mend these fences before he is written off as a quack propagandist by these people -something that they are not without some reason for doing as long as Mr. Johnston does not address these points in a subsequent article or public clarification.

Notes:

{1} Or as has been noted elsewhere in work from the present writer:

The ghetto image of the Church is not wrong; it is incomplete. Wh at it lacks is a balanced understanding of the Church’s responsibility towards the world. The dynamic outward thrust of the apostolic Church, which remained strong for centuries, begin to die down noticeably after the Reformation. It could not have been otherwise. When a man’s house is on fire, he is in no position to host the neighbours. When the Protestant break occurred, the Church had to bend all of its energies to shore up crumbling foundations.

Inevitably, however, the Catholic Church yielded more and more to isolationism. It became a ghetto closed in on itself. The "barque of Peter" was captained single-handedly by the pope. The bishops were viewed as the officers of the ship and priests and religious as the crew. Where did the laity fit into the picture? Here is the rub. The laity were viewed as paying passengers. They had no active role in the Church. As one bishop put it at the Second Vatican Council, the laity were expected only to pay, pray, and obey. [Fr. Melvin L. Farrell's Theology for Parents and Teachers pgs. 18-19; 20 circa 1972 as quoted in the coauthored project Detection and Overthrow of the 'Traditionalist Catholics' Falsely So-Called from Part 3, Section 3 written by I. Shawn McElhinney (c. 2000, rev. 2003)]

{2} After a long period of uncritical acceptance of this kind of "one size fits all" thinking.

{3} Two examples of many which could be noted are this post on ecclesiological models -as an example of these principles applied to a particular subject- and this post where the main reforming forces behind the Council are discussed in brief along with other subjects.

{4} The late great Jacques Maritain was a philosopher who was quite influenced by ressourcement methodology lest anyone wonder.

{5} In many cases it is a kind of misplaced nostalgia but I do believe the integral human desire for a sense of order seeks the latter in those things where it either exists or is preceived to exist. This accounts in my view for part of the reason why many who are attracted to the so-called "traditionalist" weltanschauung are converts to Catholicism from Protestantism. (And why many Catholics who were "catechized" in the CCD wasteland of the 1970's and 1980's also gravitate towards this outlook.)

{6} That is what Mr. Johnston does with his "training wheels" analogy and references to the Council being a call to "spiritual maturity" phrased in a manner that appears to dichotomize between pre and post Vatican II as eras of "childish spiritually immature" and "grownup spiritually mature" respectively.

{7} This is something that I am not unfamiliar with seeing done woth my own work by these kinds of people I might add.

Notification of Some Recent Writings Adjustments:
(In Reference to Some of the Web Essays of Your Weblog Host)

A few of my web essays were recently reviewed and adjusted accordingly. In an essay response to a certain attorney who will not be named from August of 2003, the essay had some minor grammatical glitches and a few points that needed to be phrased smoother than the originally submitted template contained. I figured correcting those points would give those seeking to defend the aforementioned individual a lot less superficial fluff to hang on as a way of avoiding the positions set forth in that particular writing.

The commentary on the intricacies of dialogue from December of 2003 had a couple areas that needed to be smoothed out HTML-wise and also a few points that I wanted to nuance a tad better than I did in the original template. (Along with wanting to utilize a few more Scriptural injunctions where warranted to bolster previously enunciated points in the text.)

With regards to my one (thus far) web essay of 2004, I reviewed all seven urls and made some very minor adjustments to those templates as well. With the latter essay, it was virtually all either HTML, minor grammar stuff, or a minor nuance here and there. However, in going over one of the urls of that work, I found myself writing some new material and referencing my spiritual instructions for another source to bolster what was initially a very lightly touched on point prior to that url's concluding paragraphs.{1}

That template was sent to Matt about four hours ago and the other retouched templates for that work were posted this morning. Anyway, those adjustments and one very small reworking of a controverted point in my September/October 2001 essay on the Syllabus{2} will probably be posted in a day or so.

[Update: The adjusted Syllabus template and the expanded url from the essay contra David Palm are now on the web. -ISM 8/01/04 4:44pm]

Notes:

{1} This was not an essential adjustment by any means; however, as it provided the opportunity to develop further a point that was barely touched on in the composition of the original template, I took the opportunity to do that earlier today when making the other adjustments to the template in question.

{2} It was a point whereby a friend of mine who identifies with the "traditionalists" hung an entire thread of argumentation on last year. Having removed the sections of their previous evasion, perhaps the arguments in that writing will in time be honestly interacted with by them. (I am not holding my breath on that though.)

On the Democratic Party Convention, John Kerry, Etc.:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

I did on occasion tune into the Democratic Convention to listen to the speakers -upon which I was left wondering what they slipped into the Kool Aid if you know what I mean. These people have no connection whatsoever with reality. I will cover only a couple of the examples here in brief but these should suffice.

To start with, if one listens to Teresa Heinz Kerry, they may have thought that women had no voice whatsoever...no right to vote or to be heard. To listen to the Al Sharptons of the world, they may have thought that the South was still awash in Jim Crow laws. And need I mention the idiocy of one of John Kerry's kids recalling Mr. F-word himself giving CPR to a drowned hamster and claiming that just as Kerry protected the hamster, he would protect abortion rights??? You do not have to be Mr. Spock to notice the illogic behind claiming a parallel between saving the life of a hamster and killing the life of a child.

And of course to listen to John Edwards talk about "restoring" respect and credibility is a laugh and a half. This fellow talks about credibility when he built his legal career on the dogmas of junk science. He is an ambulance-chasing fraud. Indeed Edwards is arguably even worse than the phony that he is running under.

With F-word, his voting record in the Senate is not the only millstone that will hopefully drag him down in this election. No, even his military record -previously thought to be a feather in his cap- has its own share of problems apparently. Hopefully Bush will take the gloves off and really pound these guys now and stop treating them as honourable opposition. There is nothing honourable about Edwards or Kerry. Indeed they arguably make Bill Clinton look pretty good by comparison and that my friends is a scary thought to put it mildly!!!

