"My Kingdom for a Viable Third Party" Dept.

Readers of this humble weblog who are waiting for my five cents on the election need not worry: I will be blogging a commentary on the current election that will build on what I have noted in the two years since the previous election. (Look for it sometime next week time-willing.) However, there are a lot of variables to the equation and it seems appropriate to note one or more of them by themselves before getting to the election analysis. The first of these will be this response to part of an email from one of the discussion lists I am on. The words of the other person will be in lime font and my previous words in the sequence (if there are any) will be in blue font).

Shawn:

Hello XXXXXXX:

I want to reply to a few things you said.

Well, I voted for Perot in 1992 and have no regrets whatsoever about that decision. However, the times then were different in that we were not at war with religious ideologues of Islam who want to see us either converted or killed. Hence, I agree with you now but back then (due to different circumstances) my view was different and (even with hindsight) is not much different now than it was then. (Except I am not a Republican now unlike back then.)"

I would say that it was just as foolish back in 1992 (or any other time in most of our history for that matter) to vote third party as it is now because, for practical purposes, that a vote for Perot was a vote for Clinton and a significant, albeit not total, reason why the terrorist threat viz. OBL {1} can be laid at Clinton's feet.

Everyone has 20-20 hindsight on these things XXXXXXX. We have two parties which in a lot of key areas are wings of the same bird. A third party at least allows for the possibility of ideas which are anathema to the two parties to be given a stage for possible assimilation by the populace. The problem as I see it is third parties that run before they are ready to do so. What we need is a third party that takes the time to build a base to run successfully rather than running to be running and gradually working their way out of any potential for viability in the process. I would say that a third party formed today should wait eight years before running nationally and at least four years before running in local elections. Those are minimums mind you, perhaps longer time frames would be needed.

Perot only got the vote he got the first time because he had a lot of money and did not need to raise funds. The second time, he was too egotistical to step aside and let someone else run with his backing. And Pat Buchanan essentially killed the Reform Party in 2000 with his running for president on that party but I digress. My point here is this: parties need to build momentum and continually wasting resources on running is why no viable party alternatives are coming up anywhere. The Libertarians have made this mistake for thirty odd years and other fracture parties who want to not do what the Libertarians have done would be well to learn from the latter's mistakes.

Furthermore, when you go outside the two party system, there is really no such thing as a third party. It's third, fourth, fifth, sixth, etc. As a result, we become so fractured politically and therefore ineffective. Two parties are better than one, but a half dozen aren't. I'm surprised that you don't seem to understand this. Sorry if I am being hard on you here, but I call them as I see them with friend and foe alike.

Hey now, I can take a punch as well as I throw it so worry not about that ;-) You are making the mistake of seeing any more than two as necessarily implying that there would have to be more than three also. But your logic goes askew if we ask why there even has to be two if we are worried about fractures politically and otherwise. Why not have one party so that what you are worried about is not a problem??? If being so fractured politically and therefore ineffective is your argument for not having more than two parties, then we need to ask why you do not take the option of having even less fracturing of the process than we already have. And to do that means you have to go for one party and not two. Because the moment you go for two, you logically raise the question by extension of "why limit it at two"???

Now you cannot go any lower in number and have a viable governing structure than one: you cannot have zero parties and have a functioning government. So the option with the least potential for fracturing and creating inefficiency is one party -particularly if that party is given free reign to crack down on dissidents from the party structure. That of course is the road to single party rule. And as all single party rule tends towards limiting all freedoms, even legitimate ones, one could argue that you are schilling against freedom with your arguments taken out to their logical ends.

Now I am aware that you could argue that at least with two parties (unlike with one party) there is some choice in the matter. However, that can be easily refuted by pointing to boondoggle proposals such as NAFTA: where is the party that gives us an option on so-called "free trade"??? Where is the party that gives us an option on whether or not we take the limits of the Constitution seriously??? Where is the party that gives us an option on protecting the borders as they need to be protected??? You cannot say the Republicans because they are weak on all three of these points and you cannot say the Democrats because they are even worse on them than the Republicans are.

In the interests of calling them as I see them, I did something worse in 1992, I didn't vote at all. I was still in the Navy then and I didn't get my absentee ballot from Michigan in time. Unfortunately, I didn't worry about it too much then. I DO regret taking that attitude.

One could argue that involvement in the process -even if you were involved on the wrong side of issues- is better than no involvement at all. That is my position anyway: that it is better to be in motion (even if in the wrong direction) than to be motionless.{1}

Maybe it was better that I didn't vote then. I probably would have voted for Clinton. But, thanks mainly to Rush Limbaugh, my interest in, and attitude toward politics changed dramatically in the next year and a half. I was proud to help vote in the Republican House and Senate in 1994.

As was I. However, since that time, the Republicans have lost my confidence, not gained it. Two years after the 1994 midterms, I divested myself of the Republican moniker and have remained an Independent voter. There are too many issues which are important and which the Republicans and Democrats have no difference whatsoever on. That is the reason why I believe there needs to be viable alternate parties; however those parties if they are to be more than a flash in the pan need to build a structure for competing locally (then nationally) before they field actual candidates. Otherwise, it will be Libertarianism redux and that would be another waste of people's time and resources.


Note:

{1} Remember that Bin Laden was offered to Clinton on a silver platter by Sudan, but Clinton refused.

Trust me, I have not forgotten about that my friend.

For more on this subject matter, please see this thread.

Note:

{1} I remind you of the theories of motion as discovered by Sir Isaac Newton. If an object in motion will remain in motion, then attempts to stop that object will not succeed without a greater or equal force being involved. In light of the manner whereby intensity and duration are inversely proportioned, an intense reaction cannot sustain itself for very long in opposing an object in motion -particularly if that object appeals to the lower levels of our nature from which there is continual struggle against anyway.

What must be attempted is to reverse the direction of the moving object but the approach taken has to be one focused on success over the long term. For that reason, the intensity behind such an approach has to be by logical necessity of lessor import if there is to be a conceivable reversal of trends that will be more than illusory. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa August 11, 2004]

That is essentially why I view it as better to be passionate for erroneous beliefs than to not care one way or the other. Objects at rest after all are harder to get into motion than it is to redirect objects already in motion in another direction. But I digress.

Election Map for 2004: the Votes County By County

Those who found the red and blue states graphs to be interesting viz. showing polarizations in the nation will probably find the link above which breaks it down by county to be even more interesting.

Though I did not blog on the matter in written form, if memory serves I noted in an audioblog or two that President Bush would win 290 electoral votes -which means that Senator Kerry would have won 248 electoral votes. (If anyone doubts my veracity on this -should any of the audioblogs not reveal this number- Dave Armstrong can vouch for the fact that I gave him this number when we discussed the election process by phone on November 2nd at around 4:30pm PST.) As it is, the President was re-elected with 286 electoral votes and Senator Kerry got 252 electoral votes. Not bad for accuracy in an election season as turbulent as this one was but I digress.

A Rerum Novarum Election Night Live Report

John Kerry: On the Record

Briefly on the Supposed "Tora Bora Faux Paus" of the Bush Administration:
(Aka Senator Kerry of 2004 vs. Senator Kerry of 2001)

For those who find the current Hanoi John Kerry's position on the military campaign in Tora Bora as a "convincing argument" against President Bush, perhaps enlightening you on what Senator Kerry had to say about three years ago (at the time) is worth considering. You can read a bit about that HERE and if you detect yet another blatant contradiction between pre-campaign Kerry and campaign Kerry{1}, then worry not my friends because your detector is accurate.

Note:

{1} Setting aside for a moment the contradictions between earlier campaign Kerry and later campaign Kerry of course. (I remind you that he was very pro-war in Iraq in early 2004 when he was running against Howard Dean.)

"Will the Real Hanoi John Kerry Please Stand Up" Dept.

We at Rerum Novarum are pleased to offer to you two important videos on the junior senator from MA which anyone who is from the "Anybody But Bush" camp should consider before casting their votes. The first is the film Stolen Honour which Hanoi John's laaaaawyerrrrs are trying to prevent from being seen by the public. The second is from the Swiftboat Vets and POW's For Truth where the real heros give their assessments of the measure of John Kerry's character.

