More "Tales From the Crypt Mailbag"

In order to get this subject completely out of the way, I have decided to post Matt's brief followup to the thread I posted here and my response to it. Again, Matt's words will be in shale font.

Dear Shawn,

Hello Matt:

Thank you very much for responding with such a documented response. I feel a little sorry for Mr. Hand, after reading how his thought process works. He is either suffering from some kind of mental illness, or he readily jumps sides to his perception of what is the most popular.

I am hesitant to note what I think his problems (psychological or otherwise) are publicly for obvious reasons. That may not be the full story but it at least seems like a good part of the equation.

He has insulted me as well when I questioned his views on capitalism (I am a Sales Manager for a large consulting company, and to be honest, I consider myself successful, it allows me to have a large family with my wife staying home).

I am not surprised at his attitude towards you Matt.

I am going to stop visiting TCR News. I used to really enjoy reading his links to Cardinal Newman, Chesterton, Belloc.

Well, there are plenty of good links on those subjects at Dave Armstrong's website. Though Dave recently did the Handian "excommunication" of me from his weblog for our exchanges on the atomic bombings (where he argued a lot like the aforementioned Mr. Hand), I hold out hope that Dave will recognize the problem with these kinds of antics and publicly repent of them. I should note that in his case it is a very rare occurrance{1} whereas this attitude is a serial one with Mr. Hand. For that reason, with the latter am afraid it will require quite a miracle for such a reconciliation to happen unfortunately. In fact, I predict that Mr. Hand is so enslaved to his ideology that he would probably renounce his religious faith before he would renounce his secularist faith.

Thanks again. I like your blog, you echo my thoughts much better than I can communicate them.

Well, we try to do our best here with limited time. Nonetheless, I am glad to count you among the readers of Rerum Novarum now. If you want to write a guest editorial on anything, let me know and you will be accommodated -provided it is on a subject that is interesting of course. You can even write it to disagree with me personally and the odds are good it will be posted...heck I have done it before. And no, we need not even agree issue-wise btw for you to have that forum...unlike Mr. Hand I am not about to hamstring those who disagree with me on a particular issue as that does not allow for fruitful dialogue to be cultivated accordingly.

In conclusion, barring any additional emails received on this subject (which I may or may not elect to respond to privately or publicly), the stance of this weblog towards Mr. Hand returns to what it was prior to this posting in perpetuity. (All things to the contrary ntowithstanding.)

Note:

{1} For this reason, I believe in Dave's case it can be chalked up to the kinds of human weaknesses that are par for the course for all people rather than as the kind of habitual tendency which manifests itself so consistently in Mr. Hand's public statements...and which have been made with an increased frequency in the last six to twelve months or so.

"Tales From the Crypt Mailbag" Dept.
(On "De-baiting" Certain People)

This text with only two exceptions (an expansion of footnote two and a new footnote eight) has received only slight modifications from a private response sent out to an email interlocuter named Matt yesterday with regards to a certain individual who has made a public request for debate. Matt's words will be in shale font.

I was reading Mr. Hands invitation to you to debate him, on the War in Iraq.

Mr. Hand is looking for attention. I refuted him soundly in a series of posts on my weblog in early May of this year and see no reason to revisit what was noted at that time.{1} As I noted in a May 11th posting, Mr. Hand is too much like the Black Knight in Monty Python and at some point one has to end it; ergo I did at that time. Subsequent badgering of me and others publicly resulted in me revisiting and tying together the various May threads from Greg, Chris, Dave, and myself in a July multi-part posting.{2}

That is not to say that there were not some posts between May 11th and July 1st where he was one of the persons I had in mind when writing them but the interim postings with possible connexions were mainly targeted at ideological allies of Mr. Hand's in the area of the war, the death penalty, and economic socialism masquerading as "compassion." In that respect, he was a derivative target at best.

Personally, I think Mr. Hand uses Catholicism to push his Marxist, Socialist agenda(my theory is, his envy of successful people).

You have hit the bullseye there. Indeed Mr. Hand was one of the parties I had in mind when sketching out on my notepad what became a "points to ponder" posting on the many masks of modern marxism. The part that reads not a few varieties of so-called "social justice" and so-called "peacemaking" was written with Mr. Hand specifically in mind.

The problem with this guy is he relies too much on people like Juan Cole, Galloway, etc, and never vets out their nonsense.

To briefly explain him, Mr. Hand is a barking moonbat{3} and an idiotarian{4} Matt. Those terms (which are blogosphere standards) explain his mentality on a whole host of geopolitical matters quite accurately.

Did you respond [to] this inanity?

No because I did not know about the challenge until you informed me of it. I did know that Mr. Hand made a lame attempt to respond to Greg's post after I publicly shamed him for his cowardice{5} but that was all. I knew of the latter only because Chris Blosser told me about it but I did not read the actual link where it was contained...I was told by Chris that it was pathetic and Greg has not seen it as worth his time to engage so that is all I will say about it.

Truthfully, I have not visited Mr. Hand's site in over four months. That is not to say that I am completely unaware of what happens as there are others who fill me in on his moonbattery (should they be inclined to and as you have here). Time after all is too short to waste on timewasters and I wasted enough time trying to dialogue with Mr. Hand back in May viz. my criticisms of his excesses.

Besides, Mr. Hand is not serious. He tries to claim that [these] particular polemicists, we must say, specialize in ad hominem polemics, trying to make their opposition the issue, so as to deflect from the issues themselves when in reality, I stuck to issues and he was the one doing precisely what he claims in that sentence. Indeed I demonstrated the above with actual arguments where I pointed out that he made no intentions whatsoever to respond to my arguments. Instead, all he did was make emotionalist rants and misrepresent Church teaching (not to mention my positions and those of the others) in classic Orwellian double-speak fashion.{6}

If you have ever heard of someone being "180 degrees off" it is Mr. Hand and his assessment of my arguments...which he has shown no evidence whatsoever that he has actually read. Now he can come along four months later and claim whatever he wants but he is a liar as the records of our exchanges well attest to.{7}

I am interested in dialogue not mindless debate and certainly not with those who are serially prone to shunning actual arguments in favour of normative public whining and handwringing.

Oh and see the postings in footnotes one and two for ample evidence of this assertion on my part. Unlike Mr. Hand, I prefer to provide evidences for my assertions and not just talk since we all know talk is cheap. He had his chance for dialogue four months ago and he blew it. This latest ploy is simply him trying to get attention in light of the credibility which he pissed away in how he responded to the criticisms set down by Greg and myself (and supported/extended by Dave and Chris).

I barely have enough time to blog as it is now and Mr. Hand is 2800 miles from me and he knows it. (I live in Seattle.) Likewise, Dave is in Michigan and probably a thousand miles away, Greg is probably 3000 miles from him (San Diego). I am not about to fly someone like him anywhere except (perhaps) to San Quenten where his seditious keister can be locked away for a while.

As far as proximities go, only one of us is even close to him and that is Chris who is on the east coast but (frankly) the way Mr. Hand has insulted Chris repeatedly over the months, I would not waste an iota of time entertaining this petty, solipsistic, marxist shill if I were Chris. Again, Mr. Hand is trying to get attention long after the fact. His apostolate is sinking and he has been losing credibility as a "balanced" person for a long time...what happened in May was only the explicit manifestation of his inner insecurities.

Good luck. Personally, I would not debate him, he runs from the real issues, and hides under the cloaks of Popes, mostly with out of context interpretation of encyclicals.

Precisely. And his trackrecord on this viz. the May disputes bears this out unmistakably. And while more could be noted than that about his recent statements{8}, that is all I will touch on at this point.

Essentially Matt, I have no problem with you or anyone scrutinizing my posts and telling me where they believe my arguments may be problematical or even positing a counter to what I wrote. (I even have the guest editorial format where this has happened at times.) However, Mr. Hand cannot act in like manner and indeed has actually made deletions in his archives to try and run from his past statements: something Dave demonstrated in his part of the disputes circa last May (see the first link in footnote two for details). But that is neither here nor there.

In conclusion, barring any additional emails received on this subject (which I may or may not elect to respond to privately or publicly), the stance of this weblog towards Mr. Hand returns to what it was prior to this posting in perpetuity. (All things to the contrary notwithstanding.)

For a brief followup to this thread, go HERE.