Oh, before wrapping this post up, I would be remiss to not mention that Bill O'Reilly -someone I am not much of a fan of- did an excellent job exposing Michael Moore in his interview. Moore kept repeating the same line again and again about Bush "lying" and asking O'Reilly "would you send your child" as if the men and women fighting in Iraq were not consenting adults who joined a volunteer fighting force.

To O'Reilly's credit, he did not fall into these traps and he adequately exposed Moore as an ideologue who is not at all interested in the truth if it conflicts with his personal agenda.{1} And finally, am I the only one who found Moore's interview stipulation that he would only do the interview if O'Reilly agreed to run the entire thing without any editing to be quite telling??? I mean, Moore's movies are nothing but a series of edited bits and pieces. His demand of O'Reilly in light of that irrefutable fact is the textbook definition of hypocrisy. But then again, I have often reiterated the maxim that "liberalism is not a social philosophy but instead is a mental disorder"{2} so in that light we really should not be too surprised I suppose.

Notes:

{1} Or should I say he exposed Moore for anyone with a normal intact functioning brain to see. (Something that of course would not include the bulk of those who were at the Jonestown Democratic Convention.)

{2} Credit for this axiom goes to radio talk show host Michael Savage.

Points to Ponder on Ideas

For Our part, We want to wish a happy two year blogging anniversary to Jeff Miller of The Curt Jester.

More on Church Architecture:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

This is published courtesy of Jeff Culbreath's El Camino Real BLOG

The Church in question had been allowed to deteriorate over many years before I came to this Archdiocese. To restore it would cost over five million dollars at a time when we are struggling to maintain a Catholic charities program that serves literally hundreds of thousands of needy New Yorkers, and at a time when the schools that we are struggling to maintain in the inner-city of New York are the only ones whose needy children have any hope of escaping grinding poverty...

...Permit me to close by inquiring if your firm is interested in providing the funds for the restoration about which you write with such zeal.

After reading Mr. Mayer's letter to His Eminence, and then the Cardinal's reply, I went back to check for a request from Mr. Mayer for restoration funds and I did not see any. All Mr. Mayer asked was that the church in question not be allowed to be demolished because of its architectural value in a society which has lost its sense in that area. He also mentioned that the church may qualify as a Historical monument of sorts. In light of the Cardinal's response, going the route of having the church preserved as a Historical monument would seem the most viable option at this time.

Cardinal Egan's concern for the charities that his dioceses funds and redirecting funds from them for church restoration is admirable. However, his lack of careful reading of Mr. Mayer's letter -and imputing to him positions which he did not manifest in said letter- is anything but admirable. Mr. Mayer by what he wrote in the letter does not want the church in question destroyed. This does not constitute requesting diocesan funds to restore it. Frankly, Catholics have just cause for suspicion whenever an old church is going to be "restored" -as indeed such architectural treasures are usually raped of their remaining dignity rather than restored in a manner that retains and magnifies their once ancient splendour which became diminished due to the inexorable ravages of time.

No, if the church in question was to be preserved, I am sure Mr. Mayer and others who share his values could find ways to either maintain it as is or find the funds to restore it. Either way, it would be one less monument to the ages of architectural sanity that did not fall victim to the modern day iconoclast termites whose sole mantra seems to be that of utility for utilities' sake, all other considerations be damned. [LINK]

We need more bishops like Bishop Robert Vasa in American dioceses.

An Open Letter to the Democratic Party by Robert Bennett.

Both of the above links were brought to Our attention by The Catholic Light BLOG.

Two pro-lifers battle it out at Envoy Encore over the proper tactics to take in opposing abortion.

Islam is a Religion of What?

Points to Ponder: 

(On West-East Ecumenical Relations From Our Favourite Academic Orientalist) 

That intrepid Rome reporter John Allen recently sat down with Father Robert Taft of the Pontifical Oriental Institute, one of the foremost Vatican experts on East-West affairs. 

It seems that patience is wearing thin in some quarters. A big sticking point with the Moscow Patriarchate is that it refuses to recognize the millions of Greek Rite Catholics in Ukraine, those who are in communion with Rome. Allen asks whether we are ever going to persuade the Orthodox to change their minds. Taft: “No, and I don’t think we should even try. To hell with Moscow.” Would Fr. Taft care to say what he really thinks? Yes he would: “Basically, there are three groups in the Russian hierarchy. You’ve got a wacko kind of rightwing fringe. These are the ones who agree with calling Rasputin a saint and that kind of garbage. Then you’ve got people like Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk, who are open and ecumenical and intelligent, because he’s got an education. Then you’ve got kind of a middle group that’s very conservative but not frothing at the mouth. Kirill’s group is a very small minority. The patriarch is a juggler trying to keep all these balls in the air.” So, Allen asks, Taft is recommending tough love? Taft: “Absolutely. That was one of the problems of the Secretariat of Christian Unity [in the past]. When the Orthodox would say something outrageous, the Vatican would make remonstrances privately, but never in public. You can’t do it that way. That makes them think they’re getting away with it. It’s got to be front page, in your face.” According to reliable sources, Fr. Taft is not looking for another job. I expect there are those in Rome who are glad that somebody said out loud what they have been thinking for some time. [Richard John Neuhaus: First Things (circa May 2004)]

I had to take some time today to enroll in an online society which seeks a moratorium on the music of Marty Haugan and David Haas. The thread can be found HERE. Apparently, I am not the first to enroll here from St. Blogs. As one who attends a parish where this kind of music is rare, my involvement is more for the purposes of solidarity with those who have to hear this kind of music on a regular basis. (As I used to before becoming part of Blessed Sacrament.) Nonetheless, this link is added to the side margin in perpetuity all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Miscellaneous Threads for Review:

Senate candidate says: U.S. out of U.N.

Tony Blair criticizes the "swinging'60s"

Three Cheers for the Coz (Part I)

Three Cheers for the Coz (Part II)

Will the West Survive?

