"Down on the Corner" Dept.
(A Rerum Novarum Triple Slam)

In the styling of Our JunkYard BLOG and Volokh Conspiracy larger threads posted on occasion,{1} We offer the following from National Review Online at their Corner BLOG:

MEDIA-BIAS MOMENTS [Tim Graham]

As you head into the weekend, you might enjoy exploring the following topics in current media bias. Or they might make your head explode. You decide.

1. Does the media always reduce the federal budget debate into little heart-tugging political ads about how the poor will have their hearts ripped out by supposed Republican budget slashers? See here.

2. Why is a 30-year-old allegation of sexual fondling against a comedian considered "news" by CBS, but a 20-year-old allegation of rape against a sitting president is not? See here. [LINK]

Of course Tim Graham does not say anything about these issues that have not been enunciated before at this humble weblog and many others. Nonetheless, it is worth reiterating it again so that those who do not comprehend the obvious double standard involved here maybe will in time with enough inculcation.{2}


WARD CHURCHILL [Jonah Goldberg ]

If you hadn't figured out from my column I disagree with what seems to be the consensus view among conservatives about Ward Churchill. I think he should be canned. It would be preferable if they could do it for cause -- i.e. find fraud, or malfeasance or some such -- but if not I still think he should go. I appreciate the arguments on the other side from a lot of smart folks, but at the end of the day he should never have been hired in the first place (has anyone found out if he was hired as part of a "diversity" program on account of his almost certainly fictional Indian status?). And while I understand the worries of a "chilling-effect" backlash, I think academic freedom would actually be better served if he were fired in the long run. Right now the left chills speech it doesn't like with impunity and there is no sign that they see any reason to stop. Perhaps if they realized that this is a two way street we might get some more appreciation for real ideological diversity. [LINK]

Frankly, We must disagree with Jonah Goldberg on this one with one caveat. In Our view, if the university can find other reasons for dismissing Professor Churchill then that would be okay grounds for doing so. But his moronic comments about those in the Towers being "little Eichmans" and "deserving" what they got should not be grounds for firing him for one reason: it would be a source of various "suppression of free speech" cries from the contemporary ignorant who fail to realize that (logically speaking) any authentic freedom must possess a contingent responsibility attached to it.

Now admittedly while such an outcry would be both predictable as well as provide Us and many others with an opportunity to fisk such pseudo-"progressivist" lunacies; at the same time, it would be better to retain Professor Churchill if they cannot find other grounds to dismiss him. In Our view, if fraud or incompetence can be demonstrated, that would be a good way to open up a discussion on "affirmative action" style hiring or "quota preferences" and the inexorable diminishment of quality that results from such practices. That in Our view is a far better argument to have than "suppression of free speech part mcmlxxxiv" would be.


WRITING OFF ROMNEY [K. J. Lopez ]

What an obnoxious editorial in the NYTimes this morning about Massachusetts cloning. The editors begin: “Let's hope Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts was posturing for a national audience of conservative Republicans when he came out strongly for a ban on some of the most promising stem cell research planned at prominent institutions in his state.”

%#@%$!

I’ve already joked that I’ve been charmed by Romney. But no Boston reporter at yesterday’s press conference is going to persuasively tell me that he wasn’t impressed by how considered Romney was on the issue (I wasn’t in Boston, but listened to the audio). I wish he had gone all out and opposed using IVF embryos as well as creating new embryos for research, but he would have gotten nowhere had he taken that position there, for one thing. At the moment he’s really starting at a point where he’s reaching out: He says, ok, we can use frozen embryos. There’s meeting the other side at a point where they should be able to cooperate. And let’s look at all the many alternatives to using embryos in the first place.

See Romney’s problem seems to be—and I have no doubt this has something to do with his wife’s M.S.—he has really thought through this issue. So he gets it. He was citing that Dr. Hurlburt, who the bioethics commission had at their last meeting—who’s talking about another alternative possibility for the future. In other words, he just understands the issue just so much more than most pols and reporters writing on it.

Is he doing it because he wants to be president? Maybe. But I buy that he actually believes this stuff. And, to be brutally honest, he may fail, so I’m not sure as a political strategy it would be the world’s best road to the White House. But regardless, I think where he is right now is laudable and important and he deserves support from those of us who oppose human cloning, for taking this on.

I'll have a little more on this all in a bit. [LINK]

Basically K-Lo is on target here. It is probable that Gov. Romney's family situation has driven his stance on this issue. And if he was doing this for political aspirations, then he needs to fire his advisors because this is not a "safe" stance to be taking politically. Instead, it is a definite stance which will have repercussions politically -particularly since most of those opposed to Romney are (i)not very well informed on these issues yet (ii) control the apparati of the mainstream media (MSM) and are adept at arguing by soundbyte. Gov. Romney could very well win the arguments but lose in the realm of perception by virtue of being demonized by the soundbyte in the MSM. Nonetheless, this kind of stand shows backbone regardless of the reason he has for taking it and (therefore) should be of interest to the Republicans who are looking for someone to run in '08{3} even as We write this.

Notes:

{1} We just realized that it has been almost eighteen months since we posted a Volokh Conspiracy superthread. That negligence will be partially rectified soon with a new thread as time allows for it.

{2} Orrrr perrrhaaaaps Weeee couuuuld slooowwwwww Ourrrr verrrballlllll caaaaaadenceeeesssss dooownnnnnnnn fooorrrrrrr themmmmm.

{3} And for those who think Jeb Bush is a candidate, it is Our view that he would lose for one important reason (among others): Americans do not like political dynasties and a third Bush presidency would be precisely that.

Points to Ponder:

Psychiatrists are beginning to turn toward notions of evil, even while they make noises about defining religion as a pathology. Rational religious folks are starting to reassert that religion can be rational, and to apply that understanding to social constructs. Secularists continue their mutual indoctrination. Meanwhile, Islamofascists are working to undermine and destroy Western civilization in multiple ways, and the response in many Western nations still resembles a person the morning after a late, indulgent night alternately struggling to wake up and to ignore the faint alarm and continue sleeping. [Justin Katz (circa 02/10/04)]

On Condoleeza Rice and Her Speech to the French, "Liberty"/"Equality"/"Fraternity", Etc.

On "Social Commentary" and St. Blog's "Awards":
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

As voting takes place in various categories for the various St. Blog's "Awards", it seems appropriate after noting my picks in various categories something that seems to be overlooked in how those listed in certain categories are picked. For example, this weblog was apparently nominated in the "best social commentary" category which is of course appreciated. However, upon looking at other nominees in that category,{1} it gives me reason to wonder what people are thinking when they nominate for various categories. For one thing, that the late Gerard Serafin's stellar weblog received no finalist consideration for anything is a crying shame. It makes this whole thing a charade to me from the get go but that point aside, let us consider the "best social commentary" category and what that category should entail.

First of all, let us get real: if we really want to get technical about it, (and modesty aside for the duration of this note) this category should be a three blog race between Rerum Novarum, Southern Appeal, and Dust in the Light. No one else who is nominated in that category of the "big five" finalists has anything particularly original to offer in these areas. All of which (thus far) confirms my long-viewed assessment about the "worth" of these kinds of awards: the predictable ones win and those who are truly creative in their analysis and suggestions (as in the three noted above are to some extent) tend to be more marginalized. But of course as assertions by themselves are cheap, here are several examples which pertain to the subject of social commentary as dealt with at Rerum Novarum --all of which are to some degree original (either in and of themselves) or in my development/refining of the underlying concepts involved.{2}

To start with, there is the renewal, further development (in some parameters), and careful application of the classical legal and economic theories of Claude Frederic Bastiat to the problems that beset society today -thereby providing a logical coherence to the authentic conservative position on these matters. The latter is a project that is an ongoing one at this weblog and from which there are probably thirty or forty threads from 2004 alone which would easily fit into this category. More will be taking place in 2005 as time allows for it -as this is an ambitious undertaking that has no small amount of work involved in it. But a short word on this process (since I see it as of no small significance) before moving onto the other subjects to be covered in this post.

For if nothing else at Rerum Novarum was accomplished in two and a half years (and for the remaining duration of this weblog's existence however long that will be), than the aforementioned ambitious project which has been undertaken here, the fact that I have sought to provide a consistent (and adaptable) rationale for advancing an agenda contrary to that which prevails in the society at large should suffice all by itself for that category. The subject being covered here is particularly pertinent to the whole subject because it involves an entire weltanschauung that is not only congruent with Catholic principles but which could be accepted by non-Catholics solely on the basis of the consistency of the positions and their relative logic thereof. (In other words, it has a dual benefit and is not only aimed at Catholics.) But of course there are others threads to consider too -some of which would be among the posts falling in the aforementioned area but nonetheless (to list roughly one per month):

--My posts on religious liberty and its application at large (particularly the one from December of 2004) which discusses the important components of any asserted "liberty" or "right" in a society. This has ramifications for a whole host of issues and therefore is of no small value.