To see both short films, go HERE. As far as We are concerned, there is no more fitting way for the real heroes to be vindicated for the manner whereby Hanoi John and his "friends" sought to strip them of their honour than for this worthless excuse for a "public servant" and "war hero" to go down in flames on Tuesday. And that is the bottom line really.

"Election Update" Dept.

I came to the office to do some work and found the door open. My boss had turned the office into a calling center for the upcoming election. There is an interesting group of people here from various age groups who are calling registered Republicans to get remind them to vote, etc. The state representative for the Republican Party was here about a half an hour ago and he did a TV interview about ten feet from where I am typing this text about the election and the party's efforts to do more of the crucial legwork which four years ago probably cost them a number of votes in close contests.

Say what you will about the Democrats, this is nonetheless an area where they have been good at over the years and the Republicans have not been. Nonetheless, it is nice to be in the midst of people who are both passionate about this election and who also have a sense of purpose in it. I frankly wish I could share in the enthusiasm that is all around me but I do not. Or maybe another way of saying it is this: I support either directly or (in the case of President Bush) indirectly most of the key people they are calling about here. But I am not enthusiastic about it, I want this election to get over soon and for Hanoi John Kerry to be defeated. That way (i) the president can ratchet up the war effort in Iraq and not have to worry about the election any longer (ii) I can get back to being critical of President Bush for his stupid illegal alien amnesty program and (iii) I can take solace in the fact that we are a lot less likely to see another 9-11 with a Bush victory than a Bush defeat.

Someone on the radio this morning when I was coming to work commented on the fact that terrorists in recent years have taken advantage of the ambiguity that exists in the transition of new presidents to launch attacks. I dismissed the idea out of hand as polemics but then again, if you think about it, there is some truth to it. For example, the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 took place within weeks of President Clinton's inauguration. The 9-11 attack in 2001 took place within a week of President Bush getting his head of the FBI confirmed by the Senate.{1} Now then, if Kerry wins the presidency, there will be a lame-duck period from about November until January at least -even more if the election is contested. That means we could see a two to three month lame duck period where we would be more vulnerable to a major attack than we would be if President Bush is re-elected on Tuesday.

Think about it: this actually means that there is a logical argument for Vice President Dick Cheney's comments a couple weeks ago about a Kerry presidency making us more vulnerable to a terrorist attack!!! I note this because it is an important thing to consider in these final days before a decision on who will lead this country for the next four years will be made. In light of other things I noted in some very recent Rerum Novarum weblog entries,{2} this is yet another point to consider before voting this coming Tuesday.

Notes:

{1} The delay here was primarily because of the election mess of 2000: it caused the incoming administration to have to delay many important transition details which left us vulnerable to attack on 9-11.

{2} Three really recent examples of these threads are as follows:

Miscellaneous Threads Worth a Read (circa 10/26/04)

"Anybody But Bush" Dept" (circa 10/27/04)

A Brief Rerum Novarum Commentary on the Notion That a Kerry-Edwards Presidency Would Really Result in the "Stronger America" That They Claim on Their Campaign Signs (circa 10/27/04)

A Brief Rerum Novarum Commentary on the Notion That a Kerry-Edwards Presidency Would Really Result in the "Stronger America" That They Claim on Their Campaign Signs:

"Anybody But Bush" Dept.

I have long surmized that one of the best arguments for re-electing President Bush was that America's enemies are pretty solidly against such a proposition. It is particularly worth noting here by the terrorists themselves who have been getting their clocks cleaned the past two years by the US military. It is pretty difficult to plot another massive attack on America when you are kept offbalance and have to relocate constantly. (Not to mention having one of your allies in these endeavours -Iraq- being out of control of those you previously aligned yourself with.)

Indeed, with the final week to go in the presidential race, I actually took my Independent self down to the Republican precinct looking for a specific bumpersticker to put on my vehicle that read "10 out of 10 Terrorists Agree: Anybody But Bush!!!" They did not even know about the existence of such a sticker but I saw a couple of them the other day on vehicles and thought it would be a good one to have. I settled for a Dino Rossi (GOP) for governor postcard which I stuck in the back window instead but the subject of the terrorists and whom they would like in the Oval Office is a good topic to consider in these final days before elections.

Apparently, your humble servant is not the only one to have been thinking along these lines in recent weeks. Indeed, here are a few articles I found on the subject after entering some key search terms into Google earlier today when taking a break from work:

Terrorists' Candidates? (Charles Krauthammer)

Chuck Krauthammer (not a conservative by any stretch of the definition) is probably right that the terrorists are not necessarily big fans of Senator Kerry as they are supporters of anyone who opposed President Bush. But notice that that proposition only mirrors the theory I have been mulling over for the past month or so.

Iconoclast, or just foolish? (Diana West)

Diana West basically argues the same premise by noting what the media in countries hostile to American interests (i.e. Iran's Tehran Times, North Korea's Radio Pyongyang, Syria's Syria Times, etc.) Those who are considering voting for Senator Kerry need to explain why the latter would be a better national security president in light of those kinds of "endorsements."

Of course, even if you want to claim that the above articles by Krauthammer and West are somewhat derivative in their interpolations on this theme (not an unreasonable presupposition admittedly), at the same time, there are more direct evidences to consider in support of this theory. For example, the following articles give direct evidence in support of this theory:

Terrorists hope To Defeat Bush Through Iraq Violence (Borzou Daragahi)

Yasser Arafat Endorses Kerry (Aaron Klein)

Putin: Terrorists Support "Anybody But Bush (Michelle Malkin)

What is the remedy for this kind of "support" for Senator Kerry??? Simple: send these folks a message as Joseph Farah suggests in the next link:

Send Terrorists a Message (Joseph Farah)

Farah's criticisms of President Bush mirror many which I have made in the past two years.{1} However, he sees the wider picture here and it is this: when those who want America to fall rally around a particular presidential candidate, one should be very leery of aligning their votes with such people.


Note:

{1} It seems appropriate to list here in order (from oldest to newest) some of the threads from this weblog (and one thread predating it) whereby the reader can see a progression downward in my esteem by President Bush -whom I with a fair amount of enthusiasiasm voted for in 2000.

On Stem Cell Research

This commentary was written in August of 2001. The decision of President Bush on the stem cell issue was to me the first significant indicator that Bush was not a great leader. (Potentially good but not great: a distinction which was made in the aforementioned commentary.)

Final Installment of "Bastiat's Corner."

Basically, in the above link, Bush is unambiguously inferred as the "lessor evil" because his programs will plunder us all less than the alternatives offered by the Democrats: hardly a complement by any stretch of the imagination.

"Lie to Me" Dept.

Though targeted at Democrat hypocrisy about truth telling, the acknowledgment that Bush "could be doing better in many areas" is made in the post.

Miscellaneous Mutterings

Essentially this post includes a vindication of my hypothesis that Bush is no Reagan pace the contrary position as taken by a friend of this weblog. The basic criticisms of the Republican party chairman not understanding what limited government actually is are also applied here by logical extension to President Bush.

Predictions for 2004

Two predictions in the above thread deal with President Bush. The first has to do with his first Supreme Court nominee being a Hispanic, the second was that President Bush will continue to play a two card monte game of "war of terror" and "recovering economy" and disillusion former Republicans (and long-time Independents) like your humble servant. (And his latest pandering is frankly almost enough to make me vote Democrat in the 2004 election.)

The Problems With Bush's "Mass Amnesty" Proposal

This monumentally stupid policy -the "latest pandering" that was noted in the predictions thread- was gauged to attempt to curry political favour with Hispanics. It was almost the final straw for me viz. supporting President Bush for reelection.

On President Bush, the Upcoming Primaries, the Upcoming Election, and Standing on Principles

The above comments apply even more so to this post by which I was at the end of my rope in supporting (in any way) President Bush.

On the 2004 Election

Basically, I did not make a solid decision to support the reelection of President Bush until late February of 2004. Any support prior to that time was tenuous at best for a number of reasons -many of which were blogged on prior to that point. I note these threads to put the axe to the notion some may have that I am some "uncritical Bush lackey." Not by any stretch of the imagination can this theory be viably advanced; however, some undoubtedly will try to nonetheless -the above threads notwithstanding. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 11, 2004)]

"Tolerance For Me But Not For Thee" Dept.