Democrat Magicians

The Cos Again

In Remembrance of Who:
(Mournful musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

It is wise to have all animals in before you go to bed or when you leave the house -particularly if they are cats. Rarely have I controverted this principle but last night was an occasion where I left for the office with one cat (Dr. Who) still outside. Upon getting home, I tried the usually effective catnip bribe to get him to come in a few times but it did not work after three or more attempts. I figured he would be at the window wanting in come morning so I went to bed about four am. Upon waking around nine thirty, I walked the property calling for Doc and he was not to be found. Not to be found until I went around the front of the house to check the boulevard.

For upon doing that, I found him in the street dead. He was stretched as if trying to reach the side of the road. Having never seen him near the street in almost nine years (he was scared of loud noises), the last place I thought to look for him was there.

Though there have been many pets for which unique personalities made for unique memories, I have never had a pet so gentle as he was -gentle as well as strong.{1} (His paws were downright Paul Bunyan-like and when I would scratch his back, he would flex open and close his massive paws.) He was also very affectionate. More could be noted but that is all I will say at this time. I repeat: it is wise to have all animals in before you go to bed or when you leave the house. I did not do this and unlike the other times when this has happened, this time it was costly.

It is times like this where I wish I was a competent poet but apart from haikus I am not. Anyway, I have to finish my morning chai and prepare a proper grave for him -probably the same plot where I buried my dog Buddy about year and a half ago. (Whose death was followed a year to the day by my Uncle Mel Denny.) I honestly do not know how many more I can take my friends: the third family death this year and at least the fourteenth family death since March of 2000.{2} At some point there has to be a reasonable length of time between deaths one would think...one would think...

Today would have been the 89th birthday of my maternal grandmother -one of those who died in the string going back to March of 2000. Please pray for the repose of the souls of Mary Haluk Kanski, Melvin Denny, and the others.{3} And also, if you do not mind, please offer up a prayer to St. Francis that Doc could have died as quickly and painlessly as possible. It has always been the case in my family since I was a child that our animals live to ripe old ages and we put them down on our terms. This time it did not happen and poor Doc ended up dying in the worst possible way: alone.

There will probably be a brief sabbatical from mainline blogging{4} as I need to sort this out so it does not affect my competency viz. running my business. However, I would be remiss in not thanking you in advance for your prayer generosity.

Notes:

{1} Buddy my old dog was also very gentle. Most of my pets have been but Doc was a bit more gentle than the others. I do not know how else to describe it so that is all I will say on the matter.

{2} I know there are some others that I cannot readily recall at the moment -mainly because they are either distant relatives or distant friends.

{3} A simple "Shawn's other deceased relatives" followup would work since God know whom they all are.

{4} I will be working intermittently in the coming months on a long planned weblog with the working title Repose of Souls for the names of family and friends and maybe even pets -though with the latter the prayer would be for as painless of a death as possible: why not do this since we are the ones restricted in ti me right??? (I am thinking of setting up a St. Francis of Assisi shrine for them.) Anyway, when it is ready, I will let you know and (of course) if you have loved ones to list there let me know and I will do it.

[Update: The problem with a complete sabbatical is that it detracts from the importance of the upcoming election. If this was an off-election year, it would be much easier to justify a complete sabbatical. However, after thinking on the matter, I will to some degree continue blogging at least articles for readers to peruse on various subjects. But do not expect very much in the way of commentary for a while as that takes effort that I do not have in sufficient enough reserve at this time to do proper justice to. -ISM 7/19/04 3:52pm]



Doctor Who
(8/14/95-7/18/04)
The above picture was taken on May 17, 2004.

Some Sites Worth Catching Up On:

Of many which could be listed, these five seem good at this time for noting:

Musings of a Pertinacious Papist -Dr. Philip Blosser

Basically, just read everything on the front page. We not sure what it says about Us in finding the story about the kitten out at sea screaming for help to be so compelling; nonetheless that and the parts about Bush's accusers being confuted (yet again) on the war subject are particularly worth noting.{1}

A Catholic BLOG for Lovers - Gerard Seraphin

Again, everything on the front page is worth reading.

The Curt Jester BLOG - Jeff Miller

Everything on the front page -particularly the posts on Dissent as an Endorsement for Bishop DeLorenzo, Prayer and Punditry, and (for a bit of levity) CJ Sports.

The HMS BLOG (Various)

The front page appears to be the "Kevin Miller Show" which as readers of this weblog know is fine with Us.

The Cor ad Cor Loquuitur BLOG - Dave Armstrong

Likewise, We recommend a review of everything on the front page.

Finally, We have a couple of Ecumenical Jihad threads to recommend here as well:

Rabbi Daniel Lapin's Toward Tradition Website

Rabbi Lapin has long been Our favourite Sunday night talk show host. And with Toward Tradition, his discourses on moral matters and engaging the culture are always worth reading. We particularly recommend Rabbi Lapin's article The Slippery Slope of Secularism and Samuel Silver's Guide to Same Sex Marriage.


Debbie Schlussel's latest editorial on the FBI.

Enjoy!!!

Note:

{1} Oh, and congrats on the good news Phil.

Miscellaneous Mutterings:
(On post volume: a digression)

The ironic thing about writing is that it is possibly the one area of my life where I am anything but economical. When it comes to the written word, often have I been accused (and not without justification) of tending towards the verbose in my written pieces.{1} Having posted a profile at Lidless Eye today to account for the summary of my weblog mutterings these past near two years, the sum total as of this moment is 1,405 posts totalling 980,330 words.{2} The post per weblog averages are 644 words at Rerum Novarum and its subsidiaries, and 1,383.5 words at Lidless Eye. Taken together, that is a per post average of 697.74 or 698 if we round up to the nearest word. I assure you just reflecting upon those totals gives me reason to pause and consider a greater effort towards economy of verse.

It is true that I have improved in this area on the whole with my written essays over the years. Also, this weblog medium has forced me to significantly economize over what I used to do before on discussion list forums when my prowess with the cut and paste made for quite ponderous and lengthy cogitations by my own admission. Heck, compared to the days of yore, 700 words a post does not seem like much but then again, just because a 747 is small compared to the Grand Canyon does not mean that a 747 is small if you catch my drift.