Notes:

{1} In case you were not aware of what transpired earlier this year, here is the post sequence (my comments interspersed):

A Long Overdue Indictment of Stephen Hand --A Rerum Novarum Guest Editorial by Greg Mockeridge (circa April 29, 2005)

A Commentary on Greg Mockeridge's Guest Editorial From the Webmaster of Rerum Novarum (circa April 29, 2005)

The above threads were intended to publicly take Mr. Hand to task for some of his excesses.

A Small Note of Thanks And Other Miscellaneous Bits (circa May 3, 2005)

Self-explanatory when you read the text of the above thread.

"Reactions Without Reasoning" Dept. (circa May 4, 2005)

Dealing with Mr. Hand's first attempted "response" to what Greg and I wrote. I noted in that thread his refusal to engage my actual arguments rather than his caricatures of them: a theme that would repeat itself throughout this whole situation. Of the subsequent threads, ones which were to some extent indirect responses will be indicated with stars around them.

*Points to Ponder--On Legal Plunder and How to Identify It (circa May 7, 2005)*

The above quotation from Claude Frederic Bastiat was a sharp poke at the economic socialism advocated by people like Mr. Hand.

*On the Argumentation Fallacy of Provincialism --An Audio Post (circa May 8, 2005)*

I had Mr. Hand in mind when recording the above post...along with a few other people.

On the Abyss of Private Judgment that has Engulfed TCR's Stephen Hand (circa May 9, 2005)

My response to Mr. Hand's second offering where I again pointed out his refusal to engage my arguments rather than his stereotyped caricatures of them.

*Points to Ponder--On the Vatican and Americanism (circa May 9, 2005)*

On the above thread, I again had Mr. Hand and his fellow anti-American ideologues in mind.

Email From Jack Benedict (circa May 9, 2005)

Jack was Mr. Hand's associate editor from 1999-late 2001.

Some Thread Updates and Additional Notations on the Stephen Hand Saga From the Webmaster of Rerum Novarum (circa May 11, 2005)

That was the third and final direct thread in the confrontation (until July 1st). There are others which have to varying degrees an implicit response to either Mr. Hand personally or those of his overall ideology in that interim but in the interest of not running this list any longer, I will omit them here.

{2} On Actual "Obsessions", "Angsts", and "Tormented Consciences"--Aka "Slight of Hand" Dept. --Parts I-III plus Addendum (circa July 1-2, 2005)

The above postings represent the last time I have spoken of Mr. Hand on my site explicitly. Basically, the above four part thread recapitulates everything that took place and points out in detail why Mr. Hand is a waste of time to try and dialogue with.

Furthermore, I backposted to this weblog yesterday (for only the second time in its history) a comments box thread to the day and time that it was posted elsewhere (with necessary formatting alterations of course). Here is the thread in question:

For Preserving the Historical Record (circa June 29, 2005 3:00pm)

To get a thread contemporary to the time period, I had to do something I have never done before and that was remove a thread posted on the 27th, move a post from the 29th to the 27th, and post it where the original thread from the 29th was actually posted. The removed thread from the 27th (which was a link with a sentence description) was reposted yesterday. The backposted thread was written contemporary to the time when the multiparter noted further up in this footnote was awaiting completion. (Basically in fifteen minutes during lunch if memory serves.) This was done to correct some misperceptions about me personally which were being circulated in the blogosphere. My reason for backposting it are noted in a two paragraph prefatory note preceding the material posted and I do not intend to reiterate it here.

Oh and so that readers can verify my concern for context (as in all my essays and major weblog postings over the years), I have supplied live links to the source. They will only be good for about two more weeks but those who wonder if I made anything but cosmetic changes to the previous posting (such as replace a broken link I could not track down with another link covering the same subject matter) can verify with their own eyes that I have done no such thing. Furthermore, they can verify in that posting (which is from a source I do not control) that I made no misrepresentations whatsoever of Mr. Hand's words or views. If Mr. Hand makes this accusation anymore publicly, he will reveal himself to be a craven liar...and only provide more evidence to substantiate my assertions in the multipart posting from July 1-2, 2005 liinked further up in this footnote.

{3} From the Glossary of Blogging Terms Via Samizdata:

Barking moonbat

{4} From the Glossary of Blogging Terms Via Samizdata:

Idiotarian

{5} See the first link in footnote two.

{6} To provide one example of many which could be cited is this foonote from part one of my July 2005 posting on Mr. Hand:

This idea that he didn't call anyone "less than Catholic" is an insult to our intelligence. While he never uses those words, he clearly implies such. To wit his attack on Fr. Pavone:

"Hear the good man sadly declare himself wiser than the Holy Father as he plays fast and loose with the Pope's clear teaching and intent in another matter of life and death"

If this isn't calling someone "less than Catholic," nothing is! Also saying that we (the war hawk bloggers) are "after the popes again" is tantamount to castings aspersions on our orthodoxy. [Greg Mockeridge: Excerpt from a privately circulated email circa May 14, 2005 about some TCR statements in recent years]

It bears noting that the above excerpt is from a TCR article titled Fr. Pavone (Finally!) Reveals His Americanist Point of Departure which Greg originally used in his Rerum Novarum guest editorial. Mr. Hand has since then removed that article from his site without apology to those he insulted. The readers can take from that undeniable fact whatever they like about the integrity of Mr. Hand and his TCR apostolate. Unlike Mr. Hand, we do not delete archived material from previous periods of time to try and hide from it. [Excerpt from On Actual "Obsessions", "Angsts", and "Tormented Consciences" Part I, footnote 5 (circa July 1, 2005)]

With the above footnote, check the last link to see via the Internet archive proof of Greg's assertions. Mr. Hand no longer has that up at his site and he never apologized for putting it up there.

Furthermore, there is footnote six from the same thread:

You have to read Stephen's so-called truce statements with a bit more than just a cursory glance. In the article...refers [to], Stephen says that it "never occurred to [them] that to suggest that those who support this war are less Catholic than we who oppose it." Then a few lines later he drops this [bit]:

"We confess our fear that too many Catholics are more influenced by the judgements of media personalities and news channels than the prudential wisdom and ordinary magisterium of the popes and the Church ." [Greg Mockeridge: Excerpt from a privately circulated email circa May 31, 2005 about a TCR statement (circa May 29, 2005)]

His attempt to talk out of both sides of his mouth is evident from the above examples...and check the link if you doubt my veracity on this (or Greg's). As of this note, it reads as quoted but with Mr. Hand, he could change that at some point so be warned in advance about that.

{7} See footnote one. The threads involved are posted to my weblog and have never been edited since their original postings except a few times to correct misspellings and/or grammar glitches in spots. (The kind of stuff that happens when you write quickly and do not have the time for precision editing or have an associate editor to do it for you as Mr. Hand has had in the past and may have currently.)

{8} There is irony in someone like Mr. Hand claiming that I or anyone else he has named has engaged in words [being] excised from context as any kind of specialty when I have in all my responses to Mr. Hand used his words verbatim without any ellipses or modifications to the sense of the text in any manner whatsoever except on rare occasions (where it necessary to respond to him) the tense of the words. But even in doing that I am careful to convey the same sense. Here is one example of probably a hundred or so I could list...the example in this very paragraph. Here is how it was utilized:

There is irony in someone like Mr. Hand claiming that I or anyone else he has named has engaged in words [being] excised from context as any kind of specialty

Here is what Mr. Hand said verbatim:

words cannot be excised from context as is their specialty.

Has what I noted above conveyed the sense of the text that Mr. Hand used??? Of course it has though because of the way he phrased it a response to the verbatim text would have been difficult. But that is the most I excise anything he has said. The vast majority of the time (as the threads in footnote one demonstrate), I respond to his verbatim statements. Unless Mr. Hand wants to claim that his own words used verbatim are somehow words [being] excised from context, his accusations against me personally have no merit. Nor can I recall any of the others using his words in any sense except direct verbatim citations so again, the accusation falls flat. But Mr. Hand is not interested in substantiating his public assertions Matt. No, he thinks he can make assertions and that somehow suffices. I trust that anyone with a normal, intact, functioning brain can recognize the inadequacy of his methodology so no more needs to be said about it here.

"Empty Spaces" Dept.
(Posted 10/07/05)

Whaaat shaaall we uuuse...
To filllll...the emp-ty...
spa-ces...where...we used to taaaalk?
Howwww...shall I fillll...the fin-alll...spa-ces...
Howwww shall I.......com-pleeeete the wall?

This post originally comprised an advertisement for a site with Gregorian Chant music which I later discovered was to a wacko fringe site. For that reason, I have deleted the text of a weblog post for only the second time in this weblog's history (and first in over two years).