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Exhibit C

Miscellaneous Musings on the Election

Points to Ponder:

Last night we get a report on NBC news that the explosives were already missing when U.S. troops arrived at the storage location on April 10, 2003. The last time the IAEA saw the explosives was three months earlier in January of 2003. There is no way to know just when the explosives were removed. Sometime after the IAEA saw them in January and before American troops got there in April. Obviously this isn't a case of Bush failing to "guard" the explosives. By the time our troops got there they weren't there to guard. In other words, nobody failed to guard anything and there was nothing we could have done about it. They were gone when we got there.

Well .. .hold on. There is something we could have done about it. We could have invaded earlier! Get in there before the Iraqis had a chance to hide the explosives! Is that what the Kerry supporters are saying we should have done?

This was a "get Bush" story from the beginning. There have been some problems between the Bush White House and the head of the IAEA. This was supposed to be the "October Surprise." Drudge is reporting this morning that CBS was hoping to run with this story on Sunday's 60 Minutes ... two days before the election. The New York Times beat them to the punch ... and, unfortunately for the designs of the leftist press, in time for the truth to come out.

The Democrats and the media sure seem awfully concerned about this missing 380 tons of conventional explosives. While that's a lot of bombs, it pales in comparison when you're talking about nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction. The WMD could kill millions of people. And those weapons are also missing.

Yet for some reason, the media and the left don't want those weapons to ever be found. They know it advances their anti-Bush agenda for it to continue to look like "Bush lied" when he said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Just as always, the safety and security of the United States comes in dead last when liberals want to win elections. We're told that 380 tons of missing explosives is the biggest disaster of the entire Iraq war. Missing chemical and biological weapons aren't that troubling, at least not to the left. According to the Democrats, they don't exist. Bush lied, you know. Never mind the fact that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, used weapons of mass destruction and we found weapons of mass destruction. It's also important to note that Iraq never accounted for missing quantities of biological and chemical agents.

But that 380 tons of explosives that's been missing for over a year and half.....that's the end of civilization as we know it. [Neil Boortz (c. 10/26/04)]

Miscellaneous Threads Worth a Read:

Some of these threads are a month old or more; however, the election is not far off now. With that in mind, it is my opinion that people tend to need reminding at times of older articles in this era of 24/7 news coverage. That is what will be done here by listing the links in order from newest to oldest.

The reason some of these are on Kerry's Senate record is because someone running for office will say whatever they need to say to get elected: it is the nature of the political beast. Therefore, one best judges a potential candidate who has a career in public office not so much by what they say now as much as how they have voted when the chips were down. As far as voting fraud, well it helps to remind people that an election was almost stolen four years ago and we do not want to see that kind of schenanigans again. Without further ado, onto the threads. (More will be posted later tonight and in the coming days when I have time to do so.)

60 MINS PLANNED BUSH MISSING EXPLOSIVES STORY FOR ELECTION EVE (Matt Drudge)

And we are supposed to believe the mainstream media (MSM) are unbiased and objective in their reporting???

It's Workhorse vs. Showhorse (Robert Novak)

The above thread is one comparing Sen. Richard Lugar (supposedly a "Kerry supporter") and Sen. John Kerry.

Bubba to the Rescue (Dick Morris)

Did anyone else notice that Clinton is appearing in states where Kerry should have already had the edge (such as Pennsylvania) and not in states where Gore lost in 2000??? If you know how to read the tea leaves, this is not a sign of campaign strength my friends but instead of campaign weakness.

Vietnam Veterans in 'Stolen Honor' Deserve To Be Heard (Dawson Bell)

Astute observers are aware that the MSM has no interest in this story much as they did not in the case of the Swift Boat Veterans. Such issues only hurt Hanoi John in this election which is (of course) why they will be buried by the MSM (to be promoted by the alternative media outlets like the blogosphere, Drudge, etc). It stands to reason that the more the MSM is derelict in their duties, the more credibility they will lose. (And of course they will only empower further the blogosphere and various other alternative media who do cover these stories.)

Kerry's Senate Record Is a 78 Played at 33 RPM (James Lileks)

A link on Senator Kerry's voting record: the true barometer of how to judge him, not by his election rhetoric. As We at Rerum Novarum have already dealt with his voting record on most of the significant issues, the above link only adds to what this writer has already pointed out.

Stop Voter Fraud: Require ID (Michelle Malkin)

A sound suggestion certainly. Care to guess which group does not have an interest in cutting down on voter fraud my friends??? I will give you a hint: they tried (and failed) to steal the last presidential election.

The 10 Biggest Lies of John Kerry (Barbara Stock)

It must have been difficult for Barbara to limit herself to only ten of them.

Dan Rather's Suspicious Alliance With the Kerry Campaign (Doug Schmitz)

It is important for readers to remember the first major ox that the blogosphere and alternative media successfully gored: Dan Rather of CBS. The connections he has with the Kerry campaign are not to be underestimated.

Dems: Kerry's Senate Record Off-Limits, Too (David Limbaugh)

David Limbaugh shines a bit of light on the senate record of the junior senator from MA. Anyone who wonders why Kerry has been as silent about his senate record as an NAACP member at a Klan rally needs only review David's article for a brief tour of what Hanoi John does not want you to see.

Why You Can't Believe Polls Anymore (Dick Morris)

Few people know more about how polls work than Dick Morris. The above article from 2002 is a good primer on this subject for those who think that polls are a generally reliable gauge for tracking election events.

If It's Not Close, They Cannot Cheat (Hugh Hewitt)

I have not read the book but I do agree with the premise.

ELECTION 2000, Day 25 'Coup behind closed doors' (Kenneth R. Timmerman)

An old article (almost four years old actually) but one that bears reiterating for those who take Santayana's dictum about history seriously.

Fascism, Corruption, and My 'Democratic' Party (Bob Just)

The above article from four years ago summarizes it about as well as it can be -and from a lifelong Democrat at that!!!Those who find the idea of the "left" being "fascist" when conventional wisdom ascribes fascism to the "right" need to consider my musings on the logical fallacy of the "communist-fascist" political spectrum theory which can be read HERE.

What Natural Disaster are you? Take the quiz!

"Let Him Be Anathema" Dept.

To divert a bit into sports for a moment -as I have not discussed sports at Rerum Novarum for a long time- the following was posted to a discussion forum by yours truly on Wed, 20 Oct 2004.

For those who are Yankees fans, I should note in advance that I have no objection to your team - only one player on it. That player used to be a Seattle Mariner and I should note right now why I view one of my former favourites as I currently do. It all boils down to loyalty and being honest my friends.

For you see, when Alex Rodriguez claimed that his resigning with the Seattle Mariners "was not for money" and then went out and signed the richest (by far) contract in sports history with the Texas Rangers, I placed a curse on him of sorts.{1} The criteria of the curse was as follows: may he continually bat over .300, hit 40-50 or more homers a season, drive in 100-110 or more runs a year, and NEVER win a World Series!!! The Yankees acquiring Rodriguez from Texas made that "curse" change cities and now Texas has a better team and they are going to get better still. The Yankees though went from a team I have always respected to a team with a player whom I do not. And contrary to my normal mantra of Mr. Spock where "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", I make an exception when it comes to baseball: damn the team who acquires Rodriguez whomever they are.{2}

Frankly, the sooner the Yankees are eliminated in the process the better it is for me -even though Boston deserves to never win a World Series ever again for selling Babe Ruth!!! The Yanks have too much World Series experience for me to want to risk them going there so I must root for Boston: a team I frankly liked seeing handed their keisters by the Yankees prior to Rodriguez joining that group. But I digress.

Notes:

{1} Lest anyone think this is purely a "sour grapes" bit, I should note that I did no such thing with Randy Johnson or Ken Griffey Jr who left Seattle prior to Alex. In Randy's case, I felt the management stiffed him (claiming he was "too old" and his back was "too questionable") and that he would prove them wrong. His four NL Cy Young Awards made that prediction come true. In Griffey's case, he claimed it was about family and being closer to his family year round that was the reason not money. And he proved this by signing for about seventy-five million less than he could have gotten to play for the Reds.

By stark contrast, Rodriquez obviously lied through his teeth with the talk of the importance of the team and "it's not about money" when quite obviously it was. He did not like playing in a more pitcher friendly Safeco Field, then let him play in all the hitters parks he wants. May he make his money and put up his individual numbers and NEVER win a World Series. That is my wish and I am rooting for former Mariner prospect Derek Lowe and company to shut the door on the Yanks.