I think the time constraints of my current endeavours have helped significantly in this area. At the very least it has resulted if not in actual reduction in volume then at least in frequency of posting. Either way though, I promise to work on this aspect of my blogging to the extent that I can do so without losing the essence of the points I strive to make on various issues I muse on at my weblogs.


Notes:

{1} To put it mildly.

{2} 839,213 words in 1303 posts to this weblog and its subsidiaries, 141,117 words in 102 posts to the Lidless Eye weblog.

"Confuting Conventional Wisdom" Dept.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Prefatory Note: I wrote this yesterday in a message box at one of my favourite weblogs. -ISM]

The notion that two totalitarian systems (i.e. communism and fascism) could be polar opposites philosophically speaking is an example of Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction being violated in spades. Think about it for a moment:

---If Communism represents totalitarian control over every sphere of a society, the opposite of total control is no control. Thus, the converse of communism is not fascism but anarchy.

Fascism is nothing except a slightly more palatable form of socialism than communism. Oh and do not even bring up Nazi Germany as an "opposite" of communism. Communism is totalitarian socialism and the Nazis were the National Socialist German Workers Party. Unless the entire political spectrum is socialist, the notion that fascism or naziism could be the political "opposite" of communism is ludicrous on its face. Yet notice how many anointed "experts" trot out this false notion of political opposites.

I believe the reason this is done is because if people believe that extremities of either liberalism or conservatism are both totalitarian -as communism and fascism so obviously are- that it will consciously shove a lot of people incapable of solidly logical thought towards the presumed "safer ground" of the political middle: those who often identify themselves as "moderates."

With regards to the so-called "moderates", most people who situate themselves here are precisely the sort of people who are incapable of making decisive judgments -indeed they often impugn people who do this. And as a result, they set themselves up as lambs for the slaughter by those who can make decisive judgments and who lack the moral grounding to render such judgments in accordance with any standard of morality except the subjective morality of the individual.

Ecce Homo

On NFP and a Unique Contribution to the Arena of Ideas:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)


[Update: I cannot believe I forgot the title and footnotes for this post yesterday. But then again, if you take into account that it was "Friday" for me yesterday all the way until around 6pm, hopefully these oversights can be understood. (What occasioned this is in retrospect rather hilarious but I have no time to discuss it at this point.) Nonetheless, I have added the title and footnotes to this post that were intended and apologize for their omission. -ISM 7/16/04 11:07am]

Though I have not said much of anything on my weblogs about the matter thus far,{1} the subject of NFP{2} is one which I have approached in some of my web writings -particularly my treatise which was promulgated to the web four years ago last D-Day. In that work, I dealt with the subject as it pertained to certain Jansenistic outlooks on sexuality and also certain contemporary realities that were often not taken into account by those who were of the "traditionalist" persuasion. (In the case of NFP, the "traditionalists" are not infrequently quick to scoff at this practice.) Here is some what I noted on the matter then -though this section received a little touching up in last year's revision viz. the approach taken towards this position (though not the arguments utilized to sustain it):

There are also an often very rigorous (often fanatically so) attitudes of 'traditionalists' with certain warped concepts of modesty. A woman not wearing slacks is one concept that comes to mind. Never mind the degree of modesty that a given pair of pants may have (there are after all, immodest and modest pants), comments such as "the Blessed Mother never wore slacks" are thrown out which are indicative of a gross stupidity. First of all, in apostolic times both men and women wore long flowing garments. In fact, the actual attire was quite similar between women and men back then (except women covered their heads often time of course). Another warped concept is one of an exaggerated Puritan concept of marriage and also the relationship between the spouses. When it comes to husband and wife relationships, 'traditionalists' take an exaggerated view of the submission owed by a wife to her husband and makes it equivalent to a near-servitude (if not explicitly stated as such).

Then there is the subject of conjugal love and procreation. Ignoring the manifold factors that make excessively large families less congruent to modern society, there is the condemnation of NFP and other family planning methods (that are intrinsic ally congruent to the Divine Law) by the 'traditionalist' movement both implicitly and explicitly. The facts that (i) we live in a more urban and industrialized culture so (ii) the need of large families to support an agriculturally based society is no longer necessary are not factors that are ever taken into consideration. Further still (iii) with the death rate being overcome in the late nineteenth century, the same degree of emphasis on the need to preserve the species is not in existence. This is due in no small part to (iv) numerous advances in medicine that aid in the cure of many ailments that were fatal to infants and young children even a century ago along with (v) a lower degree of miscarriages today primarily since we have greater knowledge of the types of stress that causes a miscarriage: knowledge that did not exist in previous centuries. In other words, the same number of conceptions today would result in a vastly higher rate of both births and survival to adulthood of many children who due to the particular circumstances in previous centuries were either miscarried, stillborn, or died before the age of five.

The Church in her timeless wisdom has recognized in certain situations (because of the changes in times and circumstances and the advance of medicine and knowledge) there are natural God-given means of addressing these matters. There is of course nothing wrong with having a large family of course. (Nor is it being implied in this paragraph that there is.) However at the same time it is not and never has been a Catholic understanding that one was to have as many children as they could. The difference in the industrial-technological society of today is that family sizes that were common in centuries past are often not as practical as they once were and (because of our advances in medicine and knowledge) it is often necessary to be regulated as long as such regulation is conducted in a morally licit manner. There are legitimate and illegitimate means of limiting and/or spacing births and the judicious use of NFP is just such a means, which is in no way contradictory to the Divine Law. Nevertheless, many 'traditionalist' groups erroneously ascribe such methods to "Modernism."