Thus, there is an empty space here now to fill. I will do so as I did over two years ago with an advertisement for my good friend Dave Armstrong's books. Click HERE for details. If you mentally replace the references to Christmas with "early-fall" or some other equivalent, everything else falls into place nicely.

On Able Danger and A Potential Defense Department Coverup:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

I must admit it my friends: I have had a sneaking suspicion for a while that all this hurricane coverage is in part to keep the Able Danger hearings from receiving their proper spot in the media reporting. I also have my suspicions as to why this is happening but I would prefer to go over those subjects another time and focus on what the MSM is not covering with the prominence that they should be. That is not to say that they are not covering it because they are.{1} But Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita are slow gale winds compared to the tsunami-like accusations being brought forward by the Honourable Congressman Curt Weldon in recent months.

For those with little to no knowledge of what I am referring to, Representative Curt Weldon (R-PA) is making some very serious allegations from every microphone he can get his hands on. Key amongst them are (i) that there was a Defense Department/Pentagon quashing of key intelligence information that may well have prevented 9/11 from occurring and (ii) that the 9/11 Commission either ignored or seriously played down this information in their hearings and final reporting. These are serious allegations since they deal with national security issues. Furthermore, since the 9/11 Commission was supposed to get to the bottom of what happened, the idea that they would spike potentially key information gives us just cause to question what they actually did put forward in the form of facts and recommendations.

The purpose of this post will be to go over Able Danger a bit and the hearings that took place today and set down some pointers which can be developed further as more information becomes readily available. To set the stage for my own musings, let us consider the observations of others who are following Able Danger carefully. With that in mind, I bring you some information and commentary from Bryan Preston (JunkYard BLOG), A J. Strata (Strata-Sphere), and Captain Ed (Captain's Quarters). Let us start with Bryan Preston's prescient comments from over a month ago -one's not included in the recent JYB update incidentally enough::

JPod and Jim Geraghty rightly called for someone within Able Danger to come forward with what he or she knew, and now someone has. He's Lt Col Anthony Shaffer, and if he's right the weeks leading up to the fourth anniversary of 9-11 are going to be turbulent:

A military intelligence team repeatedly contacted the F.B.I. in 2000 to warn about the existence of an American-based terrorist cell that included the ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks, according to a veteran Army intelligence officer who said he had now decided to risk his career by discussing the information publicly. The officer, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, said military lawyers later blocked the team from sharing any of its information with the F.B.I.

A word about the risk to Shaffer's career and its relevance to the story. Shaffer, it's clear by now, worked for a very, very secretive unit. It was under Special Operations Command, and in all likelihood interfaced not only with the Defense Intelligence Agency but also with the National Security Agency. His position was one of special trust, a position few in the military have the privilege of attaining. As an Army rep in this mix, it makes perfect sense that he was loath for several years to come forward, and it likewise makes sense that his fellow soldiers hold a similar attitude. The last thing Shaffer would want to do, other than fail in his assigned tasks, would be to make the Army look bad in any way, through bullheadedness or perceived conflicts with others in the mix. The context, in other words, matters a great deal here, and I seriously doubt that many who have never been in the military or around intel operations will understand it But there it is.

Colonel Shaffer said in an interview that the small, highly classified intelligence program known as Able Danger had identified by name the terrorist ringleader, Mohammed Atta, as well three of the other future hijackers by mid-2000, and had tried to arrange a meeting that summer with agents of the F.B.I.'s Washington field office to share the information.

But he said military lawyers forced members of the intelligence program to cancel three scheduled meetings with the F.B.I. at the last minute, which left the bureau without information that Colonel Shaffer said might have led to Mr. Atta and the other terrorists while the Sept. 11 plot was still being planned.

"I was at the point of near insubordination over the fact that this was something important, that this was something that should have been pursued," Colonel Shaffer said of his efforts to get the evidence from the intelligence program to the F.B.I. in 2000 and early 2001.

And there that is. Here's something else. The current Chief of Staff of the US Army is Gen. Peter Schoomaker. He rose through the ranks of Special Operations Command, and was in charge of that command at MacDill Air Force Base at the time Able Danger did its work. If the Pentagon is reticent to confirm Lt Col Shaffer's story, you have two data points to consider as reasons why. One, the likely involvement of NSA, the most secretive and most effective (largely because it's so secretive) intel agency we have. They stay out of the limelight and generally because of that run rings around the CIA. Anything that puts a spotlight on NSA is bad, so that in and of itself could be a reason to pour cold water on Able Danger. The second data point is that it could boomerang around on the Army Chief of Staff if he was in any way involved in bottling up Able Danger in his old command. The Pentagon does not want this scandal, not now and not ever. So I'll be surprised if they say anything interesting anytime in the next hundred years about Able Danger. [Bryan Preston: Excerpt from a JunkYard BLOG Thread (circa August 16, 2005)]

The purpose of quoting the JYB posting from mid August is to set the stage for what follows. As those who are paying close attention know, the Senate Judiciary Committee (chaired by Senator Arlen Specter) are holding hearings on Able Danger...they did so today and those hearing have not been closed. Oh and those of you who did not know this can quit reading the media's hurricane overkill coverage and pay attention please. Consider if you will what AJ Strata noted four days ago was to take place in these hearings:

In the latest explosive revelation in the Able Danger saga, two former members of the data-mining team are expected to testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee next week that they uncovered alarming terrorist activity and associations in Aden weeks before the Oct. 12, 2000, suicide bombing of the U.S. warship that killed 17 sailors. [A J Strata: Excerpt froma Strata-Sphere Thread (circa September 17, 2005)]

In other words, members of Able Danger will not only testify that they knew in advance of the Al Queda operatives involved in 9/11 a year before the tragic events of that day but also that they were onto terrorist activities in the area where the USS Cole was sunk!!! Of course the problem is, those members of Able Danger did not testify because the Pentagon interfered preventing five key witnesses from testifying today. This is the very same Pentagon who has tried to make the hearings private for some reason or another. On these interferences, Captain Ed of Captain's Quarters has some very trenchant commentary yesterday which is well worth considering:

The Pentagon might think that withdrawing its witnesses will keep Able Danger from breaking wide open, but they will find themselves sorely mistaken. This only demonstrates that the program found something that the Pentagon still wants hidden. If that includes a finding that their program not only found Atta and other AQ terrorists over a year before the attacks, but also predicted the USS Cole attack three weeks before it happened, and that the Pentagon shut down the program anyway, eighteen Senators will want to know why.

In fact, the withdrawal of the witnesses clearly shows that the story has substance and isn't a case of mistaken identity. Had this just been an identification of a second Mohammed Atta, as Specter postulates, the Pentagon should have no problem putting its witnesses on the stand. Nothing about a mistaken identity would create a classification problem for the hearing tomorrow. [Captain Ed: Excerpt from Captain's Quarters (circa September 20, 2005)]

Indeed, if this story was not significant, then the Pentagon would not act as they are acting...which is disturbingly similar to that old sitcom gag where one character flays away wildly trying to distract another from opening a particular door if you know what I mean. Some serious problems have been unearthed -including a few which are being pointed out by the MSM interestingly enough.{2} I want to muse a bit on what did take place today in the hearings before wrapping up this posting. However, first I want to recall something I wrote last week about Rep. Curt Weldon:

As I have noted in private correspondence to a few individuals, what he has done (in writing a book about Able Danger and 9/11) and what he is saying (in promoting his book on the various media curcuits), Rep. Curt Weldon has taken quite a gamble here. Bryan is right about him essentially going "all in" with what he is doing (to use a Texas hold'em expression) in that if he is called and does not produce the cards, he will be finished politically. However, if he can deliver on what he says he can, then his prestige will increase. In fact, if the latter proves to be true, look for Rep. Weldon to become a Republican darkhorse candidate for the presidency in 2008 (whether he wants it or not). My money is on Weldon's gamble paying off because generally speaking people do not make public stances like this unless they can deliver. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 16, 2005)]

Readers of this weblog are not unaware that your host tends to be right on his predictions a lot more than he is wrong -mainly because Our predictions tend to be made as a rule only after some semblance of an outline has already emerged in Our reading and reflections on issues. The essence of the problem is (i) whether or not 9/11 was possibly avertable as a result of information that Able Danger possessed and (ii) if so, why was 9/11 not so averted. Rep. Weldon had some pretty uncomfortable things to say in a letter I linked to in the previous JYB thread discussing this subject -part of that text I reproduce here:

Yesterday the national news media began in-depth coverage of a story that is not new. In fact, I have been talking about it for some time. From 1998 to 2001, Army Intelligence and Special Operations Command spearheaded an effort called Able Danger that was intended to map out al Qaeda. According to individuals that were part of the project, Able Danger identified Mohammed Atta as a terrorist threat before 9/11. Team members believed that the Atta cell in Brooklyn should be subject to closer scrutiny, but somewhere along the food chain of Administration bureaucrats and lawyers, a decision was made in late 2000 against passing the information to the FBI. These details are understandably of great interest to the American people, thus the recent media frenzy. However I have spoken on this topic for some time, in the House Armed Services and Homeland Security Committees, on the floor of the House on June 27, 2005, and at various speaking engagements.