As far as Boston is concerned, may they make it to the World Series and lose to the....HOUSTON ASTROS. (Though if the Cardinals make it to the big show, may the trophy go to them.)

{2} Unless (of course) Alex were to return to Seattle for less money as per his originally stated "the money does not matter" mantra. If that happened, I would lift the "curse", forgive him his trespasses, and all would hopefully go back to normal.

A Weblog Amendment:

Essentially I am livid at the notions that the mainstream media (i) can run unpaid commercials for John Kerry in their broadcasting (ii) promote anti-Bush films like Fahrenheit 911 as "documentaries" and yet (iii) have the audacity to try to claim that an actual documentary on John Kerry's which does not paint him in a Messianic light is somehow "an unfair campaign advantage for Bush" and (iv) the Democrats have filed lawsuits to try and prevent that film from being seen.{1} For these reasons, the link below has been added to my Ecumenical Jihad margin of links in perpetuity all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Stolen Honour: The Documentary John Kerry Does Not Want You To See

Note:

{1} Again, did the Republicans file even one lawsuit against Michael Moore for his film??? The answer is no -though many of them did of course criticize the accuracy of the film's portrayal of events -along with some Democrat and Independent voters. Among many such criticisms was this one from Conservative Republican Debbie Schlussel, this one from Libertarian Dave Kopel -who claims to be voting Republican in 2004 for the first time- and this one narrated by Democrat Dick Morris. (The former policy advisor to Bill Clinton in his tenures as first Governor of Arkansas and then as President of the United States.)

I remind you that there were no lawsuits filed by anyone critical of Michael Moore to try and censor his film. (By those often referred to as the ones who supposedly want to "stifle free speech.") But notice that those who claim to be "for freedom of expression" are the very same ones who are trying to shut down freedom of expression on the film Stolen Honour by suing those who try to propagate it!!! The blatant hypocrisy of the so-called "freedom of speech" crowd and their primary presidential candidate again manifests itself in spades.

On Historical Figures, Development of Doctrine, and Briefly on Different Views of Historical People and Events:
(Dialogue With Tim Enloe)

[Prefatory Note: The text to which I will be responding to in full can be read HERE. As far as the response you are about to read, the bulk of it was written over a month ago. - ISM]

Well Shawn, it may be that I'm caricaturing your position. It is hard to pin you papalists down sometimes, since your theology is simultaneously semper eadem and yet always changing via "development of doctrine". Heh.

Imagine that, a bit of what is called "paradox" in theological matters!!! I am hesitant to discuss development of doctrine with you because you have not read familiarized yourself enough with the basic theses that go into and support the overarching theory itself. It would be akin to me discussing exercise science with someone not only ignorant of the seven principles of productive exercise but also lacking an adequate foundation in understanding Dr. Hans Selye's theories of the G.A.S. on the human organism and how to apply them. In other words, it would not be a fruitful use of my time.

Seriously, though, I only mentioned PD as a convenient summary of the "hierocratic" position that I have always taken to be implied by your "root and matrix" phraseology.

Actually, it is not my phraseology. I got it from an Orthodox theologian believe it or not.

No doubt you know that the very word "hierarchy" itself comes from PD (Greek: hierus + archus) and that it was precisely because he in particular was confused with Paul's disciple mentioned in Acts that so many generations of Christians thought his Neoplatonic vision of power descending from the originating One at the top was so in tune with the Christian revelation. Of course there were earlier precedents; I never denied that.

You do seem to deny that a number of foundational principles enunciated by PD were already in place prior to PD -even if the terminology to describe them (and even some of the concepts themselves) are not as precise as they would be later. If I am misunderstanding you here, then it would help to qualify your view a bit.

I just don't understand why you think your case can be proved merely by referring to early precedents.

Aaah but Tim, you are doing the same thing in trying to show a continuity for conciliarist thought as a viable ecclesiological outlook of the Middle Ages!!! I could just as well turn your very attempts around on you with the same question of "how can you prove your case by merely referring to precedents Tim???" Indeed, we could both take this approach and succeed in getting nowhere. Or else we can recognize a couple of necessary presuppositions that go into trying to demonstrate the viability of any proposed theory that would purport to have a long-standing pedigree to it.

The first step in establishing the presumed veracity of any theory involving the enlargement of an earlier principle is to show that the earlier principle (which was subsequently enlarged and developed) has a root in the earlier period in time. It is profoundly difficult (if not impossible) to argue for the enlargement or refinement of an earlier more nebulous conception if evidence of a less-enlarged or less-refined conception are not to be reasonably ascertained in precedents from an earlier time period. Another way of saying it is that if there is no evidence of at least the fundamental points which are present in all manifestations of the conception at the very beginning then it stretches if not obliterates credibility to assert that later manifestations are developments or enlargements of an earlier principle or conception. You obviously recognize this fact to some degree; else why would you try to show support for the kind of conciliarism that came to fruition in the late fourteenth-mid fifteenth centuries with recourse to precedents of earlier centuries??? This sort of thing works both ways yet you seem to want to see it only on one side rather than both for some reason.

All kinds of things have pedigrees.

Yes but the entire purpose of a theory on development of doctrine is to separate legitimate later manifestations of earlier principles from illegitimate ones: legitimate ones being seen as "developments" and illegitimate ones as "corruptions."

Perhaps that's why the early apologist Lactantius ridiculed the argument that truth is guaranteed by appealing to an unbroken succession of rulers, pointing out that pagans reason that way, not Christians. Huh.

It is true that Catholicism does have as a criteria for doctrinal truthfulness an understanding of apostolic succession that involves an unbroken chain if you will. However, there is a good amount more to it than that. You would seem to suggest that Catholic understanding on this issue renders us incapable of knowing whether John Paul II or the Japanese Emperor Akihito heads the Church founded by Christ. Both are parts of a chain of unbroken succession - JP II from Peter and Akihito from Emperor Jimmu. Because you obviously do not believe the aforementioned subject involves that much convolution, I am at a loss to see how you can have the temerity to do with this subject the same kind of oversimplifications that you used to repeatedly deride Catholic Answers (CA) of doing with Protestantism as a whole (in your days at Steve Ray's old board).

I well remember you making the criticism that CA dealt with Protestantism as if the latter were all Fundamentalists. (Indeed, I have often recognized this and agreed with you on the subject.) I therefore have to conclude that you either see this as an example where there is a permissible double standard (i.e. that it is okay for you to do this kind of generalizing but not for CA) or perhaps you simply slipped up here. Out of charity I would presume the latter though admittedly I cannot recall many threads of yours I have read where this problem does not occur with a degree of habituality to render such a presumption (of a mere "slip up" on your part) to be more difficult for me to presume.

Furthermore, as Catholic theology does not guarantee certainty merely by appeal to an unbroken succession of rulers, Lactantius has hardly given you the kind of solid argument against apostolic succession you seem to think he has. If I am reading your comments correctly here, you appear to be asserting that Lactantius ridiculed this argument merely because it has a parallel in how pagans reasoned. I have to ask therefore if you do not believe that there was no possibility that Lactantius might have possessed at least a tad bit of bias against principles that mirrored themselves in paganism. I remind you that Lactantius was of pagan birth and upbringing. Furthermore, his aversion to pagan reasoning and concepts obviously was not a consistent one because he did not seem to have an aversion to the notion of a "Son of God": a term he used to refer to Jesus Christ in his Divine Institutes.

For those who know their history "Son of God" is a quintessentially pre-Christian pagan conception if ever there was one!!! For one example of many I could list, there is the pagan Greek Hercules who was the son of Zeus -the king of the gods. Another example that comes to mind offhand is the character from Babylonian mythology Gilgamesh who was reputed to have been both human and divine. I suppose if Lactantius was really being consistent in the thread of argument that you are advancing, then he would not use "Son of God" to describe Jesus at all -the term itself originating in paganism after all.

I also find it further of interest that you happened to choose from among the Fathers one who was certainly brilliant in his rhetoric and systematic form of argumentation but whose writings had (i) a limited understanding of more complex Christian argumentation and (ii) an even less understanding of the Scriptures. (I doubt you could find a Church Father with less Scriptural familiarity than Lactantius actually.) Lactantius was primarily an apologist of the Justin Martyr school: one that focused more on primary subject matter and less on interconnected secondary issues if you will. For one who seems to want to fight the Enlightenment notions of "pure reason" and the like, your choice of Lactantius from the Fathers to advance a point of argument has some noticable irony to say the least but I digress.