--My musings on the role of the double effect principle in ethical argumentation as it pertains to issues which involve both the natural and supernatural. (Circa December of 2004.)

--The development of a unique application of the third party concept that could actually work in practice if implemented at the grass roots level over the next sixteen to twenty years. (Circa November of 2004.)

--My posts on voting circa September of 2004 -the one from the twenty-fifth on taking an integrated approach to voting and the one from the eighth on the myopic approach of pro lifers which is ultimately a self-defeating one.

--Posts such as the occasional "argumentation fallacy" posts which deal with the subject of how one properly utilizes reason and logic in argumentation. (The most recent one is circa August of 2004.) These are not directly involved with the social commentary subject but they do assist readers in being able to formulate viable arguments of their own as well as recognize fallacious forms of argumentation when others utilize it.

--The post from August 20, 2004 on the war, moral and constitutional principles, and "supporting the troops" in response to Ian McLean.

--My post on the logical fallacy of the "communist-fascist" political spectrum theory circa July 2004. The Beltway pundits who utilize this fallacious form of argumentation are legion but pointing this fallacy out and sustaining it by logical argumentation is something that you will not find in very many places. (If you will at all.)

--The post on humanizing formal enemies in a time of war (an audio post circa July 25th).

--The post on Paul Johnson and those who killed him (circa June 18, 2004).

--The post on Nick Berg and those who killed him (circa May 9, 2004)

--The two posts from March 2004 on John Kerry, Al Queda, and Spain

--My post on the 2004 elections circa February of 2004. This is a far more cogent argument for electing President Bush (his many warts and all) than the common boilerplate shrieking of certain Catholic "social commentators" who shall not be named.

--A rider reform proposal which is unlike any that I have seen offered anywhere else by anybody. (This one is circa January of 2004.) This proposal if enacted would clean up a lot of the crap that gets guided through the legislatures at the state and federal levels by making legislators accountable for their votes on these kinds of currently "under the radar" issues. The day someone puts through a rider mandating more federal funding for abortions and tacks it to some bill supported by Catholics at large is the day that they will realize why this proposal is of value and should be promoted.{3}

Though numerous others could be listed, that would result in an unnecessarily long biblical scroll of subjects. For that reason, I will refrain from mentioning any others here except for one caveat: my position on the war in Iraq as outlined in February of 2003 is not only one that was unique in the blogosphere but it also (in light of subsequent developments) has lost none of its credibility whatsoever.{4} The latter is an area where this weblog did a hell of a lot better job making a case for war than the Bush Administration did at the time. Many who took the same position have either done an about face or had to reconfigure their arguments significantly. But enough with presenting evidences.

My interest in any social commentary is in formulating workable solutions to societies problems and not just regurgitating the canned "Catholic" responses ala what the likely "winners" of this "award" will produce. Every entry which falls into this area intends to either advance, fortify, recall, or develop further the kind of core principles that enable someone to provide a coherent and consistent (not to mention workable) alternative to the ideas which permeate society at large in the present day. The reason for this is because definitions are the tools of thought.{4} I refuse to merely go along with "status quo" nebulous concepts -but apparently that is what one has to do to be considered a "social commentator" in these kinds of "awards." Along with the refusal to nominate Gerard Serafin's wonderful weblog for anything, we see the true "value" in these kinds of "awards."{5}

I should note that it is my concern for ideas such as those noted above reaching a broader audience that I have made any issue out of this "award." It is certainly not for the sake of the "award" itself -heck, I am frankly surprised that anyone would nominate this weblog for a specialized kind of category when it does not categorize well by my own admission. But at the very least, if Rerum Novarum is nominated for this category, then it deserves to be in there with weblogs which actually fit the category itself. And other than Southern Appeal and Dust in the Light{6} the nominees of this category do not belong and it is that simple really. This proves that the so-called "award" process in general is merely an exercise of nominating people for the sake of nominating them -not because they actually fit into the category to which they are being nominated. I need not explain further why this cheapens any pretense of a genuine "award" being offered here presumably; ergo I will not belabour this point further.

In closing, the "award" in and of itself is something that I frankly could care less about if not for the ideas I have worked on at this weblog over the years and crystallized into viable policies and principled arguments. It is with an eye towards reaching that broader audience with these concepts which is why I raise these issues at all at the present time. For that reason, "social commentary" nominees should be able to make a case for similar contributions{7} and not merely be there because they were nominated in every category under the sun regardless of their qualifications to be in a respective category thereof.

Notes:

{1} One of the weblogs nominated for "social commentary" is that of St. Blog's resident diva Amy Welborn. She has a good weblog -of this there is not doubt. However, this category is specifically one of "social commentary." And on that subject, when Amy has deigned to make commentary in this area, I have seen little that is truly original or which rises about the standard canned "responses" of the sort that are commonly blogged in these areas by most Catholics. If canned commentary is what wins in "best social commentary" than we are in a lot more trouble viz. having any relevancy in the blogosphere arena of ideas than I thought.

{2} I am incapable of producing a similar sampling from Dust in the Light or Southern Appeal but what I have read of those weblogs certainly does qualify them to be in this category.

{3} I intend to approach an initiative pusher in my state on this issue to try and get it on the ballot for the 2006 election.

{4} As one of my mentors Michael J. Mentzer was noted for saying at times.

{5} Apparently Gerard (may he rest in peace) has fallen prey to the "publish or perish" mantra which permeates fundamentalism and the short attention span of society at large these days. Oh well, he is in my "St. Blog's Hall of Fame" if no one else's. But I digress.

{6} Both of which have been considered for addition to my list of weblogs for some time now btw. (And one of which will probably be added in the next update whenever that happens to be.)

{7} Someone pointed out to me that the bulk of "social commentary" at Ms. Welborn's weblog takes place in the comments boxes. Here is what I noted about that argument in an email correspondence:

If that is the criteria, then how is it any different than a message board??? Social/political commentary should be voted on with the contributions of the weblog contributors in mind first and foremost. Whatever happens in Amy's comments boxes (and I do peruse them on occasion and even comment at times) I do not consider anything I say in comments boxes to be contributions to those weblogs.

Now it is true that I oftentimes blog stuff I put in comments boxes (usually refining it further in the process) but only then do I consider it as contributing to a weblog -and of course at that point it is a contribution to my own weblog. I certainly do not vote for any weblogs in any category based on what happens in their comments boxes. It should be by definition what the contributors to the weblog post-if a single weblog than that person's if a group than the contributions of the group [involved.]

Some Clarifications on Fr. Henri de Lubac and His Views on the Relationship Between Nature and Grace:

When responding to an email correspondence some time ago on the subject of nature and grace at this humble weblog, I noted a few things about Fr. Henri de Lubac's position and also that I would send this link to a couple theologians more familiar with de Lubac's work than I am for confirmation on this.{1} That was done and responses were actually pretty prompt on the part of those whom I sent a note to about a clarification. However, as this was in the weeks winding down to the election, I wanted to focus on subjects pertaining to that event and put this thread on the backburner. Nonetheless, here is the note that was sent back in mid September of 2004:


From: I. Shawn McElhinney
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 12:47 PM
To:
Subject: Request for a Clarification (and Possible Correction)...

I note the area where I would like a clarification (if it is deemed necessary) in this post:

[Link snipped]

As two theologians who have read more of Cardinal de Lubac's work than I have, I will accept any corrections you may have of my representation of his view on nature and grace.

The first response I received was from Kevin Miller, a professor of theology at Franciscan University of Steubenville -who is well studied in the work of Fr. Henri de Lubac (certainly far beyond my own studies in this area). Here is what he had to say:

Shawn,

Yes, de Lubac (and Rahner) did indeed take a position that was explicitly distinct from the one rejected in HG.

Regarding Teilhard de Chardin - I'm actually not sure when de L started defending him; I'm not sure, therefore, how much that had to do with de L's troubles. I think the problem was at least partly that some people in Rome (who already disliked de L's work) misread HG and/or de L and wrongly took de L's view on nature/grace as he'd recently expressed it in Surnaturel (and perhaps other elements of his methodology) to be rejected by HG (e.g., by reading the position of the writer "D" into de L). Robert can probably give you more details on that.