The impetus for this letter is my extreme disappointment in the recent, and false, claim of the 9-11 Commission staff that the Commission was never given access to any information on Able Danger. The 9-11 Commission staff received not one but two briefings on Able Danger from former team members, yet did not pursue the matter. Furthermore, commissioners never returned calls from a defense intelligence official that had made contact with them to discuss this issue as a follow on to a previous meeting...

The 9-11 Commission took a very high-profile role in critiquing intelligence agencies that refused to listen to outside information. The commissioners very publicly expressed their disapproval of agencies and departments that would not entertain ideas that did not originate in-house. Therefore it is no small irony that the Commission would in the end prove to be guilty of the very same offense when information of potentially critical importance was brought to its attention. The Commission’s refusal to investigate Able Danger after being notified of its existence, and its recent efforts to feign ignorance of the project while blaming others for supposedly withholding information on it, brings shame on the commissioners, and is evocative of the worst tendencies in the federal government that the Commission worked to expose.

Questions remain to be answered. The first: What lawyers in the Department of Defense made the decision in late 2000 not to pass the information from Able Danger to the FBI? And second: Why did the 9-11 Commission staff not find it necessary to pass this information to the Commissioners, and why did the 9-11 Commission staff not request full documentation of Able Danger from the team member that volunteered the information?

Answering these questions is the work of the commissioners now, and fear of tarnishing the Commission’s legacy cannot be allowed to override the truth...[Congressman Curt Weldon: Excerpt from a Letter He Sent to the Former 9/11 Commission Members (circa August 10, 2005)]

Now of course anyone can say anything but Rep. Weldon has asserted many very damaging things including not only what is noted above but also that he has witnesses who will swear under oath that that they were ordered to destroy records relating to the Able Danger program. I realize I covered this already{3}, but this factor is not unimportant since it smells strongly of a coverup within the government entities -particularly the Department of Defense and the Pentagon. And in the Able Danger hearings yesterday, Rep. Curt Weldon went on the record under oath saying the following earlier today --oh and LIWA stands for the Land and Information Warfare Analysis branch of army intelligence by the way in case you are wondering:

The only way to move forward with new policies is to go back and really understand what went wrong – even if it means reexamining old territory. However, it is regretful that all of the Able Danger team members are not allowed to speak today. The victims and families of 9-11 and the Country deserve better...

During 1999 and 2000, I was aware that the LIWA was providing massive data mining and analysis for a number of extremely important intelligence and anti-terrorism initiatives – including international drug cartels; corruption in Russia and Serbia; terrorist linkages in the Far East; proliferation activities both within and against the United States; as well as an extensive global analysis of Al Qaeda.

In fact, in the weeks following 9/11, I was provided an extensive analysis chart of Al Qaeda, which I immediately took to the White House and personally delivered to then-Deputy National Security Advisor Steven Hadley. Mr. Hadley was extremely interested in the chart and said that he would take it to the President. I continued to vigorously support the concept of data mining and analysis, particularly when the TTIC was announced.

In the spring of 2005, I attempted to re-create the chart that I had presented to Hadley in 2001, so I queried my contact from LIWA. It was then that I received a brief to create a new expanded data mining and analysis capability known as Able Providence (which I would like to submit for the record). Able Providence was an initiative that would be supported through the Office of Naval Intelligence. The Navy was so enamored with getting Able Providence up and running that they even provided my Chief of Staff with the appropriate budget line number to direct any additional congressional funds.

It was during the briefings on Able Providence that I was provided additional information about Able Danger. I was told that Able Danger had amassed significant data about Al Qaeda and five worldwide cells – one of which had linkages to Brooklyn and has been referred to as the Brooklyn cell. I was told that Able Danger identified the Brooklyn cell – to include Mohammed Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers – more than one year before September 11, 2001. Additionally, I was informed of an effort to share specific information with the FBI about Al Qaeda in September 2000 – one year before 9/11 – and that three meetings for that purpose were abruptly cancelled hours before they were scheduled to take place.

This new information was startling, and caused me to review the 9/11 Commission Report to see if any reference to Able Danger was contained therein. Realizing that no such reference existed, I asked my Chief of Staff to personally contact the 9/11 Commission and determine if they had been briefed about Able Danger...

How could it be possible that two 9/11 Commission staffers received two briefs, by two different members of Able Danger, in two different countries, on the same subject, yet no such information was brought to the level of a Commissioner. One is left to wonder if there was a similar information sharing problem within the commission.

On June 27, 2005, dismayed by the fact that Able Danger was omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report, I took to the floor of the House of Representatives to outline the entire Able Danger story for my colleagues and the American people. In the weeks following that speech, I methodically briefed the Chairs of House Armed Services, Intelligence, Homeland Security and FBI Appropriations Oversight Committee.

The New York Times picked up the story in August and ran three straight days of stories. On each day, the 9/11 Commission changed their story...

Along with my Chief of Staff, we pursued the operatives involved in Able Danger throughout the months of July and August. We identified five officials who confirmed the facts of Able Danger, as well as knowledge of massive data and materials tied to the effort. We identified an FBI agent who played a role in arranging meetings to share information on U.S. persons that were abruptly cancelled. We also identified a technician who did Able Danger analysis and an individual who admitted to destroying Able Danger data – up to 2.5 terabytes. This data contained information on U.S. persons with ties to terrorism that could have helped prevent 9-11 and possibly even be used to track terrorist movements today. The person who destroyed this data has also spoken about how Major General Lambert, the J3 at U.S. Special Operations Command, was extremely upset when he learned that his data had been destroyed without his knowledge or consent...[Congressman Curt Weldon: Testimony Under Oath Before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Able Danger (circa September 21, 2005)]

There is more than just what is quoted there but Rep. Weldon has really put himself on the line now since if he perjurs himself, nothing else he says will be viewed with credibility. Furthermore, there are a lot of questions that Rep Weldon noted need answering. However, a few in particular are of interest to me and they are the following ones which he noted in his testimony earlier today:

Who ordered the destruction of 2.5 terabytes of data about Al Qaeda and why?

Those of you who are computer savvy can fill me in on how large a terabyte is...I would presume it is larger than a gigabyte but I do not know for sure so that is all I will say on that part of it. With regards to the destroying of information, I am always disturbed when allegations are made of this sort because it give the impression of a coverup no matter what else is said to the contrary.

Who stopped the meetings between the FBI and Able Danger personnel in September 2000 and why?

Since this was a year before 9/11, the idea that such meetings (where potentially life-saving information could have been passed on to the FBI) were not allowed to take place is profoundly troubling to me.

What was the extent of the 3 hour brief provided to General Shelton in January 2001 regarding Able Danger?

It is hard to believe that in three hours of briefing that the information about Al Queda that Able Danger was reputed to have had would not have been passed on...after all, 3 hours is a lot of time to fill. And again, this was at least eight months before 9/11 so again I am left wondering why if key information was passed on to General Shelton (again, if) why it seems to have gone nowhere viz. informing the FBI and CIA.

Why have threats been made to Able Danger witnesses who were simply telling their stories?

If Able Danger was such a pecadillo-filled operation, then these kinds of threats make no sense. Furthermore, the Pentagon's blocking of five key witnesses which Rep. Weldon intended to call forward to testify under oath also makes no sense unless where there is smoke there is fire.

Fortunately, the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee (one Sen. Arlen Spector) wants some answers from the Defense Department about Able Danger. And I for one hope he gets them so that we can have this matter cleared up once and for all. I should remind the readers that my views on Senator Specter over the years have not been positive ones -indeed I recall expressing skepticism about his ability to lead the Senate Judiciary Committee in light of the (then inevitable, now currently occurring) confirmation hearings of President Bush's nominees.{4} However, on that matter, I have no qualms to speak of thus far on his handling of the Justice Roberts hearings.{5} And if he can get to the bottom of this whole Able Danger situation and allow Rep. Weldon to make his case and have his witnesses interviewed under oath, I will have to reassess my very negative assessment of Sen. Specter.