The rest of this note is a little strong, I will warn you in advance, but I know you from your writings enough to know that you can both give and receive strong words.

Shoot.

You've generally speaking taken an uncompromising position toward me, so I'm going to respect you enough to take the same toward you.

I have taken an uncompromising position in some respects this is true. However, I have also sought to represent you fairly in our discussions and have been rather critical of others whom I sensed were not properly representing you. (I doubt I need to remind you of many interventions at Steve Ray's old board when we used to post there and my treatment of some of the less-nuanced and more generalizing of the participants there.)

Now it may be that I'm reading certain features of the worst kind of Medieval papal theory into your Modern papal theory, but you've yet to disabuse me of that notion.

I see you as reading into my views (as well as the views of the Catholic Church) an understanding of ecclesiology that is fundamentally unbalanced. I also see you confusing to some degree the conciliarist backlash of the mid-second millennium with a proper conception of church authority which has two spheres to it if you will. Another way of saying it is that you are pitting papal primacy notions against a conciliarist notion as necessarily antonymous of one another when they are not.

I have mentioned many times that the Catholic understanding of Church authority includes not only papal primacy but also a recognition of the authority of the bishop in his dioceses as being a smaller model in many respects of the pope's authority over the Church. Furthermore, I have noted many times the ancient understanding of episcopal collegiality from which mid-second-millennium conciliarism was a perversion of. (Not that I blame the conciliarists entirely for this of course as the proper understanding of episcopal collegiality had been overshadowed by an expansion of papal prerogatives beyond the ecclesial scope and into matters which they were ill-suited for.) In short, the all-absorbing prerogatives of the early second millennium papacy was bound to result in a backlash with the latter having (to some degree) a viable principle behind their movement.{1}

I don't pretend to understand your life's journey in full, but for a while now various things you've written seem to indicate to me that you were once a "Traditionalist" but now you've so completely and vehemently rejected that position that you seem unable to demonstrate a balanced alternative to it.

I have rejected the excesses of what frequently goes under the banner of "traditionalist" thinking this is true. My alternative if you will is ressourcement oriented which is actually a very balanced approach for those who are interested. (Though it takes a fair amount of research to come to this understanding I admit.)

I cannot quote you directly as I have no "McElhinney Files" corresponding to your "Enloe Files",

Well, there is my weblog and my web essays on various subjects. As far as "Enloe Files" go, it does not bode well for quoting your weblog and posting the links to your actual statements (for verification of usage by the readers) if you delete the texts to which I link to. I have many links to your older weblog which are not working anymore -any information on where that material can now be accessed would be appreciated. (That way I can change the links so that readers can assess my usage of your words if they so choose through easy verification via clicking on the links that go to that material.)

but I will say that I have found various pieces of your rhetoric against Traditionalists to be rather extreme and just about bordering on a blind and perhaps even fideistic acceptance of what you have called "the divinely willed order of things".

You need to take into account the audience I am addressing: people who claim to accept a number of the same foundational presuppositions that I do. Obviously when such people claim this but by their statements manifest an ignorance of the deeper issues involved -including the undeniable truth about Church history having greater variegated theological outlooks to it than the Counter-reformation polemic that they commonly embrace generally likes to admit to- then of course I am not going to meekly interact with their (often very dogmatic) assertions by any stretch. No, in such instances I will take the wrecking ball to them metaphorically speaking.

Now amazingly enough, you are even more long-winded than me so I will admit it is likely I have missed some qualifications and nuances that may be present in your voluminous writings.

Look on the bright side: I am more economical in verse than Ian McLean (SecretAgentMan) is.

But the last time we talked about this you insisted that the proper way to view Christian theology is as "biblical Platonism" and offered supporting examples that I felt could only be construed as such if one was already assuming a Realistic philosophical standpoint--the very thing which is in dispute. Hence, I concluded that your whole perspective is an instance of question-begging and am still waiting for you to provide something more substantial than essentially "Jesus set it up this way, so end of discussion."

If memory serves, I was noting examples within the Scriptures of the very same "Platonist" concepts that you were being critical of. Let us look at the thread itself by quoting the relevant parts in brackets. Your words will be in black and italicized:

Now it is true in one sense that the Papacy is "independent of the words that have been heaped on top of it", and even independent of the texts that historians assemble and weigh. But this is precisely because, contra the ambiguous use of the words in the statement, the Papacy is not an "idea", but a flesh-and-blood thing in the flesh-and-blood world. It grows and changes with time, as all living, breathing things do.

Again, why the "either/or"??? There are ideas in the abstract and there are ideas which being put into a specific form thereby move from the merely intangible to the tangible. But that does not mean that they lack an intangible element to them.

What the statement is really asking of us under cover of the ambigous term "idea of the Papacy" is to think and act like Platonists--that is, to capitalize "Idea" and imagine that that "Idea" (or in Platonic language, that "Form") is the metaphysically-independent, ontologically-unchangeable archetype for every physical manifestation of "pope" that ever has or ever will appear in the world of space and time.

Before continuing this subject, it would behoove the readers to take note of how "Platonist" many parts of the Scriptures are. Some examples worth noting are these...

For the sake of economy of verse, I will snip here the fifteen odd examples under seven major headings that I posted as supporting evidence of an arguable biblical witness to concepts of "Platonism" and post the concluding portion of this citation.

If the Catholic approaches the papacy with a degree of Platonist rationale, it would seem that there is no shortage of precedent set in the Scriptures for doing this. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa October 24, 2003]

My argument in other words was not "question-begging" unless having recourse to the Scriptures to provide evidence for positions one espouses is "question-begging." As the latter would call into question by logical implication the entire biblical methodology as employed by the Protestant self-styled "reformers", you would be skating on thin ice to upbraid me for utilizing the same methodology simply because you do not agree with the positions I defend.

I guess that works for Catholics, but it leaves the rest of us scratching our heads wondering when you guys will ever show us some basic respect and stop pretending that merely invoking mantras and axioms constitutes meaningful Christian discourse.

First of all, everyone relies on axioms who does not want to reinvent the wheel on every discussion. So this charge is hardly as one-sided as you want to make it. In your tradition you have three solas which serve as your axioms and Protestants invoke them by implication at least as often as Catholics invoke axioms of theirs.{2} Furthermore, I have noted publicly on many occasions the willingness to dialogue with you on foundational presuppositions that undergird the operative points of view from which we see the same subjects. There is no recourse to axioms in such a format - simply an examination of what goes into how you and I (and others of differing worldviews) view the evidences that we see from divers sources. That offer is still open should you want to take me up on it. For one who is critical of "axiomatic argumentation" this should be a subject that would be of interest to you but I digress.

See, that's what drives me nuts about your kind of ecclesiology. Whatever I'm missing about the Possibly Really Nuanced Views of I. Shawn McElhinney, I have read and interacted with a lot of primary sources relevant to the development of the "general school" of papalist theory of which you appear to me to be a dedicated adherent.

I am an adherent to the teachings of the Catholic Church, not necessarily to the means whereby they are commonly enunciated. All too often people read too much into a statement or too little -or they make assumptions about the proper sense of a text that it in no way conveys. It is probably safe to say that you are likewise an adherent to the axiomatic "solas" of the sixteenth century but not necessarily to the ways that they are commonly represented.

And I'll tell you this, Shawn, the more I learn about the position of ultra-dogmatic hierocratic papalism and the more I see its divisive and destructive course passing through the history of the Church, the less sympathy I have for it and its Modern defenders.

I do not recall requesting any sympathy from you or anyone else. However, the shoe fits both ways.

For the more I learn about the via moderna paradigm that undergirded the weltanschauungs of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and company -and note the destructive pseudo-"Enlightenment" principles that flow from the arbitrary notions of said "reformers" with the corresponding deChristianization of the west in subsequent centuries up to the current day- I am hardly one who has sympathies for those who want to prescribe the same "remedy" for curing Christendom as the one pro-offered by those of the sixteenth century who are often called "reformers." Whatever excesses and problems that the medieval expansions of the papacy had on Christendom, they were nowhere near akin to those which the novel notions of subjectivity introduced into Christendom by the "reformers" such as Luther and company entailed.{3} But that is neither here nor there.