While these methods of consistent natural regulation were not unheard of in previous centuries; using philosophical approaches predating the twentieth century to analyze discoveries of the twentieth century is what is known as a "non sequitur." These methods only became known with enough information to be reasonably consistent in their application around the turn of the century (becoming better known in the 1920's), it involves having recourse to more recent decisions of the Magisterium in this vein to have a proper perspective on these matters. Initial methods of natural regulation (such as rhythm) were not as efficient as the more advanced ones developed since the early to mid 1970's (and refined since then), but the principle is the same. It appears to be God's answer to the contraception mania that has erupted this century since Lambeth in 1930. (Since reasonably consistent natural regulation was only discovered before the evil of contraception became more prominent.) This is not to say that a contraceptive mentality should be employed in utilizing NFP of course, but there are legitimate reasons for its usage which the Church has approved of. Even predating Vatican II we can find this principle outlined in Pope Pius XI's Encyclical Letter Casti Connubii:

Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved. (Pope Pius XI: Encyclical Letter Casti Connubii §59 circa December 31, 1930)

The intrinsic nature of the act is not deterred through sexual abstinence; therefore methods such as NFP which utilize period of abstinence cannot be accused of acting against nature. However, there are many so-called 'traditionalists' who would mark such people as 'untraditional' and demonstrate in doing so the very kind of rigorism that is another parallel to Jansenism. [I. Shawn McElhinney: A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' Part XIII (c. 2000, rev. c. 2003)]

I never presumed that those were the only arguments to sustain a cogent support for NFP mind you; however, I did in the context of that multi subject work find them adequate for dealing in short order with that matter. Some who identify themselves as "traditionalists" would give at most a grudging acknowledgement of NFP as a kind of "lessor of two evils." However, as I have often noted when it comes to the almost pathological nature of many people to try to box people into various categories, that this can work on the other side as well -with the way those who call themselves "traditionalists" are approached by other people.

With this subject, I have an opportunity to demonstrate my assertions in this vein{3} with a real life example.{4} That therefore is what this weblog entry will endeavour to do in pointing out a person who identifies in many respects with the "traditionalist" weltanschauung but who has shown that they can think outside the box. That personage is one Charles De Nunzio.

When surfing over at Charles De Nunzio's weblog yesterday, I found him supporting NFP for many of the same reasons I noted in the writing quoted above. He also posted additional reasons -some of which to a degree go beyond the ones that I noted in my treatise of four years ago.

Now, my concern in writing the material above was to explain this from predominantly the area of modern physical issues which pertain to the matter -advances in science, adjustments in the economies of scale, and preservation of the species essentially. Charles goes beyond this and advances the theory that the spiritual climate of society since (roughly) the mid twentieth century is a good argument for the judicious usage of NFP. I am not sure I completely concur with his analysis but I find myself intrigued enough to ponder this point further. And having noted that, a development that has long been latent has come to fruition in my mind.

For I have been monitoring Charles' site for a while with considerations of adding it to my scroll of links. This line of argumentation he has set forth on NFP -being very original and presenting some rather compelling points to ponder- was the cincher for me on that matter. Henceforth, you will find after this post is added, Charles' weblog link added to the side margin under Ecumenical Jihad all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Notes:

{1} If you check the archives, you may find a post or two on the matter but I do not believe I blogged on this particular subject before prior to now.

{2} Natural Family Planning in case you are unfamiliar with the term.

{3} The assertion that the indiscriminate usage of labels is a woefully inadequate (and often inaccurate) way of trying to separate various distinctions of outlook from people with differing operative presuppositions.

{4} Mr. De Nunzio is far from "garden variety" in his particular views on this or numerous other matters.

A TALE OF TWO MOVIES: FAHRENHEIT 9/11 vs PASSION OF THE CHRIST

The above compendium is courtesy of Jeff at Beautiful Atrocities. Oh, and lest I forget, this link was brought to the attention of St. Blog's patrons and visitors via Dominico Bettinelli's Bettnet BLOG to which I was directed by my friend Mark Bonocore at a discussion list that we both frequent. Thanks for the headsup guys but I am not at all surprised at this double standard.{1}

For bringing down Bush and promoting liberal idiocy is not a minor bagatelle to these kinds of people. Rather, Moore's movie it seems is being viewed by them as yet another sacrament in their secularist "religion."{2} Again, this is no surprise at all but thanks Jeff for compiling the list for us all to see.

Notes:

{1} As longtime readers of my musings at this weblog can attest to.

{2} Abortion is the most obvious "sacrament" in their "religion." I am left to wonder if ousting Bush and Moore's movie are actually "sacraments" or are mere "sacramentals" to them.

Readers of a pious nature who think I am being sacrilegious with this terminology apparently do not realize just how integral such things as abortion, gay marriage, pornography, and public funding and/or promotion of these and other abominable matters are to people of this mindset. They are core pillars to their particular weltanschauung akin to the sacraments in Christendom. For that reason, they are properly referred to in that context as their "sacraments" (or "sacramentals") if you will -provided that one shrouds those words in proper quotation marks when doing so.

My Public Profile Is Now Released:

Okay, it is not much of a profile but I decided to put a little bit of information about myself in cyberspace.

Regular readers of this weblog since its earliest of days will probably see very little that I have not explicated or implicated before at this humble weblog. Nonetheless, there are still some additional bits of information here and there that may be of interest. I also dug up the only web photo of me that there is and added it as well.{1}

One should bear in mind that these figures do not include postings to The Lidless Eye Inquisition or any of my web essays but only what I have blogged since August of 2002 from my Rerum Novarum weblog and other direct affiliates to it.{2} Having noted those things, the following statistics are interesting:

On Blogger Since August 2002

August 22, 2002 to be precise. (Yes, Our two year anniversary is a little over a month away.)

Recent Posts 22

By "recent" I presume they mean in the past month.

Avg Posts Per Week 13

Based heavily on my blogging overall prior to February of this year I am sure.

Posts Written 1,298

All but ten of those are posts from Rerum Novarum.

Words Written 836,630

If we divide number of words by number of posts, we get an average post length of 644.55 words...geez.{3}

Outbound Links 2,831

Presumably that does not rule out double and triple counting of the same links at times. (Either way, it is quite a lot but no Amy Welborn, Mark Shea, or Instapundit that is for sure.)

Profile View 0

Well, I just set it up so there should not be any profile views yet. Anyway, I hope that you find this information to be of some interest.