Remember, this is not a partisan issue my friends and it should not be made into one. That is why we need full disclosure because if 9/11 could have been prevented but for intelligence sabotage within the government, then that needs to be made known and those responsible need to be punished accordingly. Hopefully the partisans of both sides of the divide can agree to that much and suspend polemics on this matter until we know with as much certainty as we can have who did what, who ordered what to be destroyed and why, if anything was destroyed which could have helped prevent the disasters of 9/11 from occurring, and why members of the 9/11 commission (which was supposedly "bipartisan") have changed their story on Able Danger at least three times if not more so.

--I do not want to see Democratic ideologues ignoring potentially damning evidence against the Clinton Administration in its handling of Al Queda and terrorism in general -either under the pretense that it "tarnishes the legacy of President Clinton" or "impedes the presidential aspirations of Sen. Clinton."

--I do not want to see Republican ideologues ignoring potentially damning evidence against the Bush Administration in its handling of Al Queda and terrorism in general -either under the pretense that it "tarnishes the legacy of President Bush" or "impedes the presidential aspirations of the Republicans in 2008."

What I want is the truth and I do not care to whom or where the political casualties will lie as a result. Oh and if Rep. Curt Weldon is proven to be right, I want him given a Medal of Honour for his courage in championing this issue as he has. While more could be noted, that suffices for now to set down some pointers which can be developed further as more information becomes readily available which was the intention of this post to begin with.

Notes:

{1} Certainly, we who are often so critical of the MSM must be fair and also give them their props when they do their jobs.

{2} The following is the New York Post article on some of the members of Able Danger who were prevented from testifying today by the Pentagon:

September 17, 2005 -- WASHINGTON — Members of a secret Pentagon intelligence unit known as Able Danger warned top military generals that it had uncovered information of increased al Qaeda "activity" in Aden harbor less than three weeks before the attack on the USS Cole, The Post has learned.

In the latest explosive revelation in the Able Danger saga, two former members of the data-mining team are expected to testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee next week that they uncovered alarming terrorist activity and associations in Aden weeks before the Oct. 12, 2000, suicide bombing of the U.S. warship that killed 17 sailors.

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, the Defense Intelligence Agency's former liaison to Able Danger, told The Post that Capt. Scott Phillpott, Able Danger's leader, briefed Gen. Peter Schoomaker, former head of Special Operations Command and now Army chief of staff, about the findings on Yemen "two or three weeks" before the Cole attack.

"Yemen was elevated by Able Danger to be one of the top three hot spots for al Qaeda in the entire world," Shaffer recalled.

Shaffer and two other officials familiar with Able Danger said contractors uncovered al Qaeda activities in Yemen through a search of Osama bin Laden's business ties.

The Pentagon had no immediate comment. [New York Post: Terror Alert Wks. Before Cole Attack (circa September 17, 2005)]


{3} To quote my previous comments on this matter:

Congressman Curt Weldon (R - Pennsylvania) gave another exclusive interview to Dom Giordano this evening (Monday) and broke the news that he will be giving a speech on September 8th (next Monday) during which he will present yet another 'Able Danger' witness. This new witness will attest (and will swear under oath when called) that he was "ordered to destroy records" relating to the 'Able Danger' program. [Excerpt from The JunkYard BLOG via. Rerum Novarum (circa September 16, 2005)]

{4} Yes my friends, in the interest of disclosure, this is what I said last year on this weblog about Senator Arlen Specter...probably my only public utterances on the man in about seven years:

[B]efore ending this post, a few comments on the upcoming Senate Judiciary Committee hearings and the probable soon-to-be-new chairman of the committee Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

I have been hesitant to say anything much about Senator Arlen Specter in recent years. Part of the reason is because I cannot think of anything he has done since his unmasking of Anita Hill that was worth anything. He seems to pride himself on being "independent" to the point of sacrificing principles for political expediency. Nonetheless, apparently the Republicans in the Senate are actually going to show some backbone here viz. Specter's desire to head the Senate Judiciary Committee...

Time will tell if Specter follows through on his promises or not; nonetheless this is a good development for congressional Republicans who need to start showing some real backbone for a change. Chalk me up as skeptical until they actually do...[Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa December 3, 2004)]

{5} Granted, I have not watched much of the hearings; ergo, this assessment is not as set in stone as it could be.

Points to Ponder:
(On Homelessness)

Of all the lies that are swallowed and regurgitated by the media, the ones that hurt the most are from the Good Guys...[t]he grassroots do-gooders, the social work heroes, the non-profit advocacy groups battling for peace, justice, and equality. [Katherine Dunn: From The New Republic (circa 1993)]

Recent convert Alvin Kimel (of Pontifications) reminds us of some very poignant words about the Church by the late cardinal Jean Danielou (RIP)

Points to Ponder:
(On Real Historical Understanding and How to Properly Approach the Past)

This is to some extent a continuation of a previous "points to ponder" thread.

Real historical understanding is not achieved by the subordination of the past to the present, but rather by our making the past our present and attempting to see life with the eyes of another century than our own...Instead of being moved to indignation by something in the past which at first seems alien and perhaps even wicked to our own day, instead of leaving it in the outer darkness, he makes the effort to bring this thing into the context where it is natural, and he elucidates the matter by showing its relation to other things which we do understand. [Herbert Butterfield -From The Whig Interpretation of History (c. 1931)]

Abstract Theorizing and Hypothetical Wartime Situations:
(With SecretAgentMan)

This note is a response to The Secret One's posting HERE on hypothetical war situations. His words will be in blue font.

[A(nother) Hypothetical Situation . . . .

. . . is here proposed with respect to the present discussion concerning the conformity (or lack thereof) between the American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and just-war rules by way of the principle of double effect:

Blefuscu is at war with Lilliput. The Lilliputians are an island people who require imported shipments of Fertilizer X to grow food and feed themselves. They have arranged to acquire their entire year's supply of Fertilizer X by means of one shipment but, perhaps foolishly, also load the ship with dissassembled fighter planes. No other shipments of Fertilizer X can be arranged in this year.

Ok.

Losing the fighter planes would be a significant reversal, but not a war-ending event, for the Lilliputians, who have other aircraft. The destruction of the Fertilizer X, however, would result in millions of civilian deaths by starvation. The fighters' presence arguably makes the ship a military target whose destruction would also have consequences for the civilian population of Lilliput. On the other hand, it's clear that the war-winning effect of an attack would come from the starvation of Lilliputians, who would have no choice but to surrender or die.

The Blefuscutian admiralty knows all this. May it order Blefuscu's submarine fleet to track the Lilliputian ship and sink it without violating Catholic moral principles?

Yes, the destruction of the ship by sinking it is legitimate. What would not be legitimate however is if they captured the ship, poisoned the food supply, and then allowed the ship to escape to Lilliput. Destruction of food or water supplies but not the poisoning of said sources, is legitimate. I outlined this principle from Catholic sources in a previous thread{1} and my rationale on this hypothetical situation are to be understood as congruent with what I posted on the matter in the aforementioned thread.

Note:

{1} [The person in question] seems to have a confusion about these matters since (i) double effect is not required to be sustained by just war criteria since the act in conforming to its intrinsic principles already meets that standard and (ii) a seeming unawareness of what a proper appeal to just war theory actually is. On the latter, I will now briefly touch on so that readers do not think I am merely asserting something without proof...