The second response I received was from Robert Gotcher, a professor of systematic theology at Sacred Heart School of Theology among whose specialties include the theology of Fr. Henri de Lubac. Here is what he had to say:


Shawn,

De Lubac didn't start publicly defending Teilhard de Chardin until 1960, as far as I know. What he did in private, I don't know. As for HG, de Lubac would have said "of course!" to Pius XII's statement. He would have then added that those rational beings would not be human beings, but something else. So he did dodge that particular bullet.

He was never censured for any statement as far as I know. Nor was he ever punished by the Vatican.

Anyway, the readers are asked to accept these notes as correctives to my previously enunciated post on these subjects.


Note:

{1} Though this statement was true as far as it goes; nonetheless it was admittedly no small understatement on my part. (As my studies of de Lubac cannot compare to that of two professors who are specialized in his theology.)

Points to Ponder:
(On an Obvious Double Standard)

I remember a few years back when Bill Clinton was president. Social Security, we were frequently told, was on the verge of bankruptcy. Decreasing worker payments and increasing boomer retirements were the cause. Only a dedicated, brilliant, and left-wing social servant like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or Bill Bradley could possibly save us by reforming the program.

But now that George Bush works in the Oval Office, things are looking up. Social Security is just fine and dandy, thank you very much, and there's no reason to change one iota of the program. Oh we might consider tinkering here and there to make it even better than perfect, but really there's no need for alarmed, hasty, or even prompt action on the matter. [Ian McLean (circa 02/05/05)]

Points to Ponder:

We've heard it before that whenever social security reform is planned, republicans are out to "steal the money of old people" or "mortaging our future by robbing from the people present." Yet this tactic is now absolutely useless in the social security debate, since those around the age of 55 who are going to retire will not be effected by any of the Reforms. The AARP can no longer complain about how retired people will be effected, because retired people won't be effected! This has been the lefts tactic on social security for 20 years, and with one masterful swoop, Bush flanked them. He also laid out just the principles, and wants Congress to do something. In other words, if the left wants to succeed here, they can't just be anti-bush, but for something. Yet as we know, the Democrat Party no longer stands for anything worthwhile, they just oppose Bush. [Kevin Tierney (circa February 3, 2005)]

Points to Ponder:
(A Special "Engrave the Tombstone Dept." Edition)

Though a lot could be said about how good President Bush's State of the Union Speech was (I caught it on playback incidentally enough), it seems for the sake of economy of time (on my part) appropriate to allow Libertarian Neil Boortz to comment on the subject since on this matter he and I have a lot of similar views. Without further ado, here are some points to ponder from Mr. Boortz circa today:

Fresh off his State of the Union speech last night, naturally the media came out with a variety of instant polls. So what were the results? The fact is Bush hit one out of the park. It was probably the best speech of his presidency, and better than his inauguration speech from a couple weeks ago. The general public seems to agree.

This all leads to a headache for Democrats this morning. Their favorite "scare tactic" program is in trouble. After Bush's speech last night polls showed that Americans are reacting more favorably to Bush's ideas. Before the speech 51% of Americans thought that Bush was moving America in the right direction on Social Security. After the speech that figure was 66%. That's a 15% increase with just this speech. (By the way, the figures for Bush's policies on Iraq went from 66% to 78%.) Before the speech the CNN/Gallup poll asked Americans if Bush was making a convincing case on Social Security. The figure before the speech -- 67%. After the speech -- 74%. This spells nothing but trouble for Democrats.

The part of George Bush's speech that brought the moans was his assertion that by 2042 Social Security would be exhausted and bankrupt. Boos from Democrats. Can you believe it? Never in the history of the State of the Union Speech have boos been heard. Tradition, courtesy and protocol means nothing to Democrats when it comes to expressing their hatred of George Bush, their pathological dismay at losing the reigns of power in Washington, and their fear of Social Security privatization.

Now ... the Democrats will tell you that the boos were deserved; deserved because of Bush's statement that Social Security will be bankrupt by 2042. Democrats will point you to the ephemeral Social Security Trust Fund. They will tell you that there is plenty of money in the Trust Fund to take care of things for fifty years or more into the future.

Come on, folks. I know you aren't buying that one. Listen closely. There is no money in the Social Security Trust Fund. It is gone. All of it. Spent. Every single year for decades Democrats and Republicans have raided the Social Security Trust Fund of every single penny that was left after that year's benefits were paid. That money was taken and spent on various vote-buying programs. All that Social Security has left is some IOUs sitting in a grey metal filing cabinet in West Virginia.

Think this through. What happens in 2042 (or earlier) when working Americans are not paying enough in Social Security taxes to cover the benefits for retired Americans. Some of those IOUs in that filing cabinet are going to have to be cashed in. And where is that money to come from? The U.S. Treasury, that's where. Can you tell me where the huge surplus resides from which that money can be drawn? Yup, you're right. There is no fund anywhere just waiting to cough up the money to cash in those trust fund IOUs. This means that our congress will have to either (a) cut spending in other areas to come up with the cash; (b) raise taxes to come up with the cash, or (b) borrow the money. That's a crisis, folks, by any definition. A crises denied by Democrats .. denied for purely partisan reasons.

AND THE DEMOCRATIC RESPONSE

Did you catch the Democratic response to the State of the Union address? This one was a complete bust...a real snoozer. It's hard to believe...but it's true: the Democrats have selected a worse communicator than Tom Daschle to represent them in the Senate. Watching Harry Reid is about as exciting as reading an apartment lease.

Anyway, it was Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, sitting there looking like they should be selling jewelry or sex aids on the shopping channel. Reid went first, and his goal was to bash the president and detail the obstructionist Democratic agenda. In a display of blatant hypocrisy, the Democratic leader took a swipe at the president for the large budget deficits. Fair enough. Spending has increased exponentially since Bush took office. But then Reid went on to propose more and more spending.....spending that would cost billions. So which is it? Is it that the president is spending too much money, or is it the deficit? The answer is neither.

The Democrats would gleefully raise your taxes to cover the shortfall in the deficit and in the process snuff out the economic recovery. They have no intention to cut spending at all whatsoever. Then he talked about Social Security. More on that in a minute.

Then it was time to hand it over to Ms. Extreme Makeover herself, Nancy Pelosi. The radical 60's leftist aging hippie from Haight - Ashbury who wants to somehow convince us that she's actually some sort of moderate started to talk about foreign policy. This is where the whole thing turned into an outrageous disaster.

After Bush stood up there and said he didn't want to give a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq because he didn't want the Islamic terrorists to wait us out, Pelosi demanded one. Then she went on to demand that the president do everything the president is already doing.

The Democratic party continues its long walk off a short plank, and the disastrous leadership on the left in the Congress is leading the charge.

Democrats actually have a pretty simple template when it comes to approving or fighting legislation in the congress. If the legislation would make Americans more independent of government, the bill must be fought. If the legislation would make Americans more dependent on government, the legislation is praiseworthy. Do you think I'm oversimplifying things? Fine! Watch for yourself. Watch the legislation that Democrats love. Universal health care, expansion of "refundable" tax credits, spending programs after spending programs ... all designed to make Americans more and more dependent on government handouts and government programs. When someone introduces legislation that would make it easier for individuals to purchase their own health insurance policies, Democrats rise in opposition. When a bill appears on the floor that would make it easier for parents to get their children out of the clutches of our hideous government schools, Democrats go nuts! It's all about dependency. Democrats know that the less people need government, the less people need Democrats. The idea of generations of Americans investing in their own retirements, instead of leaving that cash in the hands of the government, brings nothing but despair to the left.

Will the Democrats come up with a plan to counter Bush's efforts? Sure they will. They must! With 74% of Americans saying that Bush is making a convincing case for Social Security reform, Democrats must come up with something. Here's your guarantee. The Democrats' plan will involve tax increases. Oh, they may not call them tax increases ... but tax increases they will be. A no-brainer, my friends. An easy call...

You no doubt heard the president announce his plans for reforming Social Security last night. In what can only be described as a political masterstroke, he only gave an outline of how the program should be reformed. He is leaving it to the Congress to come up with a solution. He even went on to give the names of several prominent Democrats and the solutions they offered. Bush's game plan is pretty simple. Don't raise Social Security Taxes, allow people to invest at least some of the money they earned in their own privately owned accounts, and don't mess with the benefits for people 55 and over.

So what was the Democratic response to this bipartisan outreach?

Harry Reid has the response immediately after the President's speech. Reid said they "disagree with the president's plan to privatize Social Security." This is a scare tactic. Bush just wants to make privately-owned accounts a part of the Social Security mix. That's not "privatizing Social Security." It's a simple scare tactic, but it will work with those with less than clear thinking abilities who tend to vote for Democrats.