Notes:

{1} It is posted to my two Journeyman e-zine entries from September of 2001 and November of 2001. I still resemble in some ways the person in the picture even though the latter was taken 35 months ago today. I will try to get another one taken in the next few months to replace the one on this profile.

{2} Meaning the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG and also the Rerum Novarum Comments BLOG.

{3} None of those stats include this current post of course.

"Anathema Sit" Dept.

Though I commented on the most recent Boston Heresy Case HERE, there have been some additional developments since my aforementioned comments.

For example, apparently the founder of De Fide (one Marc Balestrieri), has probably lost his job as a result of this action.

Over at Envoy Encore, my good friend Pete Vere (he with the JCL) assesses the current situation HERE. He also goes into some of the background elements in the equation including the issue of what could be constituted as a kind of "canonical tradition" in the sense of certain unwritten rules that differing sides in a dispute are expected to follow.

Apparently, canon law like baseball has its own version of "The Book" which is unwritten but which the major players are expected to follow. Between that and the various behind the scenes machinations, I think I am starting to see why canon law can have such die-hards like Pete, Edward Peters, and others. Anyway, see the above link to Pete's commentary for more details on the matter.

Also, I exhort you all to offer some some prayers for Mark and anyone else involved in this enterprise that they are successful in their endeavours. Whatever problems there were with overzealous and rash suspicions viz. canonical "investigations" in days of yore, in recent decades the opposite extreme has happened.

In closing, the correct approach is balanced between the two and at the moment, the scale needs to be tipped towards more discipline being meted out.

Points to Ponder:

I find myself not just a little confused by the mantras of those who say "we support the troops but oppose the war." I have to wonder if they realize how sophistic this stance really is. For if (i) they believe the war is immoral or evil and (ii) the troops they claim to "support" as a rule{1} believe in what they are fighting and willing to die for and (iii) they claim to support the troops who are fighting in that war, then (iv) they are claiming to "support" people who by an overwhelming majority profess a belief in and willingness to sacrifice themselves for something that they (the antiwar crowd) believes is evil or immoral. In short, their positions are patently illogical and a classic example of sophistic rationale. [I. Shawn McElhinney: Lunchtime Musings on the War circa 7/08/04]

Note:

{1} I realise there are some who do not take this view but from all indications that I have seen thus far, the troop support for what they are doing exceeds those troops who do not endorse what they are doing by at least 3 to 1.

As We noted earlier, the addition of Debbie Schlussel's website to the Ecumenical Jihad listing was deemed to be the less proper place for categorizing. Instead, due to the predominantly political nature of her material, We decided to reclassify her to the Predominantly Political category and to slightly retitle that category. It now reads Approved* Weblogs and Websites of a Predominantly Political Nature. It also seemed appropriate to add the recently launched weblog of Michelle Malkin to that category as well -based heavily on her precedent for writing thought provoking material.{1}

Oh and lest anyone accuse Us of discrimination by not including women journalists or commentators in Our scroll of recommended links, let this serve to confute that accusation and make known the fact that We have no objections whatsoever to recommending well-reasoned work composed by brainy and beautiful infobabes.{2} Having noted that, We declare by virtue of Our authority that the aforementioned adjustments are hereby promulgated to Rerum Novarum in perpetuity, all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Notes:

{1} We have followed her since her days as a staff columnist for The Seattle Times. (Followed her work that is.)

{2} That oughta rile the so-called "feminists" a bit :)

A Very Minor Weblog Update:

Some adjustments were made to the template at this weblog a few minutes ago -almost exclusively in the area of adding to the Ecumenical Jihad category. Though there are a few additional sites and weblogs that I am mulling over adding to the scroll of links, the following were added today:

---Debbie Schlussel's Website (Jewish)

---The Catholic Kerry Watch BLOG - Christopher Blosser, Jeff Miller, Oswald Sobrino, Earl A. Appleby, Jamie Blosser

---Christopher Blosser's Watching Michael Moore BLOG

Also restored to the recommended list of catholic weblogs was Alan Phipps' weblog. Somehow it was overlooked when the template was restored last month but it has been readded now.

By virtue of my authority as Sovereign Thane and Lord High Executioner of Rerum Novarum, I declare that these adjustments to said weblog are promulgated in perpetuity all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

[Note: Upon further reflection, as Debbie Schlussel's material is predominantly political and not a hybrid of religious and political material, it properly should be classified with JYB and company. For that reason, it will be reclassified hopefully later today. -ISM 7/8/04 7:30 am]

The readers of this humble weblog may be interested to know that I made some tweaks to the draft of the Reagan book review that I posted earlier on. It now reads on the weblog exactly as it will read when I submit the review tomorrow or so to Amazon.

Points to Ponder:

Difficulties can be solved with philosophy and theology, but in order to "solve" a mystery, it takes obedience and submission. Sometimes, when we ask God questions, He answers with a question, like when He was in the temple, and the way to get the answer is to be silent and let Him come to you...All types of mysteries can only be answered by an abandonment to Christ, letting Christ work through you. [Apolonio Latar III (circa 2/14/04)]

Rev. Michael J. Pahls outlines the fate of slavery in the US if President Lincoln had "thought" on slavery like Kerry does on abortion.

Ronald Reagan - How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Note: This is the second and probably final third and final draft of a review I will be submitting to Amazon.com hopefully later in the week. President Reagan, may you rest in peace - ISM]

*****

One of history's greatest presidents...

...and definitely the best president of the second half of the twentieth century. Dinesh D' Souza would argue that Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of the twentieth century. I would claim a bit less myself: second perhaps to President Roosevelt...and not the President Roosevelt that most people would presume I refer to. But that is neither here nor there.

This book is very compact and seeks to cover a lot of material in a reasonably economical manner. The prologue sets the tone, starting with the manner whereby the Soviet Union was viewed prior to its collapse by the establishment "experts." From there, D' Souza explains why the "wise men" were all wrong and the "dummy" (as the intellectuals viewed Reagan) was right. He also deals with the manner whereby revisionists have sought to paint the USSR's collapse as "inevitable" which is certainly not what these same people were saying at the time. It seems that the approach is say anything except give credit to Reagan for his foresight on this significant issue.