[I]n medieval times, the term “just war” applied to the authority for levying the war, rather than to the substance of the cause or the complaint. If levied on the authority of an independent prince, the war was considered just, since there was no higher authority to judge the cause, and battle settled the issue. [Encyclopedia Brittanica Fifteenth Edition: Excerpt from War, the Theory and Conduct of Macropaedia Volume XXIX, pg. 643 (c. 1985)]

[The person in question] by trying to apply it to the substance of the cause or the complaint rather than to the authority for levying the war thus misappropriates the principle in no small detail. And lest [they] object to me quoting a non-Catholic source above on the matter, I will now quote from my copy of the Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary on the subject of war:

War. War is waged justly if it be initiated by public authority for a sufficiently grave and just reason. Soldiers enlisted before the outbreak of war can take its justness for granted unless the contrary is apparent; after the outbreak, those who join the army must first be morally certain of its justness. In a just war all means are licit which necessary and suitable for carrying the war to a successful end, provided that they are not contrary to natural or international law; e.g. the killing of any man under arms or of spies but not of non-combatants, the laying of ambushes, the destruction, but not the poisoning, of wells, are lawful acts of war. For a war to be just the motive must be the vindication of a certain right, of proportionate importance, which has been certainly violated, or a just intervention to defend the rights of others, and then only when other means of redress have failed. [Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary Tenth Edition: Donald Attwater - General Editor pg. 553 (c. 1941)]

The above definition in all of its parameters has more than amply been met with the first eight posts of the nine I have posted on this subject since August 17th. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 6, 2005)]

Why is it so rare
For proposed dialogues to
Be based on issues???

Points to Ponder:
(On So-Called "Progressivism" as a Religion)

Progressives killed 100 million people in the 20th Century, in peacetime; the societies they constructed created poverty on unimaginable scale; their economic systems didn't work. Has any of this caused them a second thought? Or look at the current war to overthrow a monster in Iraq and give ordinary Iraqis the freedom to vote. So-called Progressives have done everything they could to save Saddam's bacon and prevent Iraqis from achieving even minimal freedoms. The same people who used to get enraged when the United States supported dictators are now attacking Bush for overthrowing one. Why? Because in their melodrama America is the global oppressor, the Great Satan, and therefore, can never do anything right. That's why you can only understand Progressivism as a religion. [David Horowitz (circa August 3, 2005)]

An Interview with Rev. Peter M. J. Stravinskas

Fr. Peter M.J. Stravinskas used to be the editor of Our Sunday Visitor -a publication for which I have written articles for in the past at the prompting of my ever-persistent friend Pete Vere. Since spring of 2004, Fr. Stravinskas has been working on a new project called The Catholic Response. I am not familiar with this project; however I am sure that with Fr. Peter at the helm, it is well worth reading. For that reason, I will give a very rare "blind approval" if you will of that project.

Oh, in conclusing these brief notes, I would be remiss in not noting that it is nice to see that with his new venture that Fr. Stravinskas has redeemed the TCR moniker...rumour also has it that he is blogging now. Anyone with information on the accuracy of the rumour, please email me on the subject.

I have made a bunch of minor weblog additions, subtractions, reclassifications, etc. in recent days. And while it would take a longer post than I have time for to detail every change made, I will note here only the additions and deletions made. Those deleted or added are the following ones:

Added:

Kevin Miller's weblog De Virtutibus which I discovered is active again.

Kevin Tierney's weblog which I have been slack in adding for too long.

Weblog archives have been extended from 9/10/05 through 10/22/05.

Deleted:

Mary Herboth's old weblog url which has been taken over by someone else.

Obrogated:

Jeff Culbreath's Hallowed Ground BLOG in place of his old El Camino Real BLOG.

Reclassified to Active Status:

Mark Shea's weblog

I also originally put The Curmudgeon's long mothballed weblog into haitus status but he decided to notify me and some others that he has reactivated it as of today; ergo it stays in active status by a hairs breadth ;-)

All modifications (either noted above or otherwise) are hereby made in perpetuity all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Points to Ponder:
(On Being a Catholic)

One thing cool about being Catholic is that I am free to believe in a literal six day creation or a God guided evolution. Or if another new and better scientific theory comes out I am also free to accept that too. I was a lot less free and more dogmatic when I was an atheist. Meaningless random evolution was pretty much all I was allowed or allowed myself to believe. As a Catholic I am free to believe in miracles and in certain Church approved apparitions, though I am also free to disbelieve those apparitions. As an atheist I was not free to believe in apparitions or miracles. Yet it is generally Catholic who are called dogmatists. Chesterton said that man is a creature who creates dogmas and that is certainly true since everybody holds to dogmas, they just vary on what are to be held as dogmas. Or they at least hold to the dogma that there are no dogmas. [Jeff Miller (circa July 13, 2005)]

As I am in the mood for some poetry today, the following poem from a good friend of mine will be posted to the weblog. Without further ado...

Dress Rehearsals for Our Time in Purgatory

Like lichen boulders
both dead and alive,
her baby teeth
are weighing anchor
in restless gums.
One by one
her howls wean
each pumpkin tooth
from chewing foods
into a wider
gap in her smile
and pillow burial
recasting me
as the tooth fairy out
of my parental
role in the hell
that only our children,
when innocently suffering,
know quite how to
damn us to. [Albert Cipriani]

Points to Ponder:
(On How Historians Should Treat Events and Situations of the Past)

There can be no complaint against the historian who personally and privately has his preferences and antipathies, and who as a human being merely has a fancy to take part in the game that he is describing; it is pleasant to see him give way to his prejudices and take them emotionally, so that they splash into colour as he writes; provided that when he steps in this way into the arena he recognizes that he is stepping into a world of partial judgements and purely personal appreciations and does not imagines that he is speaking ex cathedra. But if the historian can rear himself up like a god and judge, or stand as the official avenger of the crimes of the past, then one can require that he shall be still more godlike and regard himself rather as the reconciler than as the avenger; taking it that his aim is to achieve the understanding of the men and parties and causes of the past, and that in this understanding, if it can be complete, all things will ultimately be reconciled. [Herbert Butterfield -From The Whig Interpretation of History (c. 1931)]

"Exit Stage Left"* Dept.:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

As a proposed dialogue on a very complex and touchy subject matter in recent weeks has resulted in the exact opposite of my initial intentions occurring (i.e. matters non normative, objective, and issues based have been transmuted into normative, subjective, and personal), it seems appropriate at this time to put an end to it from my side of the fence if you will.

Readers who have followed the series of events are aware of these two points if nothing else:

--I have set forth very trenchant arguments covering the spectrum of complexities of the subjects in question.

--I have explained in reasonable detail why the attempts to counter my arguments have failed from a logical and non-normative standpoint.

Those points have not been countered with anything representing rational argument; ergo I have said what I intend to say on them and do not intend to say any more.

Thomas a Kempis once noted something akin to the idea that sometimes for the sake of peace we must give up our opinions. I certainly am not doing that but I am recognizing that I played a role (however reluctantly) in perpetuating what could have been an endless series of "he said-she said" responses. For that I apologize to the readers of this weblog. I also apologize to my friend Dave for my role in said perpetuation and appreciate him setting forth his opinion on the matter for readers to consider along with the arguments I set forth to explain my own. For the sake of peace, I am giving up my role in this situation but wish to note a few things in brief first.

To start with, I am generally quite pleased with myself viz. my strivings to follow the discipline of the dialogue but it is always with all of us a work in progress and perfection in it is ongoing. Recognizing that and that on this matter I in some respects fell short of the ideal myself, I extend to my friend Dave my most sincere apologies for any hurt he may have felt by virtue of the often-vigorous and strident manner whereby I defend my views.

And with those words, I bid the subject of the bombings, the moral and ethical matrixes involved, etc. adieu and do so in perpetuity all things to the contrary notwithstanding. I also wish to thank my friend Dave for (i) his time and the energies he expended on the matter and (ii) his generally underappreciated role in the covering of a plethora of subjects as he so often does while seeking to do so from an orthodox and Catholic perspective: a perspective which I remind the readers is often broader than most people (even most Catholics) would casually presume.

* With apologies to the music group Rush:

On Making a Valid Argument and Avoiding Argumentation Fallacies:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

It seems that a certain very confused friend of this writer has sought to respond to a recent "points to ponder" thread by taking issue with the person whose words were posted. As the confused friend in question recently was on the receiving end of a pretty thorough drubbing by yours truly viz. some "arguments" they sought to propound on a subject which they were by their own admission not well informed in{1}, it seems that they presume that they can avoid admitting to being taken to the cleaners in their attempted "arguments" by going after the person of Glen Whitman. Those who can figure out what fallacy this involves are ahead of the curve but I will explain it briefly for those who are still reading and for whom the penny has not dropped yet. Nonetheless, before I do that, I will briefly make a defense for the person of someone I have never met or corresponded with.

According to his page, the following information pertains to one Glen Whitman:

Glen Whitman is an assistant professor of economics at California State University, Northridge. He has also been an instructor of economics at New York University, where he received his Ph.D. in economics in May, 2000. He specializes in applied microeconomics, economic analysis of law, and game theory.