Reid also said "it's wrong to replace the guaranteed benefit that Americans have earned with a guaranteed benefit cut of 40 percent or more." My friends, there is no guaranteed benefit. Harry Reid can not point to one single paragraph in the U.S. Code that guarantees any Social Security benefits to anyone. When benefits can be taken away on a simple whim and a majority vote in the Congress there is NO guarantee. When you own the account yourself ... when that account is your private property ... well that's about as close to a guarantee as you can get in this world. Also, Bush is not proposing any cuts in benefits. This is a favorite Democrat trick. Bush is merely going to change the formula used to calculate Social Security benefits in future years so that benefits don't grow faster than the rate of inflation. Doesn't that make perfect sense? [Neil Boortz (circa February 3, 2005)]

Well now, it seems that Howard Dean has virtually no opposition to becoming the next Democratic Party Chairman. It is therefore appropriate to remind the readers of this humble weblog what Our views on this situation happen to be.

St. Blogs Annual Awards:
(The picks of your humbler servant at Rerum Novarum)

I suppose these are at least more interesting to consider than the Academy Awards or the Oscars since what is involved here is more than mindless entertainment. Nonetheless, with the exception of certain categories where I am either uncertain of whom to vote for or feel the need to recuse myself from voting in for various and sundry reasons (where I will note an uncertainty of whom to vote for) here are my picks for 2004:

Most Humourous: Jeff Miller's Curt Jester

Best Apologetical: Dave Armstrong's Cor ad Cor Loquitur

Best Group: Envoy Encore - Carl E. Olson, Dwight Longenecker, Jim Moore, Patrick Madrid, Patty Bonds, Pete Vere

Best blog by a woman: Eve Tushnet

Best blog by a priest: Fr. Jim Tucker's Dappled Things

Best Political Analysis: Catholics in the Public Square - Oswald Sobrino, Earl E. Appleby Jr, Jeff Miller, David Schrader, Christopher Blosser

Most Bizarre: Dale Price's Dyspeptic Mutterings{1}

Best Social Commentary: Not sure whom to vote for here

Most Creative: Jeff Miller's Curt Jester

Best Presentation: Christopher Blosser's Against the Grain

Most Devotional: Gerard Serafin's BLOG for Lovers

Most Intellectual: Dr. Philip Blosser's Musings of a Pertinacious Papist /Ian McLean's SecretAgentMan (tie)

Most Insightful: Not sure whom to vote for here

Most Informative: Heart, Mind, and Strength

Most Theological: Thoughts of Apolonio Latar III

Best Blog Overall: Mark Shea's Catholic and Enjoying It

Best New Blog: Jonathan Prejean's Crimson Catholic

As I noted to some friends who spoke of this humble weblog, I do not think Rerum Novarum is specialized enough to be viable in very many categories. (We do too much here to be put into the kinds of neat boxes that categories common to awards attempt to do.). Nonetheless, nominations are (of course) appreciated. We did get some votes last year in a couple of categories (one of which I found rather puzzling) but that is neither here nor there. Anyway, there are my votes in the various categories for those who are interested.

Note:

{1} Dale has some of the best fisks of liberal lunacy to be found anywhere in the blogosphere and for that he deserves recognition. Since Jeff Miller is most humourous, I have to elect Dale to something; ergo, most Bizarre.

A Minor Rerum Novarum Weblog Readjustment and Update:

Basically, a few subcategories were renamed (slightly), a few categories were adjusted in the margin to be in different parts of the scroll, a few weblogs were added, two weblogs were reclassified into a new "on haitus" classification, and the JibJab political parody site was added in the list of recommended links. The new subcategory in that heading (Recommended* Articles on Various Subjects) will be enlarged in the coming weeks as I peruse the archives and look for miscellaneous links recommended in the past to put there.

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

[Update: I have perused the archives at Rerum Novarum going back to June 2004 and culled a bunch of socio-political articles as well as religious-theological articles that were posted to this weblog. They were added to the side margin today and other articles in the archives will be added as I find them and have time to format and add them. Anyway, this is just a brief note on the matter for those who are interested. - ISM 1/31/05 8:58 pm]

[Update: The archives through 2004 have now been perused now and the vast majority of the recommended links which still work have been added to the side margins. - ISM 2/02/05 4:58 pm]

Points to Ponder:
(On the Fallacy of Equating Intelligence With Educational Degrees)

A doctorate is not only no guarantee of genius or even well-rounded intelligence, it's no evidence of a functional human being. [Jimmy Akin (circa January 20, 2005)]

Political Potpourri:

As these will be coming from three different sources, there will be divisions in the text for easier sub-category differentiation -and the referenced texts will be in black font. Without further ado, let Us get to them...

"Friends of Democracy" Dept.

(Courtesy of The LittleGreenFootballs BLOG)

Here is the text from their "About" section:

Despite the challenges, we were seeing free and democratic Iraq, we were living the hard laboring moment we believe that every one of us has duty towards our beloved country

By our hands, work, thoughts, sacrifice we will build up the new Iraq.

Our home is open for every friend of democracy and they are many in Iraq.

We are the hope of the rest of peoples which longed for freedom and they are looking with the eye of hope to the Iraqi sample.

Let us show them a shining sample and let us remind them that we are the ones of the first code of laws. Let them share us to work with full efforts to push forward the democracy process in Iraq.

To read more on this, please go HERE. Moving on...


"Not Fond-a Condi" Dept.

THE YEAR OF CONDI

If Condolezza Rice were a Democrat, you'd have to unplug your TV, turn off your car radio and swear off the internet to avoid seeing, hearing and reading the wall-to-wall hagiographies that the media would force down our throats. The Democrats would use her appointment to Secretary of State to, on the one hand, laud her as an example to all women and, on the other hand, to bash Republicans.

But she isn't a Democrat, so none of that is happening. Her confirmation is being delayed by a former Klansman, and she is being accused of "attacking" a senator who called her a liar. Brendan Miniter has more on what should be the Year of Condi.

The above thread was provided courtesy of The JunkYard BLOG. For the record, We concur completely with Mr. Miniter's analysis. But of course regular readers/listeners of this humble weblog already knew that so nothing more needs to be said on that matter. Moving on yet again...


"Illustrating Absurdity by Being Absurd" Dept.
(Courtesy of The Diplomad)

In light of those who have whined about the US treatment of Taliban and Al Queda detainees held in Gitmo,{1} the following "authentic letter" was provided to the contributors of The Diplomad BLOG. It is a real letter...seriously...so they say!!!

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20016

Dear Concerned Citizen:

Thank you for your recent letter roundly criticizing our treatment of the Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees currently being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Our administration takes these matters seriously, and your opinion was heard loud and clear in Washington. You'll be pleased to learn that thanks to concerned citizens like you, we are creating a new division of the Terrorist Retraining Program, to be called the "Liberals Accept Responsibility for Killers" program, or LARK for short. In accordance with the guidelines of this new program, we have decided to place one terrorist under your personal care.

Your personal detainee has been selected and scheduled for transportation under heavily armed guard to your residence next Monday. Ali Mohammed Ahmed bin Mahmud (you can just call him Ahmed) is to be cared for pursuant to the standards you personally demanded in your letter of admonishment. It will likely be necessary for you to hire some assistant caretakers. We will conduct weekly inspections to ensure that your standards of care for Ahmed are commensurate with those you so strongly recommended in your letter.

Although Ahmed is sociopathic and extremely violent, we hope that your sensitivity to what you described as his "attitudinal problem" will help him overcome these character flaws.

Perhaps you are correct in describing these problems as mere cultural differences. He will bite you, given the chance. We understand that you plan to offer counseling and home schooling. Your adopted terrorist is extremely proficient in hand-to-hand combat and can extinguish human life with such simple items as a pencil or nail clippers. We do not suggest that you ask him to demonstrate these skills at your next yoga group He is also expert at making a wide variety of explosive devices from common household products, so you may wish to keep those items locked up, unless (in your opinion) this might offend him.

Ahmed will not wish to interact with your wife or daughters (except sexually) since he views females as a subhuman form of property. This is a particularly sensitive subject for him, and he has been known to show violent tendencies around women who fail to comply with the new dress code that Ahmed will recommend as more appropriate attire. I'm sure the women in your household will come to enjoy the anonymity offered by the bhurka - over time. Just remind them that it is all part of "respecting his culture and his religious beliefs" - wasn't that how you put it?

Thanks again for your letter. We truly appreciate it when folks like you, who know so much, keep us informed of the proper way to do our job.

You take good care of Ahmed - and remember...we'll be watching. Good luck!

Cordially...