I have offered to set aside all of these a priori axiomatic positions on our parts{4} and go to the root of the entire plant: the foundational presuppositions that we both have. Let us consider them in dialogue and how they shape our respective views of reality.

Modern Catholics are surely a lot "nicer" than their Medieval forebears, but they're still as a general rule just as rationalistically rigid, just as immune to reasonable criticism, and just as unable to see the forest of their own schismatic tendencies for the trees of their Beautiful Grand Ideas about "the Church".

Modern Protestants are a lot nicer than their sixteenth century forebearers too but (as a rule) they are just as dogmatic about their subjectivist and individualistic views of the subjects of controversy, just as unwilling to call into question the very foundation of the basket in which they often put all their theological/philosophical eggs (meaning the so-called "reformation"), just as prone to fideism when their methodologies are stripped down to brass tacks, and just as prone to fits of rage when this is pointed out to them. Again, this kind of criticism cuts both ways.

Modern popes aren't hermetically sealed off from their forebears but are still profoundly shaped by what their forebears did.

And Protestants today are somehow not shaped by the views and deeds of their forebearers???

And the popes of the mid-14th century clear through to the end of the 16th were simply arrogant fools who destroyed Christendom in the name of their own personal prerogatives and repeatedly refused to take responsibility for their own actions--preferring instead to blame all the "heretics" who "contumaciously" denied "Divine Law".

What a simplistic assertion this is!!! How is this any different than me saying that all the so-called "reformers" were seditionists who were out for their own glory and were desirous of others following them instead of Rome or other authorities??? How on earth do these kinds of broadbrush caricatures serve any worthwhile purpose Tim???

Well if you want "contumacy" and rebellion against what was good for the WHOLE of Christian society rather than what was good only for the selfish Roman See with its utterly bloated understanding of its place relative to other authorities...

And whom are we to trust as having the good of the WHOLE of Christian society as their altrusitic mission??? Why those whom Tim says did of course!!! How wonderfully question-begging this whole enterprise happens to be...

you ought to try an experiment.

Just me huh???

That is, try to stop seeking facile refuge in pious aphorisms about what your "faith" requires you to believe (regardless of the actual course of the world over many centuries)

Tim, I am reminded here of my attempts to show you your obvious inconsistencies on this score with the subject of the Trinity in years gone by. The responses I received for this from you at the time were (to put it nicely) far from the usual irenic tonality that has for the most part characterized our discussions. Indeed, your entire thread of response at that time was an attempt to take uncritical refuge in certain beliefs that you accept without questioning of them as much as you may assert of any uniquely Catholic one (or ones) that I adhere to. Mr. Spock would scratch his head in puzzlement at the attempt to have it both ways on your part but I digress.

and take a good long, hard critical look at John XXII, John XXIII, Eugenius IV, Pius II, Sixtus IV, the Renaissance Popes, Julius II, and Leo X before you look at John of Paris and William Durandus the Younger and William of Ockham and the conciliarists and Wessel Gansfort and Luther and Calvin.

What makes you think I have not already done this Tim??? It must be the fact that I do not agree with you that somehow I could not have done this -your view of these subjects being merely the perspicuous historical understanding of these matters all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Indeed, I have looked at every name you have noted on that list and have studied the subjects pretty thoroughly{5} except for William Durandus (of whom my familiarity is pretty scant by my own admission). I will not claim to have read every scrap of material out there on any of these subjects and I know you have not either.

Those men tried to save the Church;

As I see it, often they tried to save their own theological opinions first and foremost. Do not for an instant try to tell me that the motives of William of Ockham were pure -particularly since the Franciscan Spiritualist movement he was a part of was on the receiving end of a papal condemnation by John XXII. Gee, there was no personal interest on his part of trying to undermine the pope who had condemned the movement to which he was an adherent of. Nope, Ockham was purely Schwitzerian in his whole outlook. Yeah right, he had a beef against John XXII because the latter condemned a movement to which he was a strong adherent. That was probably the motivating factor against his invective against the papacy as a whole: to get at John XXII who was on the whole a pretty good pope. The latter's one character flaw was that he was temperamental by nature. He was also not a spiritual man in the manner which is ideal for a pope to be; nonetheless that is hardly worth the invective which you would seem to throw at him.

I fail to see why you raise John of Paris in this discussion since the only episcopal power which ever censured him was his own bishop. John of Paris from what I can deduce was willing to retract the areas where he erred (on matters of faith) if he could be shown that they were de fide. My guess is that you picked John of Paris because he took the side of secular rulers against Boniface VIII in the Church-State conflicts of the late-thirteenth and early fourteenth century. As his position defended the king's right to depose a pope but not the converse; the logical implications of his outlook was the later Erastian model which -like the Caesaropapist model prior to it- made the Church subordinate to the State.

Whatever the problems of Boniface VIII (and there were many), he at the very least recognized this danger for what it was (and is) even if his motives were mixed at best. Indeed, it is a presumed superiority of the temporal over the spiritual that is the hallmark of movements such as the so-called "Enlightenment", empiricism, atheism, communism, fascism, and nazi socialism. And it can be argued that all of the above have a trajectory back to your beloved "reformation" which started the entire notion of mass revolt against authority in the first place{6} but enough on that subject for now.

As far as Eugenius IV and Pius II go, my guess is that you have a beef with them because of their support for the doctrine of papal primacy -Eugenius IV who oversaw its definition at Florence in the all-important sixth session of that synod{7} and Pius II. The latter is interesting because as Aenis Silvio Piccolomini, Pius II supported your particular weltanschauung of conciliarism.{8}

The latter position was what he took in his earlier non-clerical (and dare I note hedonistic) days. Later on, after he had undergone a religious reformation and also assumed the clerical state, he opposed your precious conciliarism -issuing as pope the Apostolic Letter Excrabilis. Other than a bit of nepotism, he was a good pope. You probably do not like him because he had the temerity in your eyes to oppose conciliarism. Any notion that a pope would oppose conciliarism of the mid second millennium because it was an actual error seems to be ruled out of court in advance by you. This is an example of filtering the evidences you obtain through a preconceived hermeneutic of your own whether you realize it or not.

Furthermore, the "Renaissance Popes" tag is very wide and such fundamentalist-like broadbrush painting strokes are unbefitting of someone who would attempt to lecture others about history.{9} There were good and bad popes of this period: it was not one giant black mark as you assert. Sixtus IV was a mixed bag certainly (to put it nicely) but he was hardly the "embodiment of all things evil" that you would seem to say of him.{10} Julius II was a good military commander and humanist but a very poor priest -and popes are supposed to be priests first and foremost. (Thus, his defects were not minor by any stretch but then again: I never said they were.) Likewise Leo X was not a good priest by any stretch either -he was too taken in by the excesses of the Renaissance and clearly intended to "enjoy" his pontificate rather than actually take serious actions towards needed church reformation.{11}

I would not (and never have) returned a favourable overall verdict on Sixtus IV, Julius II, or Leo X. About all that can be said of them is that when they did their duty (as Sixtus IV did in annuling Frequens and Leo X did with issuing the Apostolic Letter Exsurge Domine against Luther) their actions are commendable. That the latter situations were far less frequent than their other less commendable (again to put it nicely) activities is unfortunately true; however I have never pretended that it was otherwise. In many respects, the popes and their adversaries were men of their own times. A historical inquiry that seeks to be just has to take this into account at all times or else it fails in any reasonable attempt to be objective with the evidences. Even if it is not fully achievable, objectivity should always be the goal in such inquiries. Otherwise, the inquirer is involved in plugging bits and pieces from the historical record into their own preconceived weltanschauung and not trying to do a service to truth at all.

the popes just tried to save their own pride.

All of this is question-begging Tim. I am not about to pretend that all the popes you note had sterling motives by any stretch. But you seem far too willing to presume that those who styled themselves as "reformers" were pure of motive and merely altruistic. They made no significant errors at all indeed they could not have because they "meant well." This is akin to the outlook of political liberals who eschew substantive policies in the name of those promoting token (or "symbolic") gestures "meaning well" regardless of the actual worth (or lack thereof) of what they had to offer.

Check, and mate.