As one who has taken classes in economics, business law, international political economy, international business models, and various other subjects along those lines, I can vouch for the fact that they are all subjects which involve a fairly competent ability to argue and argue persuasively. Furthermore, there is this bit of information which also is helpful:

Professor Whitman has also been involved in various forms of public speaking and debate ever since high school. He was the coach of the NYU Parliamentary Debaters' Union for two years, and he is now a trustee of the American Parliamentary Debate Association.

In other words, the person being cited can be recognized as an expert in the area of debate by virtue of their experience in the area. Whatever one wants to say about NYU in general, their parlimentary debate team (of which Mr. Whitman was the coach for three years) has had a remarkable trackrecord of beating other college debate teams in recent years. He has even written on the subject of debating as well as how to run a good debate tournament. If the critic can posit even similar bona fides, then we can consider them similarly qualified but do not hold your breath waiting for that to happen my friends. But enough on that and let us get to the crux of what was actually said.

Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. For instance, some people like to quote Einstein's opinions about politics (he tended to have fairly left-wing views), as though Einstein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist. Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes.

If we want to argue does Mr. Whitman have expertise in being able to be cited as an authority on argumentation fallacies, I believe what is noted above is more than adequate. But that is not why I cited Mr. Whitman my friends. No, I cited him because he agrees with a position I myself have made and of which I have made my own arguments on: something my confused friend cannot claim for the lions share of their own recent statements. It is obvious that my reluctant pointing of this out publicly has angered them but they brought this on themselves with their recent public actions and statements. Moving on...

At least in some forms of debate, quoting various sources to support one's position is not just acceptable but mandatory. In general, there is nothing wrong with doing so. Even if the person quoted has no particular expertise in the area, he may have had a particularly eloquent way of saying something that makes for a more persuasive speech. In general, debaters should be called down for committing argumentum ad verecundiam only when (a) they rely on an unqualified source for information about facts without other (qualified) sources of verification, or (b) they imply that some policy must be right simply because so-and-so thought so.

Though it was not necessary to do, we have established Mr. Whitman as an expert on debating. Nonetheless, what interests me is what he notes are the conditions which someone should be called down for committing argumentum ad verecundiam and they were the following ones:

---Relying on an unqualified source for information about facts without other qualified sources of verification.

---Claiming something is right because someone else has said so.

Those who followed the recent events know that none of those points can be imputed to me but that my confused friend has violated both of them repeatedly. In closing, there is another fallacy they have fallen into which I will note upon wrapping this posting up and it is this: argumentum ad hominem.

The latter fallacy is to argue to the man rather than the man's arguments. This has clearly been the case with my confused friend by going after Mr. Whitman rather than considering if what Mr. Whitman says is or is not true. There is a reason my confused friend did this and it is this: what Mr. Whitman says about argumentum ad verecundiam is so commonly accepted as to be general knowledge on the matter. But then again, it is always easier to make accusations than to produce any arguments. If your host has had one weakness in this whole endeavour it has been making too many arguments. Unfortunately, my confused friend's weakness has been the converse of that which any unbiased reader of both sides can easily verify for themselves.

In short, by attempting to once again avoid the arguments and focusing instead on the person making them, my confused friend has committed yet another argumentation fallacy. But why do I sense that pride will be their downfall in refusing to face up to and admit to these errors as publicly as they have made them???

Note:

{1} I must concede that on one subject at the very least (the one on double effect) they did actually make some arguments of their own. The rest were basically a hodgepodge of "I disagree and [fill in the list of people you want] agree with me" - the textbook example of argumentum ad vericundium as was noted in the aforementioned points to ponder thread in support of my own arguments advanced on this very subject matter in at least three previous postings of recent vintage.

Points to Ponder:

All successful newspapers are ceaselessly querulous and bellicose. They never defend anyone or anything if they can help it; if the job is forced on them, they tackle it by denouncing someone or something else. [H. L. Mencken]

On the High Gas Prices and the Economics Involved Therein:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

The subject of high gas prices is is another subject --like the Hurricane Katrina subject itself-- I have not talked about at all but in light of paying $3.00 a gallon last week for the first time in my life, it seems appropriate to point out the real reason gas prices are so high. The answer of course is basic economics supply and demand my friends. But there is a bit more to it than just simple slogans so let us look at this matter a bit.

To start with, there has been a push for alternative fuel sources for decades by people who are utterly ignorant of how markets actually work.{1} These same people have sought to use the federal government to raise taxes on gasoline to try and shape the buying decisions of the public. Furthermore, the same people have sought to avoid the building of any additional oil refineries in the United States for about three decades making the refineries the weakness in the entire oil-into-petrol-into-your-local-gaspump chain if you will.

And of course if you add to the above concoction a massive storm devastating a key urban center with some of the very limited numbers of refineries in close proximity; inexorably you have a recipe for increased gasoline prices and why they will go up further as a result of the storm fallout over the coming months. At this point, it does not matter if the president taps into oil reserves or has the pumping capabilities in Alaska or other domestic sources increased. This would be done presumably with the idea of increasing supply of oil driving down the price of gas at the pump. But in the words of that great western philosopher Roscoe P. Coltraine: this theory has a serious "flaw in the slaw." For you can pump all the oil in the world but if you cannot increase refining capacities, the extra oil will not impact the prices at the pump. And for those who claim that we "should have had alternative energy sources by now" as their counter, it is now time for "economics 101" to dispatch with that notion in syllogistic form.

(1) The idea that the federal government can best manage the creation of alternative energy sources is a joke. There are very few things the federal government can do well and seeking to micromanage businesses is not one of them.{2}

(2) The creation of new energy sources involves putting capital at risk by private enterprises.

(3) Those who are the most vociferous about the need for new energy sources are almost always in favour of increased taxation and regulation on the so-called "rich" who own private enterprises.

(4) It is pretty obvious that with innovation being in virtually all cases the fruit of capital put at risk for research and development, there has to be an incentive to put capital at risk to develop the wanted alternative energy sources.

(5) If you seek to strangle the profit motive of private enterprises through heavy taxation and mountains of regulation, you remove any incentives to put at risk the capital that could be used to research and develop other forms of energy.

The end result of the above is that there will not be any new energy sources at all because those who are most zealous for them are too ignorant of the way markets operate to advance an agenda favourable for businesses to seek to profitably develop alternative sources.

Does that mean that no sources will not be developed??? Not necessarily so because there may well be companies willing to put up with all the taxes and other crap imposed by the government to hamper industry and develop them. But one thing is sure: because such companies would be very few, that means that the number of suppliers for alternative sources will be limited and that means high prices for the alternative energy sources. This is basic econ. 101 my friends. So, those who want to see alternative energy sources developed anytime soon should endorse the following agenda if they are serious about getting said sources in the near future:

--Supporting the lowering if not the elimination altogether of all taxes on businesses.

--Support the pruning of regulations on businesses except for what is truly required.

Those two steps alone would widen the field of potential companies willing to invest capital into research and development of alternative fuel sources. Furthermore, it would not artificially narrow the number of companies who may want to try such an endeavour; thus keeping the potential suppliers of said sources greater in number. The latter being the case, the probable result would be that the price for said sources (once they were available) would be lower as well. However, since that is a long term solution not a short term one, the following ideas should accompany the above ones as more directly impacting short term goals on the energy prices:

--Pruning back the taxation on gasoline by fifty cents a gallon or or more.

--The building of more refineries to refine greater amounts of oil to thereby increase the gasoline supply.

The former would see an immediate reduction in gas prices and the government could compensate for it by cutting the federal budget to account for the lesser revenue received. The latter idea would create in a matter of months or more (depending on how quickly said refineries could be built and made servicable) a glut of gasoline supply and we all know what happens when the supply of a product increases: price decreases.

Of course I predict that we will see the zealots for alternative energy sources as a rule not want to do any of what I noted above because so many of them are enslaved to the fallacious marxist weltanschauung. And not a few of them happen to hold elected office in the state and federal governments -including several with R's after their name.

Finally, those who think that the reduction in gas tax idea is unwise I remind you: the federal government already has a two trillion dollar budget of which 75% or more is unconstitutional federal spending.{3} The truth is, the federal leviathan could use some serious lopping off of funding and this suggested reduction is only a drop in the bucket of what is really needed if we want to get technical about it.

Notes:

{1} Not coincidentally, these are the same people who tend to think that President Bush is another Hitler so keep that in mind as we look at the factors involved in what is noted viz. the increase of gasoline prices at the pump since these same people blame Bush for their own economic follies over the years.