Your Buddy,
Don Rumsfeld

Now in all honesty, the authenticity of this letter (or its lack thereof) is really not what is important here.{2} Instead, it is the message it has to give to us that should be taken seriously. (Heck, with these kinds of illogical premises, who needs a properly functioning brain???{3}) For that reason, We at Rerum Novarum have seen fit to pass it along to any readers of this weblog who are among those who have been publicly critical of the Bush Administration in the area of prisoner treatment.

Notes:

{1} This is slang for Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

{2} Hey, if it works for CBS News and Dan Rather why not Us???

{3} But then again, We have noted before on a few different occasions at least, liberalism in its extreme forms is a mental disorder and not a true political/social philosophy.

For the "Anniversary" of Roe vs. Wade
(Miscellaneous Threads For Musing)

Though the "anniversary" of this monument of judicial incompetence and legal perversion has already passed, it seems fitting at this point to discuss the matter directly since I readily admit that this is not a subject that I like to discuss very often except indirectly and as it pertains to other issues.{1} There are many reasons for this including my general disdain for the myopic approach to this issue often utilized by pro life groups{2} but on this occasion, I will temper my general annoyance at that aspect and try to provide a few threads on the subject which approach it from different ways. The first thread is from the weblog of a woman who continues to experience traumas from the abortion of her first child -here is some of what she had to say on the matter:

1997. Picture it: me sitting at my desk bleeding like a stuck pick after having my second trimester child ripped out of me in pieces. Bleeding, bleeding, bleeding... so much that I'm afraid to stand up at the chalk board. It's Friday, the 14th, and the children are covering my desk with pretty paper hearts and heart-shaped chocolate boxes. Hugs here and there. Their little arms come flying at me; they shower me with love. Little hands and faces. Little sounds coming from little mouths. Love, love and more love... because they're wired for it; it's all they know how to do. I sit there stunned and tormented by their sweetness and fragility. I sit there bleeding...

The above excerpt was taken from HERE and frankly bears noting for those who speak about the pseudo-"liberty" that abortion is supposed to provide.

Also on this subject is this thread from Feminists for Life. It seems appropriate on this occasion to note at this time that many of those whom the self-styled "feminists" refer to as icons in their movement's history were vehemently opposed to abortion and considered it murder. This can be reviewed in a summary form at the above link for those who are interested in what the early feminist leaders had to say on this matter.

And finally, this thread would not be complete if not for noting the propaganda involved in the self-styled "pro choice" movement to manipulate public opinion in various ways (some overt but many others more subtle) through the mass media. For that purpose, the following excerpt from a recent WorldNetDaily article is worth noting:

...The original abortion-rights slogans from the early '70s – they remain virtual articles of faith and rallying cries of the "pro-choice" movement to this day – were "Freedom of choice" and "Women must have control over their own bodies."

"I remember laughing when we made those slogans up," recalls Bernard Nathanson, M.D., co-founder of pro-abortion vanguard group NARAL, reminiscing about the early days of the abortion-rights movement in the late '60s and early '70s. "We were looking for some sexy, catchy slogans to capture public opinion. They were very cynical slogans then, just as all of these slogans today are very, very cynical."

Besides having served as chairman of the executive committee of NARAL – originally, the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, and later renamed the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League – as well as its medical committee, Nathanson was one of the principal architects and strategists of the abortion movement in the United States. He tells an astonishing story...

The above excerpt was taken from an aforementioned WorldNetDaily article titled How Lying Marketers Sold Roe v. Wade to America. Hopefully what is noted above will provide plenty of food for musing for those who consider themselves "enlightened" and abortion to have been a "right" long "demanded" by "most people" or other prevarications along those lines. In reality, the truth is anything but what the mainstream media likes to tell us that it was. And for that reason (among many others that could be noted) the sound of the deathrattle of the mainstream media in recent years has been music to the ears of this commentator. Unfortunately, unlike the Nazis their carnage is not more visible for people to see. If it was, then the outrage would be deafening.{3} However, it is precisely because of that reason that the promoters of abortion want to keep it from being exposed to the light of legitimate scrutiny.


Notes:

{1} Particularly within the matrix of the three fundamental rights of man: a subject which has been covered in various ways on this weblog probably about fifty times.

{2} A Brief Rerum Novarum Recapitulation Thread on the Abortion Subject (circa January 25, 2005)

{3} This is why I have long believed that (as long as the law remains perverted by the facade of abortion as a "right") any woman wanting an abortion should have a one month waiting period and be required to watch some videotapes of actual abortions taking place first. But what are the odds of those involved in the abortion racket industry actually supporting such a proposal??? The answer of course (expressed in the form of a fraction) is nada over zilch.

A Brief Rerum Novarum Recapitulation Thread:
(On the Abortion Subject)

As the recent "anniversary" of Roe vs. Wade took place (a subject to which We intend to deal with shortly), it seems appropriate to recapitulate in brief some examples of this writer's criticisms of the prolife movement's approach to combatting the abortion agenda (or of abortion in general). This will be done with ten excerpts from the archives spanning not only this weblog's existence to the present day but will also include some material predating it. To assist in perusing these quotes, a general summation in purple of what each bit is intended to convey will precede the quotes themselves. Without further ado, let us get to it...

On the pro-life movement's general incompetency:

[M]y view of the pro-life movement as a whole was jaded because of their political stupidity manifested over the years. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 28, 2002)]

More on the pro-life movement's general incompetency:

Remember though, pro lifers have a history politically of shooting their movement in the head. And sometimes you have to take part of a loaf and do this a few times before you can get the entire loaf. Forgetting this principle has resulted in the pro lifers politically shooting themselves in the head in the past. (In brief, that is how they lost the Republican controlled Senate to Democrats in 1986 which meant losing control of the Judiciary which meant defeat for Bork in 1987. And as 1990 proved, Bork's replacement was the swing vote that retained Roe v. Wade.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 5, 2002)]

Another very brief reiteration of the pro-life movement's general incompetency:

Post-[Reagan] history tells us that Roe v. Wade would have been overturned in 1990 by a 5-4 vote if Bork had been on that court. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 12, 2003)]

On the subject of abortion in general as a "constitutional right":

Admittedly, I am no Constitutional scholar. However, I do have a reasonable amount of horse sense. And I cannot see how the Constitution can grant a "right" that it never mentions or infers. But of course somehow "right to privacy" entails a "right" to murder children an abortion. As I noted earlier, there are three justices seeking to preserve the Constitution. Alongside them there are three who are seeking to undermine it from within: these are the "court termites." And between this chasm are three whose vote depends on whose favour they are trying to curry: these are the "court whores." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 27, 2003)]

On the subject of "improper compromise" - a weblog excerpt from an essay written on stem cell research back in August of 2001:

The trap of improper compromise differs from proper compromise, which is an approach taken to get half a loaf rather then none at all. The latter is used by those who are not in power or who do not have the power to get all of what they are seeking at the present time. (An example would be voting for a bill that restricted abortions — evil is thereby reduced — versus the purist who would vote against anything that is less than their ultimate agenda.) Unacceptable is the policy that insists on all or nothing when it comes to limiting evil. Politicians who are capable of realistically achieving their entire agenda improperly use this policy of half a loaf. When applied to areas that are either evil in and of themselves or which are conducive to opening or expanding a realm of greater evil, they move into the forefront of the improper compromise. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 20, 2003)]

On the "pro life or bust" approach to the 2004 election as espoused by not a few well-meaning people:

Those who feel as if abortion is the only issue need to get with reality. It is *one* issue and a key one certainly. But if you fall into that trap of thinking pro life is the only issue on the table -particularly if you vote for those candidates who approve of abortion "in cases of rape and incest, etc." in true political poltroon fashion- then go ahead and hide in your charade of "pro lifeness" because is is a facade. [Excerpt from Envoy Encore as linked to Rerum Novarum (circa January 27, 2004)]

Another thread on (among other things) the subject of abortion as a "constitutional right" and the right to life as one of the three fundamental rights of man which precede all manmade legislation:

Pointing out something that is not constitutional with concern for proper context (including the views of those who wrote the Constitution -none of whom can be shown to have supported abortion) is not an insignificant detail by any means. Indeed failing to do this is to overlook the sitz im leben of the Constitution itself...

The US Constitution presupposes the Declaration of Independence and the right to life is the first right enunciated in that text by which all men are equal under God. Furthermore, not a single one of the Framers to my knowledge saw abortion as anything less than murder; ergo the idea that the enshrined this as a "right" in the Constitution is among the most heinous of prevarications. Indeed, so grotesque of an example of calling evil "good" are the so-called "pro choice" people that there will be a place in hell reserved for them if they do not repent of this before they die...