The aforementioned prologue ("The Wise Men and the Dummy") sets the table for the manner whereby the rest of the book unfolds. The topics covered in the work in sequential order are as follows with brief comments from yours truly:

---Why Reagan Gets No Respect.

This chapter outlines well the manner whereby not only the pseudo-"intellectual" elites of the left viewed Reagan but also many hard nosed conservatives of the right (including some of their recognized bigwigs such as George Will and Michael Novak).

---The Education of an Actor.

This chapter is a necessary look into the formation of Reagan's conservative political philosophy as well as the paradigm shift from Roosevelt New Deal supporter to conservative Goldwater-style in his philosophy.

It starts to some extent from his formative years because in order to hope to understand Reagan, one must understand those events which formed the environment which shaped his outlook and convictions. And as Reagan reached his conservative Republican outlook after being born into poverty and living through two world wars, the Great Depression, Korea, the McCarthy era, and the early 1960's, it is important to review this period where his philosophy -which he would refine and deepen in later years- was first set forth in its broad outlines. The chapter ends with Reagan's speech at the 1964 Republican convention: the speech that definitively put him "on the map" for a political career.

---Mr. Reagan Goes To Washington.

This chapter covers the period where Reagan's philosophy received greater deepening and refinement through two terms as governor of California and two significant challenges to the presidency (1976 and 1980). Some may refer to his campaign of 1968 but that was not a serious campaign and Reagan had no chance at the nomination then.

---A Walk on the Supply Side.

If no other chapter in this book was read, this one is essential because it debunks so much of the idiotic myths surrounding Reagan and his role in the increasing deficits of the 1980's.

This chapter outlines an integral part of Reagan's presidential economic plan. It is well worth a read due to the profound ignorance commonly expressed about supply-side policies by historical revisionists and economists too wedded to Keynesian policies: policies which were discredited in the 1970's economic climate by the way.

The reviewer who said that D'Souza "dismisses the massive budget deficits accumulated during the Reagan years" would do well to reread this chapter since the deficit subject is discussed in the context of the Democratic Congress not following through on their promise to cut $3 in spending for every $1 in taxes during the 1982 budget battle. Oliver North was criticized for lying to Congress during Iran-contra but the dishonour Congress brought on themselves in the interim -starting with their broken promises in 1982- made North's actions a venial sin at best.

Those who want to discuss the budget deficits need look no further than here for the reasons. But of course that reviewer is not about to do that because 75% or more of the federal budget is unconstitutional and they are certain to support a fair amount of it. At least Reagan's military spending was constitutional but I digress.

---They Don't Call it Reaganomics Anymore.

This chapter is a good follow-up to the one on supply side economics because it explains the truth behind Reagan's economic policies. In a short phrase: they worked.

---Confronting the Evil Empire.

Picks up and develops what was touched on in the prologue.

---Making the World Safe for Democracy.

In this chapter, D'Souza outlines the principles behind Reagan's approach to totalitarian dictatorships -and the success those policies had throughout the world as dictatorship after dictatorship fell in places such as Central America, South America, Asia, and the Philippines. In this context, Reagan's policy towards Nicaragua and supporting the contras stands out as the brilliant policy that it was. Even Grenada's invasion in 1983 is noted as a significant milestone in foreign policy in that it was the death-knell of the Breshnev Doctrine. Those who are unfamiliar with the latter would do well to read this chapter.

---And the Wall Came Tumbling Down.

Much as the Reagonomics chapter built on the preceding supply side chapter, this one builds on the one that precedes it in dealing with Reagan's skills in negotiating an end to the Cold War. (Through arms reduction treaties and also standing firm against Soviet demands.) This is all material "conveniently" overlooked by modern revisionists. But as "ninety five percent of what is published on all things is hogwash" (A. Jones), this should hardly surprise.

---The Man Behind the Mask.

After dealing with the external effects of Reagan's policies on America and throughout the world, this one seeks to go into the man himself and deal with the many paradoxes that were Reagan. This section is essential for coming close to understanding Ronald Reagan the man.

---Spirit of a Leader.

This chapter deals with Reagan as a leader and also highlights his responses to some of the administrative controversies that occurred in his Administration. Subjects such as PATCO, Lybian jets firing on the USS Nimitz in late 1981, the visiting of the Bitberg cemetery in Germany in 1985, the Lybian bombing of a West Berlin discoteque in 1986 and the US response to it, Iran-contra, and other examples are covered here.

With regards to the latter, D' Souza deals well with Iran-contra. Unfortunately, he did not touch on the 240 odd Marines who died in Lebanon in 1983 as a result of a suicide bomber. Despite the many fabrications and exaggerations often conjured up by Reagan-despising historical revisionists, this was a definite policy blunder and it would have been good to cover here along with some of the others that D'Souza does note. Despite the brevity of this tome, that is not asking too much as it would provide a bit more balance in a work that on the whole is quite vindicating of Reagan's legacy as president and as a man.

---Epilogue: The Road Not Taken.

The epilogue essentially explains why the Republicans have for the most part been floundering without a firm sense of purpose since Reagan left office.

One interesting par of this book is D'Souza's approach which is geared quite obviously to setting the record straight in areas where it is often anything but. To do this, he often follows a pattern of outlining what Reagan's opponents said about his ideas and policies -buttressed with source citations from newspapers and magazines as well as books written by critics or adversaries- and then recounts Reagan's uncanny ability to confute his adversaries again and again. In that sense it reads like an apologetic but, in light of the mountains of lies and distortions that are fed the populace about Reagan and his policies, perhaps that approach is the best way of cutting through the rubbish and focusing on what really happened. (As opposed to what Reagan's opponents wish had happened.)

The subtitle of the paperback is "how an ordinary man became an extraordinary leader." Indeed that is what President Reagan was and no one who approaches the historical record who makes any pretense of objectivity can conclude otherwise. And this book well explains the many reasons why this was so.

"Anathema Sit" Dept.