{2} Do we need to remember that the idea of "planned economies" is a corner stone of the marxist philosophy and that it fails every time it has been tried??? And no, this is not because "the right people have not tried it" but because of the intrinsic flaws in the philosophy itself.

{3} You see my friends, all the prevarications about the "general welfare" clause of Article I Section VIII of the Constitution -used to justify the mountains of unconstitutional drivel that is in the federal budget- can be confuted by one reference to it by the Father of the Constitution himself -the man who was the primary drafter of the document- James Madison:

With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." [James Madison: On the "General Welfare" clause in the U.S. Constitution]

And so that my statement may be affirmed "on the word of two or three witnesses" (Deut. xix,15; Matt. xviii,16; 2 Cor. xiii,1; Heb. x,28; cf. John viii,17), I offer the testimony of Thomas Jefferson, another of the Founding Fathers who was not unfamiliar with the Constitution and its intentions:

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

The ignorance politicians have of the Constitution -while problematical of course- is nonetheless not as bad as the people who will vote for whomever enriches their interests irrespective of what the Constitution actually says. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 31, 2003)]

Points to Ponder:
(On Appealing to Authority in Argumentation)

Though I have written on argumentation fallacies in the past{1} and undoubtedly will continue to do so in the future whenever it is germane to the subjects being discussed{2}, the following on the appeal to authority in argumentation (Lat. Argumentum ad verecundiam) can be seen as a supplement to what I have already written on this subject at this very weblog on more than one occasion.

Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. For instance, some people like to quote Einstein's opinions about politics (he tended to have fairly left-wing views), as though Einstein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist. Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes.

At least in some forms of debate, quoting various sources to support one's position is not just acceptable but mandatory. In general, there is nothing wrong with doing so. Even if the person quoted has no particular expertise in the area, he may have had a particularly eloquent way of saying something that makes for a more persuasive speech. In general, debaters should be called down for committing argumentum ad verecundiam only when (a) they rely on an unqualified source for information about facts without other (qualified) sources of verification, or (b) they imply that some policy must be right simply because so-and-so thought so. [Glen Whitman]


Notes:

{1} Offhand, these threads come to mind though I am sure there are others if I had time to look for them:

On the Fallacy of False Dilemma

On the Fallacy of Argumentum ad Verecundiam (or "Appeal to Authority")

On the Argumentation Fallacy of Provincialism --An Audio Post

Argumentum ad Verecundiam Revisited Briefly

Detailing Seven Argumentation Fallacies in Response to a Moonbat Thread

{2} Most recently there was a revisiting of fallacious forms of Argumentum ad Verecundiam as being utilized by a friend of this writer in precisely this kind of context. Though dealt with in more detail in two rather long threads from September 6th, a previous posting from August 28th dealt more specifically with the Argumentum ad Vericundiam aspects of this -the latter of which can be read HERE for those who are interested.

Miscellaneous Threads for Reviewing:

Finishing the long-overdue JYB update thread is taking a drain on my limited time so I decided to take a brief vacation of sorts from it and post this thread to provide for the readers of this weblog some miscellaneous threads for reviewing in the interim. Having noted that, off on Warp 3 we go starting with Hurricane Katrina.

With regards to the latter, I have said very little thus far{1} preferring to let others hash things out a bit before weighing in further on the subject if I even do at all. However, since it is a major news item, it seems appropriate to get a perspective from a native New Orleanian since they basically agree with me on this matter and are in a better position to enunciate my view (in a macro sense) with some firsthand experience on the matter. For that I direct y'all to Oswald Sobrino of Catholic Analysis. Here is just a taste of what you will find:

As a native New Orleanian, I know well that laissez-faire attitude--I could use stronger words for it that you can fill in-- which is so true to type. The culture of New Orleans is the opposite of what the New Testament is always urging: be vigilant, be sober, be on watch. The roguish attitude of the "City That Care Forgot" is no longer even remotely amusing or entertaining in the face of floating dead bodies, masses of poor people living like animals, and the elderly finally being fished out of old folks' homes. The scandalous ineptness and stupidity shown by local and state officials in failing to enforce and implement a true evacuation of the most vulnerable is, unfortunately, a continuation of the long history of misrule that has marked my native city for decades. Remember that fact when you see local and state officials lashing out at the federal response. Their lashing out is an attempt at distracting from their own obvious responsibility for a self-magnified disaster. [Oswald Sobrino: Excerpt from The City That Did Not Evacuate (circa September 03, 2005)]

For more on the subject, I recommend the above thread if you are interested.

From the "'Sweet Home Alabama' Dept." of Rerum Novarum is this bit from Beth over at the Right Wing Conspiracy weblog on Howard "YEAAAAHHHHH!!!" Dean and his latest quip on the tragedy:

“We must … come to terms with the ugly truth that skin color, age and economics played a deadly role in who survived and who did not,” Dean said.

To which Beth responds as follows:

So what is he saying, that poor/old black people are too stupid or lazy to evacuate before hurricanes? WTF??

Or is he saying that the mayor of New Orleans who didn’t enable the evacuations is to blame because he’s black?

Ouch!!! Those who wonder why I supported the election of Howard "YEAAAAHHHHH!!!" Dean as Democratic National Committee Chair{2} now have yet another reason why. Moving on we have this latest bit of news on the ability of a fetus to feel pain:

New Study Finds Babies Cry in the Womb – "Even the Bottom Lip Quivers"

Of course to those for whom abortion is a key sacrament of their secularist "religion" this will not matter but I thought I would note it here nonetheless.

Fellow Blessed Sacrament parishoner Mark Shea returns to the blogosphere with thirty-nine postings in the last three days on various subjects!!!

Considering that he was absent from the sphere for roughly five months, I think criticisms of his output volumewise the past three days are inappropriate.

Moving from Shea's recent blogging blitzkrieg to the subject of Social Security Reform, we have this interesting link from one of the gang over at Southern Appeal:

Reforming Social Security: Lessons from Thirty Counties

I hope to examine it more in depth but at the moment will recommend it based on the habitual trackrecord of the SA crowd for posting stuff well worth reading. Finally, we have the following from Greg Mockeridge over at the Cooperatores Veritatis weblog on the skewed understanding of so-called "peacemakers" on the subject of torture:

[A Certain So-Called "Peacemaker" and Their] Dick Durbinesque Definition of Torture

While more links could be noted, that should provide y'all with some reading while I finish that JYB update thread. Oh and for those who were wondering why I did not cover the so-called "Catholic Consensus" viz.the subject of the atomic bombings in my two recent (and heavily detailed) confutations of Dave Armstrong (viewable here: Part I - Part II), apparently Greg Mockeridge did too and has weighed in on this subject HERE.

Notes:

{1} The primary subject in the news is Hurricane Katrina and its decimation of New Orleans -Our hearts and prayers fo out to those who have suffered as a result of this catastrophe. And while there is a fair amount of wheat and chaff to discuss in that subject viz. how various parties have responded to the circumstances that took place down there but right now, it is more important to help out those afflicated. With that in mind, anyone who knows of some worthwhile charities which are targeting that area with their resources, please let me know and I will mention them on this weblog. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 4, 2005)]

{2} Yes, there are actually some Democrats who are pushing for Dean in this position out of a belief that he would help their party be viable again. Heck, I would support Dean as DNC Chairman because it would have precisely the opposite effect that the Democrats who want Dean to be Chairman actually want to happen. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 3, 2004)]

"Tales From the Crypt Mailbag" Dept.
(On John Roberts Being Made Chief Justice)

Readers are asked to consider what is noted in the email response below in light of what was posted to this humble weblog a couple of days ago on the death of Chief Justice Rhenquist. The words of the emailer will be in light red font.

Ok I'm open to correction here, but I really don't see this as a good idea. The Chief justice could've been unambigiously constructionalist, he didn't need a stealth nominee. I personally would've rushed that one through right away, get him confirmed, then once they try to oppose Roberts for being "out of the mainstream" point out they allowed an "extremist" through!

Well, in some respects this is a good approach because it prevents Bush from giving the title to Scalia or Thomas: which while I would like that would perhaps make the hearing worse than they will be. Roberts will get through because they have essentially already admitted as much; ergo Bush avoids the assertion that he is making an "extremist" chief justice. Besides, if Roberts is inclined towards the views of Thomas and Scalia (which appears to be the case) they will probably be the powers behind the throne if you will and sometimes it is better to control the king than be the king yourself.