[T]here would be greater damage to the public order of society if abortionists were treated as the murderers that they are. What is needed is a definition of the three fundamental rights of man one of which is life and when it begins. Those are definitions that need to be embodied into the legal code of the United States. Once that were to take place, the strictest measures against abortionists could be undertaken without concern for damage to public order.

It is pathetic that we have fallen to the degree to where such a definition is needed but my emphasis on -and inculcation of- these principles on occasion at this weblog where it seems warranted to do is in part to help set down a foundation to eventually see that take place. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa August 20, 2004)]

From a thread reiterating some of Our previous statements about "the myopic vision of many pro-life advocates":

With that note, this Rerum Novarum recapitulation thread on the subject of pro-life political incompetence is concluded. However, We should note also that this is not intended to bash the pro-lifers. Instead, it is to note areas where in their zeal to defend life they have undermined their future success in this endeavour for far too long. Essentially this is a "learn from the mistakes of the past so that you do not repeat them in the future" plea so kindly do not read anything into it except for that. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 8, 2004)]

From probably the thirtieth odd thread at Rerum Novarum tying the right to life into the matrix of the three fundamental rights of man:

I have noted on not a few occasions (most recently HERE) that the myopic nature of most pro-lifers is counterproductive. You cannot stand up for life and then allow for faculties and production (each of which are extensions of life) to be compromised. Our faculties are an extension of our life and they must be safeguarded if life is not to be undermined. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 25, 2004)]

And from a recent weblog entry on the ethical principle of "double effect":

While inducing an abortion is a violation of the fundamental right of life, at the same time, if the abortion is induced as a result of surgery to remove cancer from the pregnant woman and not positively willed, then the act itself (preservation of the woman's life) is morally good despite having an accompanying bad effect (the death of the fetus). [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa December 30, 2004]

While many more examples could be noted, this suffices to (i) substantiate the position of this humble weblog on the subject of abortion and (ii) provide a companion thread of sorts for the material that will follow it in sequence.

Musings on the Passing of Johnny Carson

The Text of President Bush's Second Inaugural Address can be read HERE.

With the inauguration occurring tomorrow (and another four years of President Bush ahead) it hardly seems appropriate to Us at Rerum Novarum to opine publicly about the great unknown that the next four years would bring if not for the thought provoking and insightful pontifications of...JibJab. Yes, from the same people who brought us all It's Good to Be in DC and This Land comes JibJab with a potential overview of Bush's second term. Click HERE, push the button, and wait a bit for the movie to load.

"Tales From the Crypt Mailbag" Dept.

The material in this post pertains to the Victor Davis Hanson article on Donald Rumsfeld which was posted to Rerum Novarum back in December. Our words will be in regular font.

Leave it to Victor Davis Hanson to shed the light of history on our supposed military shortcomings viz. Iraq. We weren't "sufficiently" equipped to fight WWII until...oh...1945.

This is correct. However, let the record show that We at Rerum Novarum pointed these facts out prior to Victor Davis Hanson's article on Donald Rumsfeld.{1}

And by that time the war was almost over.

And (of course) the postwar period in Germany and Japan was hardly free from the kinds of insurrections that we are seeing now in Iraq after the end of combat operations in May of 2003...

Our Shermans (affectionately dubbed "Purple Heart Boxes" by the crews that manned them) were crap compared to the German Tigers.

Without question.

Firing a round from our tanks at a Tiger was about as effective as throwing a rubber ball at it. It just bounced off.

Indeed. And if soldiers had gone to the media on this during WWII, they would have either been court martialed or executed on the spot. Indeed if any media sources had treated our war progress with the same kind of seditious undercurrents that modern media sources have treated on the war in Iraq, they would have lost their credentials to report at a minimum.{2} The government would not have been unjustified in doing any of these things in a time of war. And the same thing goes for the current government during the current war on terror.

Speaking of being under equipped, the 101st held off a major German offensive (which happened to be able to gain momentum right under Allied noses) while freezing their asses off in the woods of Bastogne with no winter clothing, nothing in the way of hot food, and practically no ammo. According to the guys from Easy Company who were interviewed in Band of Brothers (if you haven't seen that mini series, I highly recommend it), they were down to one round a man at one time.

They are fortunate that the slihtering seditionists of the modern media were not around then. Can you see them reporting "soldiers in Bastogne are down to one round a man" and the Germans receiving a fresh inspiration to hold out a little longer??? Something like that could have been the turning point of the war in the opposite direction rather than in the direction that it actually took at that point.

By setting the correct paradigm through which we should view the progress of the War on Terror overall and Rumfeld's performance, Hanson correctly concludes that Rumsfeld is doing an amazingly good job. You had once said that Rumsfeld is "one of the jewels of the Bush cabinet."

Yes I did. And my position on Rumsfeld has not wavered.

I think he is the CROWN jewel of the Bush cabinet.

With John Ashcroft leaving, that assessment on your part is probably correct.

(As much as I admire Condoleeza Rice, I would take one Rummy over ten Condis any day of the week and twice on Sunday)

Well now, in fairness to Dr. Rice,{3} she has not served one single day in her upcoming post yet.

Apparently Bush himself thinks so, seeing as how he begged him to stay on as Defense Secretary for another term.

Whatever my criticisms have been of him (and they have not been minor ones) Dubya is nonetheless no dummy however much the pseudo-"progressivists" may wish that he was.

I think this also speaks volumes about Rumsfeld's selfless dedication to serving his country. I mean, he already had a distinguished record of public service when he was first tapped by Bush to be Defense Secretary. He is independently wealthy. Given all this and his age (72), he doesn't need the headache of the job and the crap he's had to put up with.

Good points.

The one disagreement I would have with Hanson's assessment is that I DO think Rumsfeld is media savvy. In fact I think he defines what being media savvy really is. As I said to you before, I think viewing tapes of his press conferences should be a mandatory part of the USCCB media relation training. He gets up there and tells it like it is and does not let the media manipulate him, which is why the media elites are spearheading the "get Rumsfeld" drive.

Well stated.

The fact that certain "Republicans" have been willing to aid the process should be no surprise, particularly when you consider their track records.

In the words of that great western philosopher James Hetfield, "sad but true."

Sen. Trent Lott's self-immolation over his comment at Strom Thurmond's birthday party indicates that he is willing to sacrifice his own to get back in the good graces of the media.

You are referring to Trent "Word to Your Mother" Lott presumably...

Bill Kristol, for reasons I am not sure of, is similarly weak-kneed in the face of media pressure.

Probably the same reasons that Tucker Carlson is.

Frankly, I have always thought that his Weekly Standard colleague Fred Barnes is a more reliable pundit.

Fred Barnes has long been viewed by Us as one of the more reliable beltway commentators.

John McCain, needless to say, is as shameless a political prostitute as they come who would do anything for media face time.

Agreed.

And particularly when you consider the grudge he still holds against Bush {2}, joining the anti-Rumsfeld media chorus is by no means a stretch.

Agreed.

As for Hagel, he's a liberal Republican who is taking a few pages from the McCain playbook in scoring free media time.

McCain is a hero of Vietnam but has not been a hero in the Senate over his career.

Both Senators are eyeing the '08 GOP presidential nod, which neither one stands a snow ball's chance in getting, but I digress.

And hopefully the drive to allow foreign born people like Ahnuld to run dies on the vine also.

Notes:

{1} Though it would be folly for Us to claim to have originated this insight: indeed any decent student of history knows these things.

{2} Not to mention the odds being pretty good that they would have been tried in court for either sedition or treason and promptly convicted. (And a point, they would either have served jail time or have been executed.)

{3} The views of your humble servant on the media's shameless treatment of Dr. Rice's nomination can be heard in this thread:

Miscellaneous Notes on the Upcoming Rerum Novarum Post-Election Commentary and on the Secretary of State for the Second Bush Term (circa November 16, 2004)

Points to Ponder:
(On the War on Terror and Santayana's Dictum{1} Revisited)

Reading the pages of foreign-policy journals, between the long tracts on Bush's "failures" and neoconservative "arrogance," one encounters mostly predictions of defeat and calls for phased withdrawal — always with resounding criticism of the American "botched" occupation.

Platitudes follow: "We can't just leave now," followed by no real advice on how a fascist society can be jumpstarted into a modern liberal republic. After all, there is no government handbook entitled, "Operation 1A: How to remove a Middle East fascist regime in three weeks, reconstruct the countryside, and hold the first elections in the nation's history — all within two years." Almost all who supported the war now are bailing on the pretext that their version of the reconstruction was not followed: While a three-week war was their idea, a 20-month messy reconstruction was surely someone else's. Yesterday genius is today's fool — and who knows next month if the elections work? Witness Afghanistan where all those who recently said the victory was "lost" to warlords are now suddenly quiet...