Only if it is legitimate to beg the question can you claim that there is some kind of "checkmate" here. But if it is okay to beg the question, then all your criticisms of me are without valid foundation since that is what you accuse me of doing. So if your accusations of me are correct, then your approach is internally contradictory and illogical. One cannot achieve checkmate when they take a step backwards for every step forwards on the proverbial "chessboard" and essentially are peddling in place but I digress.

I have little patience these days for men who talk big about "history" but then fly off into the world of invisible, immutable, infallibly known Platonic Forms and pretend they're engaging the issues in a way that automatically places the burden of proof on everyone else.

You would seem to see this as a case of others having to defend their positions but of you as receiving some kind of "free pass" to avoid the same kind of scrutiny. It is as if you by virtue of being Tim Enloe can merely posit whatever you want (however convoluted and internally contradictory) and people should merely accept it without question. Such a stance in practice (regardless of what you say in theory) is a kind of defacto assertion of infallibility on your part because whatever lip service is being paid to you being fallible, you sure are stone certain of your positions...at least for the moment anyway.{12}

For one who now has a big interest in history --something you used to deride me about back on the old Converts board interestingly enough-- and who is dead set against Enlightenment notions of "pure empiricist" understandings of things, you sure seem to want to confine all historical research or understanding to this plane.

Indeed your deriding of the "invisible" or the "intangible" is amazingly similar to how agnostics and atheists attack the outlooks of people of religious conviction. They too reject beliefs in what cannot be seen and see what is visible as having pre-eminence over all. They too see religious explanations (which usually involve a degree of the intangible by their very nature) as being inadequate and prefer mathematical and scientific ones. Their reasons for this: mathematical and scientific ones are emperical whereas theories about the supernatural are not; ergo, they can verify empirical evidence whereas evidence of non-tangible sorts cannot be so they throw it out of court without a hearing as defacto false.

You appear to have an Enlightenment view of history fundamentally speaking if you reject any notion of the invisible or the supernatural (aka "non-tangible") elements that are involved. I remind you that it is the Enlightenment sorts who are purely empiricist in their approach to subject matters. And of course should you accept any invisible or non-tangible elements, you are then being purely arbitrary in your approach to limit such factors to only what YOU happen to like and disregard the rest: an approach that smacks of the kind of purely arbitrary subjectivist rationale common to those whose paradigm of reference is grounded in solipsism.{13} But I digress.

Metaphorically speaking, a pox on your Roman house if you can't provide anything better than that. 2,000 years of Christian theological discussion and you Catholics still want to think like pagan Greeks, still want to mess around with childish things like Forms and Essences and this great quest for infallible creaturely knowledge.

Considering that the major doctrines about God were framed in the fourth and fifth centuries on principles borrowed from Greek philosophy, I want to see you become consistent and jettison everything: notions of the Trinity, of God having three "persons" in one "being." Notions of Jesus possessing two "natures", all the beliefs that are based on these "pagan Platonist" notions. Become a man and put away these things which you deem "childish." Or else cease your inconsistent, arbitrary, and (dare I say it) childish carping and discuss real issues rather than simply expect people to accept what you say simply because you say it.{14} But of course you will continue to arbitrarily accept the earlier trinitarian doctrines without subjecting them to the same empiricist historical scrutiny that you do later developments that you do not like.

Consistency in short is hardly a concern it seems to your particular weltanschauung. Pardon those of us who have actual criterion of what separated a valid theory from an invalid one -and who see your theories (from what we can discern of them) as being of the latter rather than the former classification.

Say, how about helping yourselves to a little real "development of doctrine"?

As I noted at the beginning of this note, you are out of place attempting to talk intelligently about this subject since you have continued to claim you have not read not familiarized yourself enough with Newman's theory on development: a deficiency that renders impotent any attempts you make to reference his theory productively in these kinds of discussions{15} even if the reference is in the form of an "aside comment" as you ended your note with.

Now then, what has any of this (what you said or what I just said) got to contribute to fruitful dialogue??? Do you want to continue to criticize axiomatic references by others while refusing to relinquish your own axioms -or presume without warrant that those who disagree with your interpretation of history to be in need of an "education" on the basis of them disagreeing with your interpretations thereof???

I will close again with another invitation to dialogue on foundational presuppositions -as I have extended to you on numerous occasions in the past year. I have less time for this enterprise than I did previously but I do not see a timelimit of sorts on this discussion; therefore I make the invitation to discuss these subjects with you again.

Let me know if you are actually interested or not -and do not take offense please at how I will interpret a lack of interest here on your part in light of the way you seem to want to approach the complex vissitudes of church history.

Notes:

{1} It is my opinion that the backlash against the papal centralization began after the Council of Vienne (1311-1312) when Pope Clement V basically told the Council Fathers that either they went along with him on a particular judgment -and thus it would be decreed in the name of the pope and other bishops- or the pope would do it himself. Whatever problems there are in conciliarist theories -and there are many from a functional as well as historical aspect- it is not difficult to understand the undercurrents that developed at the time and would affect the Church until the so-called "reformation" and also the later Jansenist heresy. [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum series An Outline of Various Church Models Throughout History (November 24, 2003)]

{2} See this link where I go over workable definitions for concepts such as theory and thesis.

{3} The Enlightenment is clearly an offspring of the "reformation" in the manner whereby (i) what is valued is individualism over the common good (ii) they both entail a rejection of an objective religious truth in favour of a subjective notion of individuals being free to believe (or not believe) as they choose and (iii) a rebellion against authority.

{4} Which in a sense is what they are because you came into your study of theology with antipathy towards Catholicism and in my case it was to some extent the converse.

{5} Albeit not all the names have been studied with the exact same degree of comprehensiveness of course. (No one can claim they have given equal time to every subject you list -not even you can do this.)

{6} And (of course) the attempts of the so-called "reformers" to claim religious authority themselves was of such a subjective and arbitrary nature that the later so-called "enlighened" (for all of their flaws) at least saw what following the formulae of the so-called "reformers" out to its logical extension entailed.

{7} Where he sought the assistance of the eastern Emperor and Greek theologians of the eastern Churches to forge a reunion of Christendom which ultimately did not work out.

{8} I am sure you are aware of his role as secretary to one of the conciliarist bishops at Basle in 1432 and also his role with the election of an antipope Felix V to "replace" Eugenius IV whom he believed was lawfully deposed by the Basle synod in 1439.

{9} Based on how you sought to list the personages in your response, it certainly appears as if you are trying to lecture me on this matter.

{10} My guess is that your main beef with him was his annulment of the decree Frequens - a decree which (unlike Haec Sacrosancta) was actually approved by his predecessors after it was voted on at Constance.

{11} I say "serious" because Lateran V was a half-hearted (at best) attempt by Leo X and Julius II to reform the Church. As far as your pope list goes, I am surprised you did not mention Alexander VI: someone who was one of worst popes in Church history and by far worse than any of his contemporaries. (You have to go back to the tenth century and part of the eleventh to find popes who rivaled or were worse than him.)

{12} In light of how often you have deleted past writings of yours or radically reconfigured over and over again various stances you have taken (which you were equally stone-certain about in the past), I find this notion of being some "supra-historical man" rather strange.

{13} A definition of solipsism can he read at the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG.

{14} Your own form of the "Jesus set it up this way, so end of discussion" axiom except it is more of a "Tima locuta est" kind of rationale.

{15} See footnote two.

{16} Since writing the bulk of this note, I have learned that you recently read Newman's theory on development as of late. (The strike marks in the above text were added to what was originally written to reflect this circumstance.) However, there is still a HUGE difference between reading something and actually comprehending it. (The latter is usually not well done in too close a proximity to the first reading of a work: particularly a work that expressly aims to set forth a theory and all that goes into that endeavour.) This is a subject I noted in responding to David Palm's manifested intention to interact with a writing of mine that he had merely skimmed at best and clearly (based on what he said about it) did not properly comprehend. You can read my criticisms of David and this methodology HERE. I submit that if you are not careful, you will do with Newman's work what David has done with mine.

Miscellaneous Musings on the Hypocrisy of So-Called Liberal "Tolerance"

Miscellaneous Threads For Viewing:

More may be added to this list later this evening but in the meantime...