Apparently John F word Kerry has had a libellus filed against him in the Ecclesiastical Court of Boston. The charge: heresy. You can read more about this HERE and visit the plaintiff's site HERE. Among other points noted in De Fide's statement of purpose is the following:

DE FIDE aims to stop the monumental scandal which has been ongoing for the past thirty-one years of baptized Catholic politicians claiming to be Christian while professing the life-threatening Right-to-Murder heresy.

The crisis is outrageous - it is completely unacceptable - it must be stopped. Otherwise, we, and our children, and our children's children stand more to lose than simply our lives: We risk losing our salvation.

Please help DE FIDE defend the Church and the Faith.

Despite some questioning of the potential fallout from this action viz. the upcoming election,{1} We at Rerum Novarum must nonetheless take into account the potential snowball effect this could cause in the Catholic Church for the public order and the common good of the Church in America{2} as well as the Church universal.{3} For that reason, We will be supporting this cause{4} even if it seems potentially Custerian of Us to do so. John F word Kerry: Anathema Sit!!!

Notes:

{1} We refer here to the possibility that this could help Kerry in recruiting other heretic, schismatic, and apostate Catholics to his cause by waving about the "Inquisition" red herring for the gullible masses to lap up like Jim Jones' Kool-Aid.

{2} There is also the possibility that this will mobilize many of the pro-life fence sitters to throw in for Bush who has a significantly better track record in this area than Kerry does.

{3} It is possible that this could start a worldwide trend amongst savvy prolife people.

{4} As one of Our earliest political and intellectual mentors Senator Barry Morris Goldwater of happy memory stated at the Republican Convention in 1964:

"Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Those who would question this approach can ask themselves if the "liberty" of the unborn has been adequately secured in the past thirty-one odd years or if it has been (to put if quite mildly) profoundly compromised by heretical traitors such as Kerry and company.

"Serendipity on Ice" Dept.

Among other offhand tasks, I am currently working on a review of Dinesh D' Souza's 1997 book on Ronald Reagan. This time though, the Amazon word limit will hopefully not be my enemy. (As the book is a shade under 300 pages and was an enjoyable couple of hours read.)

I do not know where those who write so many reviews for Amazon get the time to do it...those who write detailed reviews I mean. The plan is to have it done before the week is out and (of course) it will be posted to this weblog before it is put up at Amazon. As one who has not written a book review in eighteen months, the sudden nature of this endeavour is rather strange in light of my lack of time to actually do what I am doing (in my spare time).

I am guessing that it is the recent flareup of lividness with regards to Michael Goebbels Moore that has lit the fire under me to write a review for that book{1} but either way, it is getting done and will be done soon. (Hopefully before the week is out.)

Note:

{1} I may have to actually write that review for Ann Coulter's book Treason which I recall intending to do about ten months ago or so. While not as enjoyable a read as D' Souza's book, it was still very informative and (contra the sophisms of Al Franken) quite accurate. Nonetheless, that will be dealt with in the review if I can find the time to do it.

Exhausted web reads
Albert King solos wailing
My chai almost gone

Notification on Some Upcoming Weblog Post Subject Matter:
(And some links on Joseph Goebbels Reincarnated Michael Moore)

To start with, I plan to blog a bit in the coming week on the war, "traditionalism", "progressivism", possibly some more entries on Reagan, and perhaps on some other subjects.{1} In the meantime though , since a member of my family is so insistent that I watch Michael Moore's latest self-styled "documentary" with them,{2} it seems appropriate to provide the following sources as a public service to the readers of Rerum Novarum to balance out what the major media is not going to tell you about this steaming pile of manure "man."

Hatriotism and Michael Moore

The Moore Lies Archive

If you still have time to read this stuff (and are not sick of it yet), I offer the following as additional sources:

Bowling for Truth

Moorewatch

The last one I must admit has a disturbing subtitle of Watching Michael Moore's Every Move. Considering (i) Moore's ponderous girth and (ii) how much he must eat, I am not so sure I want to see his every move if you know what I mean.

With regards to the above links, I would say "happy reading" but Moore is the very embodiment of the kind of people I noted previously that I spit upon. In the meantime, We at Rerum Novarum extend Our support for Michael Wilson's Unfinished Project and exhort you all to do so in like manner. What's the matter Mikey Moore, afraid of a 17 year old kid interviewing you???

In closing, while par t of me feels that Michael Moore should be treated as the seditionist that he is, at the same time, I am confident that most people are reasonable enough to see through this crap with the appropriate guidance.

I emphasize guidance because I said that prior to the 1996 election also and was proven wrong back then.{3} For that reason, I am supplying some links for my readers despite my belief that they are (as a group) the most intelligent of weblog readers in the blogosphere and do not need said links supplied to them.{4}

[Update: Christopher Blosser informed me today that he now has a Michael Moore weblog. Also worth noting is Debbie Schlussel's review which is an effective dismantling of Moore's film. I definitely recommend printing out and sharing with others --and not only because she opens the review with one of my favourite dictums from Mark Twain. - ISM 6/28/04 11:58 am]

Notes:

{1} Most of the materials are already written and need to be formatted for posting.

{2} My comments last night by phone to this relative included the following question: "how about I watch that film with you and then afterwards we can watch some of Joseph Goebbels' filmwork together???" The response given was "sure" which prompted me to immediately respond with this question: "you do not know whom Joseph Goebbels was do you???"

Out of pity for those who vindicate Santayana's dictum on history, I revealed Goebbels' identity to this family member along with my view that I expected about as much truth from Moore's work as I do from Goebbels' movies or from the texts promulgated as "truth" by the Journal of Historical Review.

The coming days will reveal just how much of an impact the aforementioned statement has on this family member -who despite being very liberal is still much too smart to fall for Moore's drivel. I cannot be more disappointed in them for that reason so I shant reflect upon it much except when they bring the subject up again.

{3} Thankfully, when I made the same prediction in 2000 and 2002, it was vindicated both times. Time will tell if it holds up for 2004 as well.

{4} Call it an "insurance policy" if you will.

Points to Ponder:

An altered eye alters all things. [William Blake]