The litany from the mercurial Beltway always goes on: There were enough troops to take out Saddam in three weeks, but not enough to restore order to the countryside — but still too many that resulted in too high an American profile on the streets of Baghdad. The transformations of Donald Rumsfeld (this week's genius, last week's fool) have left us stripped down and bereft of the muscle needed. Yet new, more mobile brigades in strikers and special forces with laptops are preferable to old armored divisions on the streets of Iraq.

We cannot flee, but must not stay. Iraqis publicly say we should leave, but privately beg us to remain. We were after cheap oil, but gas prices somehow climbed almost immediately after we went in. Democracy won't work with these people, but somehow we are seeing three elections in the wake of the Taliban, Arafat, and Saddam. There are many constants in all this pessimistic confusion — beside the fact that we are becoming a near hysterical society. First, our miraculous efforts in toppling the Taliban and Saddam have apparently made us forget war is always a litany of mistakes. No conflict is conducted according to either antebellum planning or can proceed with the benefit of hindsight. Iraq was not Yemen or Qatar, but rather the most wicked regime in the world, in the heart of the Arab world, full of oil, terrorists, and mass graves. There were no helpful neighbors to keep a lid on their own infiltrating jihadists. Instead we had to go into the heart of the caliphate, take out a mass murderer, restore civil society after 30 years of brutality, and ward off Sunni and Baathist fomenters in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria — all the while keeping out Iranian-Shiite agents bent on stopping democracy. The wonder is not that there is violence and gloom in Iraq, but that less than two years after Saddam was removed, elections are still on track.

Second, our very success creates ever increasing expectations of perfection for a postmodern America used to instant gratification. We now look back in awe at World War II, the model of military success, in which within four years an unprepared United States won two global wars, at sea, on the ground, and in the air, in three continents against Japan, Italy, and Germany, and supplied both England and the Soviet Union. But our forefathers experienced disaster after disaster in a tale of heartbreak, almost as inglorious as the Korean mess or Vietnam tragedy. And they did things to win we perhaps claim we would now not: Shoot German prisoners in the Bulge, firebomb Axis cities, drop the bomb — almost anything to stop fascists from slaughtering even more millions of innocents.

Our armored vehicles were deathtraps and only improved days before the surrender. American torpedoes were often duds. Unescorted daylight bombing proved a disaster, but continued. Amphibious assaults like Anzio and Tarawa were bloodbaths and emblematic of terrible planning and command. The recapture of Manila was clumsy and far too costly. Okinawa was the worst of all operations, and yet was begun just over fourth months before the surrender — without any planning for Kamikazes who were shortly to kill 5,000 American sailors. Patton, the one general that could have ended the western war in 1944, was relieved and then subordinated to an auxiliary position with near fatal results for the drive from Normandy; mediocrities like Mark Clark flourished and were promoted. Admiral King resisted the life-saving convoy system and unnecessarily sacrificed merchant ships; while Bull Halsey almost lost his unprepared fleet to a storm.

The war's aftermath seemed worse, to be overseen by an untried president who was considered an abject lightweight. Not-so-quite collateral damage had ruined entire cities. Europe nearly starved in winter 1945-6. Millions were on the road in mass exoduses. After spending billions to destroy Nazi Germany we had to spend billions more to rebuild it — and repair the devastation it had wrought on its neighbors. Our so-called partisan friends in Yugoslavia and Greece turned out to be hard-core Communist killers. Soon enough we learned that the guerrillas in the mountains of Europe whom we had idolized, in fact, fought as much for Communism as against fascism — but never for democracy.

But at least there was clear-cut strategic success? Oh? The war started to keep Eastern Europe free of Nazis and ended up ensuring that it was enslaved by Stalinists. Poland was neither free in 1940 nor in 1946. By early 1946 we were already considering putting former Luftwaffe pilots in American jets — improved with ample borrowing from Nazi technology — to protect Europe from the Red Army carried westward on GM trucks. We put Nazis on trials for war crimes even as we invited their scientists to our shores to match their counterparts in the Soviet Union who were building even more lethal weapons to destroy us. Our utopian idea of a global U.N. immediately deteriorated into a mess — decades of vetoes in the Security Council by Stalinists and Maoists, even as former colonial states turned thugocracies in the General Assembly ganged up on Israel and the survivors of the Holocaust.

After Americans had liberated France and restored his country, General de Gaulle created the myth of the French resistance and immediately triangulated with our enemies to reforge some pathetic sort of French grandeur. An exhausted England turned over to us a collapsing empire, with the warning that it might all turn Communist. Tired of the war and postbellum costs, Americans suddenly were asked to wage a new Cold War to keep a shrinking West and its allies free. The Department of War turned into the Department of Defense, along with weird new things like the U.S. Air Force, Strategic Air Command, Food for Peace, Alliance for Progress, Voice of America, and thousands of other costly entities never dreamed of just a few years earlier.

And yet our greatest generation thought by and large they had done pretty well. We in contrast would have given up in despair in 1942, New York Times columnists and NPR pundits pontificating "I told you so" as if we were better off sitting out the war all along.[Victor Davis Hanson (circa January 14, 2005)]

Note:

{1} Santayana's dictum essentially reads as follows: He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it.

It is good to see Michelle Malkin continuing her focus on the issue of America's poorly protected borders.

"Back in Black" Dept.

In light of the upcoming charade of a Bonnie Parker Christine Gregoire administration in Washington State, it seems appropriate to your humble servant to change the border colours of this weblog to black. There are plenty of participants in the blogosphere who will stay on this issue such as Sound Politics but for Our part, We at Rerum Novarum will only deal with this issue intermittently{1} to avoid the trap of becoming defacto pundits for particular issues.

Having noted these things, there is a number of items in the drafts folder to be posted in the coming weeks - some of which are a month old or older.{2} The subjects to be covered will be all over the place but they will all be of some interest to those who are interested in ideas and the formulation of principles for enunciating them rather than the common facile contributions that so often pass for "intellectual discussion" today.

As one of the more acute intellectuals who served as a mentor of sorts to Us{3} so often noted about the culture of today, it is not one that tends towards cultivation of rational thought{4} -its pretentions towards "enlightenment" to the contrary. For if We have done nothing else at this weblog over the years, it is to run directly contrary to the prevailing "culture" in this crucial area. And that pattern is hardly going to be changing in the slightest in 2005.

Notes:

{1} Among the more recent intermittent threads We have posted are a series of "points to ponder" threads starting HERE.

{2} We are also considering setting aside some time in the next couple of months to complete a subject thread that We intended to post over two years ago. (Indeed the first two parts of the thread were written in early October of 2002.) However, for a variety of reasons it has not been posted for public viewing yet -though We have noted or alluded to it on several occasions in the past.

{3} Not in the cultivation of Our more mature intellectual development as much as a refining of Our weltanschauung in a few key areas. This is a debt that We have seldom explicitly acknowledged by Our own admission. (Though We have occasionally made inferences or otherwise implied it in various ways.)

{4} We live in a militantly antirational culture where people are actively discouraged from thinking. [Michael J. Mentzer (circa. 1993)]

Points to Ponder:
(On the Washington State Governors Heist Race and Political Events in My Home State)

This entry is a continuation of sorts from a previous thread. To start from the beginning of this thread, please go HERE.

One could thank God that Gary Locke’s not running again, but consider the alternatives: Christine Gregoire’s mishandling of the Boys Ranch mess, and the tobacco loot, among other things (like not insisting that striking teachers return to work, be fined or fired as they were in violation of the law) - and she expects you to elect her governor?

Oh, and on the subject of embarrassments, haven’t even mentioned demented Jim McDermott. Or the ungodly department of so-called Health & Human Services. ‘Til now. ‘Nuff said.

And on the subject of politics, while I’m no “staunch” Republican, I did vote for Bush (nor Kerry!), I’ve never witnessed such unbridled hate as I’ve observed here in Western Washington, directed toward Dubya. Lies, misstatements, exaggerations. Unhealthy? Yeah. But the extreme left has pulled the plug of good taste. Marginal taste, even. Can you say disgusting? Placed in context, it’s like a bad dream - enough to make an optimist like me cringe.