--According to Debbie Schlussel, conservatives should enjoy Trey Parker and Matt Stone's latest cinema creation Team America World Police.{1}

--Though it is a bit old (meaning it dates back about three weeks), this link from Christopher Blosser's Watching Michael Moore BLOG is of interest to this commentator. For you see, Dick Morris (former Clinton political advisor and narrator of a new documentary FahrenHYPE 911){2} has challenged Michael Moore to a debate. To quote briefly from the article "Joe Louis once said of a fighter who enters the ring with him that he can run but he can't hide. It is time for Michael Moore to come out of hiding and answer for the misrepresentations, misconceptions and mischaracterizations in his movie." Moore vs. Morris: talk about a mismatch of epic proportions!!!

--As the previous link seems to present an appropriate time to repost Fifty-Nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11, that is what will be done at this time.

--This writer found the following thread on Pro-Democrat vote fraud earlier today when perusing NewsMax. It ties in nicely with what was talked about in yesterday's audioblog post to this humble weblog on election voting.

--This thread on French News Wire Propaganda from Little Green Footballs is interesting because it shows yet again whose side of the war on terror the French news agency Agence France Presse is actually on. Charles points out the wider context that Agence France Presse conveniently did not i nclude in their story. Presumably they would say that this was an "accidental oversight" or "not germane to the story." Yeah right!!!

--In other LGF news, Russian President Vladimir Putin makes the "startling" announcement that "International terrorism has as its goal to prevent the election of President Bush to a second term"..."If they achieve that goal, then that will give international terrorism a new impulse and extra power." Very astute observation Mr. President, We at Rerum Novarum happen to concur with that viewpoint as well.

Notes:

{1} The creators of South Park apparently slam many media liberals and their allies such as Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin, Michael Moore, the French, and others. Those unfamiliar with Parker and Stone's work (which this writer to some degree is familiar as he watches South Park on occasion) may not be aware that Parker and Stone are basically equal opportunity satirists.

{2} Which unlike Moore's work is an actual documentary rather than a Mein Kampf style propaganda piece. With regards to Morris, if truth be told, whether you agree with him or not (and this commentator has disagreed with Morris a number of times), he is nonetheless one of the most brilliant political tacticians of this generation.

Miscellaneous Musings on Elections and Voting

More on the New "Boston Heresy" Case:

As regular readers of Rerum Novarum are aware, Mark Balestrieri (a canonist and founder of De Fide) filed a libellus against Senator John Kerry in the Ecclesiastical Court of the Archdiocese of Boston for professing as a baptized Catholic the belief in abortion. There has been an update to report since that time and that is the purpose of this post. While the Archdioceses of Boston reviews the case, Mr. Balestrieri filed a two question dubia with the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the matter. The dubia was sent on August 30, 2004. A response was received by him on September 11, 2004 authored by Fr. Basil Cole OP, STD.

The request for an unofficial response by Fr. Cole was made by the Very Reverend Augustine de Noia OP - Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's undersecretary at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Vatican City. Here is the full text of Fr. Cole's response to Mr. Balestrieri's inquiry. It is to be hoped that this will weigh heavily on a positive decision by the Archdioceses of Boston to try this case and call Senator Kerry to answer these accusations. As this case is historically and procedurally unprecedented under the 1983 Code of Canon Law, any support you can provide for Mr. Balestrieri in this endeavour would be beneficial in setting a precedent for future trials of "Catholic" politicians under the laws of the Catholic Church.

[Update: As part of the text at the above PDF file is in Latin, it seems appropriate to post a translation of the two questions of the dubia which Mr. Balestrieri submitted to the CDF. The article posted HERE has that and some additional material that the reader may find of interest. - ISM 10/18/04 7:31pm]

Miscellaneous Notes on the Election and Campaign Strategies in General

On the Second Debate:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

I have to say it since most of the talking heads will not: Bush won this debate. He was a lot more composed, he avoided the facial scowls and other gaffes that impaired perception of him in the first debate, and the townhall format which allowed for candidates to roam a bit helped him.{1} He also displayed a sense of humour at times -even self deprecatingly so and this can only help with perceptions among anyone who actually is still undecided.{2}

The forum was composed of supposedly "undecided" voters who were the ones who asked the questions and this worked a lot better than having Jim Lehrer throwing hand grenades at Bush and softballs at Kerry.{3} Kerry for his part (based on what I saw of the first debate) did better there with the podium probably because that is how things are done in the Senate with those who come to the floor for speeches. Here he did not look as comfortable walking about but part of that may have been that Bush actually came to fight this time.

It took him a while to really get going{4} but once he did, not only was Kerry kept noticably offbalance most of the night but a couple points where Bush clearly struggled, Kerry did not capitalize on them as he could have. It is not so much that Kerry lost much between the two debates as Bush gained significantly: he started hitting Kerry on his record and making repeated references to his contradictions -responding to several of Kerry's longerwinded and nebulous offerings with "I did not understand what he just said, did you???" kind of comments. And of course, he had what may in retrospect be his equivalent to President Reagan's "I paid for this microphone" moment in his second Carter debate in 1980{5} This moment came at about the twenty-eight minute mark after Kerry lied about the US "going unilaterally" into Iraq. Though Bush had a minor edge up to this point, here is the text of the pivotal point of the debate:

KERRY: We're going to build alliances. We're not going to go unilaterally. We're not going to go alone like this president did.

GIBSON: Mr. President, let's extend for a minute...

BUSH: Let me just -- I've got to answer this.

GIBSON: Exactly. And with Reservists being held on duty... (CROSSTALK)

BUSH: Let me answer what he just said, about around the world.

GIBSON: Well, I want to get into the issue of the back-door draft...

BUSH: You tell Tony Blair we're going alone. Tell Tony Blair we're going alone. Tell Silvio Berlusconi we're going alone. Tell Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland we're going alone.

There are 30 countries there. It denigrates an alliance to say we're going alone, to discount their sacrifices. You cannot lead an alliance if you say, you know, you're going alone. And people listen. They're sacrificing with us.

Kerry then contradicted himself (surprise surprise) by claiming that countries were "leaving the coalition." Of course how they could "leave" a coalition when we were "going unilaterally" (Kerry 29 minutes into the debate vs. Kerry 28 minutes into the debate) is a mystery to me. But then again, to see yet another position reversal by the junior Senator from MA but after probably a few hundred of them in this election season alone (not to mention Kerry's senate voting inconsistencies) is not surprising. Instead it is tiring and predictable.

Because he sought to expose Senator Kerry's senate record (and succeeded in highlighting key contradictions in Kerry's position - even in his campaign positions on the war), this debate has to go to the President. He could have done a better job but compared to the first debate, the improvement was significant. And he took the fight to Kerry this time unlike last time where he (from the text as I did not see the debate live) did not make the effort to unmask Kerry before the viewing audience. This enabled Kerry to remain confident before whereas that swagger was gone this time. Instead it was Bush who was swaggering -arguably a bit too much- but it was clear to all but most of the meatheads of MSM (and the died-in-the-wool sorts who would vote for"anybody but Bush") who won this debate. But Bush cannot rest on his laurels here. He must be more forceful in the third debate and hit these same points harder. The Duelfer report (released yesterday and mentioned in passing by both candidates) is predominantly favourable to President Bush and undermines Kerry's foreign policy plans. The president needs to use this as a source to go hard at Kerry in the third debate. He won the second debate handily but not to the extent that he lost the first one. If he turns in a performance akin to that of yesterday's he probably will not succeed because Kerry will be ready unlike for the second debate.{6} So if he wants to take from Kerry a golden opportunity to score points in the third debate and close the gap between them, he has to win the third debate or at least draw a stalemate. And yesterday's performance duplicated will not be enough for either if Kerry is even moderately capable of adapting in light of what happened in the second debate.


Notes:

{1} As one who likes to roam a bit when I talk, I can see that President Bush has this preference too.

{2} Perhaps the one thing that helped both candidates a bit was the ability to take notes at various points during the opponent's speaking to collect points to touch on in responding.

{3} I have read most of the first debate's text and that is precisely what was happening there.

{4} Twenty-eight plus minutes into the ninety minute debate to be more precise.

{5} Or Reagan's quip about age and how he "refused to take advantage of [his] opponents' youth and inexperience" in the second 1984 debate.

{6} Unless tanking the first debate to get Kerry to underestimate him for the second debate -where the format was more favourable to the president- was a plan of Karl Rove. If it was, then it worked quite nicely.