Maybe a final example will summarize and illustrate the sheer stupidity of what we’re going to joyfully leave behind when we leave the area – the totally repulsive waste of money “invested” by spendthrifts who purchased idiotic signs which can be noted in Everett (among other places, I’d wager): “You Are Now Entering A Drug Free Zone” – as if, before crossing the street, we’d just been willingly hob-knobbing with cocaine dealers and assorted pot-heads? Political correctness run amuck, like proclaiming a “Nuclear-Free” zone? That’ll do you a lot of good, I’m sure… Although those signs are only a small, penny-ante example, it’s just too typical of the mindset; spending money on such lunacy is beyond dumb. How much did they cost, and who paid whom to write and design? Install, etc. It would appear as if some deranged bureaucrat or city-councilman proposed ‘em. But somebody signed-off and approved them, right? Somebody you might vote out of office next time? Very doubtful – it’s ludicrous!

So, whom should we hold accountable?

The totally inept governor, the attorney general or maybe the legislature? They’ve all kept us from having the much needed Performance Audit, something every other state has to check on where money’s wasted; where it’s being properly spent/invested. Candidly, I don’t think there’s very much of the latter. Ethics either. ["Dino" circa 11/19/04]

Points to Ponder on the Soul

Points to Ponder:
(On the Washington State Governors Heist Race and Political Events in My Home State)

This entry is a continuation of sorts from a previous thread.

Like, a felon with a rap sheet a mile long tries to run over a cop. He’s shot. His sympathizers tie up traffic on the freeway for hours. No one arrested.

Car thieves have to be nabbed seven times before they face any “serious time?” They seem to forget: If You Commit A Crime, You’re Guilty. Period.

People do Mardi Gras partying downtown and some thugs beat up some people. One young man gets killed by a creep who is, appropriately, named Slaughter, right? A young woman battered by a bunch of punks, clobbered. No one wants to admit that they’re racially motivated - wouldn’t be Politically Correct. The police are afraid to inflame emotions? Or something. And a bunch of criminals get away with it! Despite brass knuckles, a judge releases Slaughter so he can beat up someone else a short time later at The Gorge. Other weird or warped judges release convicted rapists, while a drunken member of the State Supremes skates after a hit-and-run “mishap” - no jail time either.

And all along we thought that a little jail time was mandatory. Not if you’re Bobbie Bridges. Other so-called prosecutors want to cut-a-deal/plea-bargain rather than do their jobs. So sad.

Annnd, lest we forget, that same Supreme Court in a virtual plethora of other loony decisions, ‘most all in favor of larger government and higher taxation. Or letting murderers off. Shameful.

Then, Judy, Heidi, Lacata and the other supercilious souls on the Seattle City Council were a tad more concerned with salmon on the Snake River than solving the city’s multitude of problems. Resolutions on the Iraqi war and circus animals were among their other priorities; too little of any real or positive substance. Seattle, Ron Sims-and-friends want to build an expensive new flop-house allowing drunks to drink in a city run “refuge” for alcoholics. Unfathomable! $600,000 blown on some portable toilets, subsidized art in garbage transfer stations; and the driving-without-a-license law becomes less than a misdemeanor; not even a slap on the wrist. The cops’ hands are tied - they can’t even ask if the driver is in our country legally! Or illegally. It might be laughable if it weren’t so damned tragic.

Still, other questions come to mind.

When will Bill Gates (1) get his tax-increasing - big government, semi-socialist pop to shut-the-hell-up or move to France? And (2) might he refuse to accept a paycheck until he’s able to solve that idiotic “You’ve Conducted An Illegal Operation/you’re Shut Down” problem? A pox upon his operation.

Why were there defenders of those totally dishonest high school “counselors” who inflated grades? They should have been axed. Yet they’re defended?

About 60% of the high school graduates require remedial work when they step into junior college - often “A” and “B” students who were conned by their teachers to believe that they’d actually been taught something are amazed to find out that they’re ill equipped to handle real work (but, wow, their self-esteem is outstanding!). Hell, over 30% of Seattle parents were so dissatisfied they reportedly pulled their kids from public schools to get them educated in private schools, afford it or no - even before vouchers were approved! One teachers’ union, the hideously misnamed Maryville Education Association, owns that sad little town; the kids are the victims. In fact, unions have such a disproportionate share of influence statewide, no wonder Washington is failing to attract new business. They’ve priced the state out of business, and there’s no “right to work” law. Again, sad. ["Dino" circa 11/19/04]

To be Continued...

Points to Ponder:
(On the Washington State Governors Heist Race and Political Events in My Home State)


So, whom should we hold accountable?

The totally inept governor, the attorney general or maybe the legislature? They’ve all kept us from having the much needed Performance Audit, something every other state has to check on where money’s wasted; where it’s being properly spent/invested. Candidly, I don’t think there’s very much of the latter. Ethics either.

Attorney General with the Most Remarkable Pay Raise (to my knowledge)—Christine Gregoire; hmmmmm… is it any coincidence that she let the powerful Washington Education Association off the hook in a lawsuit brought by the Evergreen Freedom Foundation??? Attorney General who lost the most tax dollars in state history—Again, Christine!

America’s Most Confused Police Department—The Seattle Police Department, the REAL anarchists in Seattle’s WTO follies, some of whom have been accused of illicit undercover filming of whistle-blowers and reform activists, murder, theft, rape and helping at least one rapist escape.

Most Corrupt Media—Hmmm… would that be the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, which smeared (and possibly framed) a teacher, possibly contributing to his suicide, or the Seattle Times, which protected the late Seattle Schools attorney turned judge (oh yes… and pedophile) Gary Little and recently knowingly hired a sex offender to deliver papers to customers’ homes?

The public votes on car license tabs. The public’s ignored; they’re raised regardless. Don’t like the “light-rail” fiasco? Screw ‘em, they say, build it anyway. The public votes “no” on a stadium. The city fathers and mothers build one anyway. Their contempt for us, the unmitigated gall, is thoroughly sickening. Sound Transit spent $2.16 million to buy the Wells Fargo bank at 14th and Madison, though there is little chance that light rail will ever pass beneath it.

And, seriously, we are driving on the worst highways imaginable while a group of misfits holding office in Seattle and Olympia struggle to maintain the Sound Transit abortion, the crummiest boondoggle imaginable. They’ve built, what, 70 or so highway miles in the last decade or so, while the mileage traveled increased by over 2-1/2 million? In the meantime, the transportation bureaucracy is about twice that of Michigan, which has, ironically, about double the highway miles. And the cost to build each highway mile in Washington is, I read, something like 40% above the national average? If those numbers are accurate, that’s ugly. Very!

And, on that topic, symptomatic of the whole Washington fiscal and political scene, the late Kingdome was built for 55-mil, right? But when it was knocked down 25 years later, what was owed? Something like $127 million, correct? And who admits responsibility? Or doesn’t the apathetic public give a damn? And, if they did care, would anything change? Doubtful. Aside from three on the Seattle City Council, removed for strip-club silliness, I don’t believe anyone’s been kicked out of office. In fact, you continually elect/re-elect/re-appoint these nitwits.

One might have thought that those in the Offices of Such Importance (Locke, Gregoire, Sims, et al) might have learned something from those upsetting nuclear plant financial disasters of a few decades ago. But no wonder there’s so much discontent among the area businesses, large and small - a completely disreputable state government, which, if it’s not actually corrupt, has definitely gone bonkers in terms of efficiency - or the lack thereof. Safeco would leave if it feasibly could; Boeing has - despite the goofy governor’s belated attempts to foster some “semblance of understanding.” Or, perhaps that masquerades as a bribe. Or, bribes, plural? Certainly hasn’t worked. And we haven’t even touched on the bureaucratic red tape, licenses and over-regulation that make this such an Unfriendly To Business state of affairs. Businesses have only begun to leave Washington.

But there’s so much more - the sum of its parts makes Washington intolerable. The sum of only some of its parts makes it laughable. Almost. It’s so very frustrating! ["Dino" circa 11/19/04]

To be Continued...

Should auld acquaintance be forgot
And never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot
And days of auld lang syne?

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne
We'll tak a cup o' kindness yet
For auld lang syne.

And surely ye'll be your pint stoop
And surely I'll be mine
And we'll tak a cup o' kindness yet
For auld lang syne.

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne
We'll tak a cup o' kindness yet
For auld lang syne.

We twa hae run about the braes
And pou'd the gowans fine
But we've wander'd mony a weary foot
Sin' auld lang syne.

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne
We'll tak a cup o' kindness yet
For auld lang syne.

We twa hae paidl'd i' the burn
Frae mornin' sun till dine
But seas between us braid hae roared
Sin' auld lang syne.

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne
We'll tak a cup o' kindness yet
For auld lang syne.

And here's a hand, my trusty fiere
And gi'e's a hand o' thine
And we'll tak a right good willy waught
For auld lang syne. [Attr. Robert Burns]