On the Subject of America's Founding:
(With Christopher Blosser and David Jones--Part I of III)
It is inevitable that when this subject is discussed that the subjects of the so-called "enlightenment" and elements pertaining to that particular weltanschauung will be brought forward by certain quarters. And while your host is debating on whether or not to write on the subject of conservatism, republicanism, and democracy before the end of the year{1}, at the moment he wants to briefly deal with common misperceptions of America's founding. The words of Christopher Blosser will be in blue font. The words of the party who questions the American founding (David Jones) will be in darkgreen font and any sources referenced by your host will be in darkblue font. Without further ado...
Tim delivers a necessary correction to David Jones on Masonry and the American republic:
This is an interesting bit from David:
First, the Masonic Lodge is a secret organization, a secret society.
So was the Catholic Church prior to Constantine. If being part of a secret society is ipso facto a problem, then we as Catholics are in heap big trouble.
For a Catholic to be an active Mason is to incur automatic excommunication.
We know that now beyond any shadow of doubt.
Therefore secrecy in this case is especially necessary. His resistance to apply this automatic excommunication in the United States is evidence of the close relationship Masonry had with the Carroll family. It would have resulted in his own brother being excommunicated…
This is a surprisingly uncharitable reading of things by David.{2} If he was not approaching this in such a facile and anachronistic fashion, he may realize that the Carrolls were both influenced by the Jesuits and thus were following with all likelihood the moral system of probabilism.{3} This well explains why if they actually were active Masons that their approach to the mason question was in line with probabilist moral principles. The popes have never condemned probabilism -indeed as the Catholic Encyclopedia noted, they have actually implied it at times:
The prevailing theory amongst Probabilists holds that if five or six theologians, notable for prudence and learning, independently adhere to an opinion their view is solidly probable, if it has not been set aside by authoritative decisions or by intrinsic arguments which they have failed to solve. Even one theologian of very exceptional authority, such as St. Alphonsus Liguori, is able to make an opinion solidly probable, as we know from the official declarations of the Holy See. All moralists agree that mere flimsy reasons are insufficient to give an opinion solid probability, and also that the support of many theologians who are mere collectors of the opinions of others is unable to give solid probability to the view which they maintain. [The Catholic Encyclopedia: From the Article Probabilism (c. 1913)]
The same article makes note of two moral approaches to subjects which the magisterium has condemned - rigorism and laxism:
Rigorism, or, as it is frequently called, Tutiorism held that the less safe opinion should be most probable, if not absolutely certain, before it could be lawfully put into practice, while Laxism maintained that if the less safe opinion were slightly probable it could be followed with a safe conscience.[ibid]
Hopefully, some of the intricacies involved in the subject matter under discussion are becoming clearer to the reader with what is noted above.
What we do know (historical fact) is that his brother was a very active Mason.
As is usually the case, there are details in even the "historical facts" that such a simplistic reading as that fail to take into account.
His resistance to apply this automatic excommunication is also evidence of an early form of American "cafeteria Catholicism" to pick and choose what they like or dislike from Rome.
David's ignorance of Jesuit probabilism is glaringly apparent in the above statement. But that is not all that can be said about the comment and its evident lack of charitable interpretation.{4}
From here, David attempts to engage in non-sequitur argumentation by placing this matter on the same level as abortion and the like which have a much more unambiguous status both now as well as then. David also noted that there were about fourteen papal pronouncements on the matter but what he does not realize (apparently) is that the third such pronouncement was in 1821 after the deaths of both Daniel Carroll (+1796) as well as Archbishop John Carroll (+1815). Prior to the third pronouncement in 1821, there were two pronouncements (1738 and 1751) and they were issued decades before America's founding. Furthemore, they were issued in response to masonry as it found itself on the European continent. To transfer these condemnations wholesale to the American continent of three decades later is to engage in a logical fallacy of context-switching for reasons which will not be delved into here.{5}
To be Continued...
Notes:
{1} Whether or not this is done will depend on many factors including if there is time to finish formatting those threads for posting. (They are already written.)
{2} Always be ready and willing to excuse the faults of your neighbour, and never put an unfavourable interpretation upon his actions. The same action, says St. Francis de Sales, may be looked upon under many different aspects: a charitable person will ever suppose the best, an uncharitable person will just as certainly choose the worst. [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Spiritual Instruction on Charity (circa January 24, 2004)]
{3} This is a moral/ethical approach that was once very common to the Jesuits...whether it still is or not your host is not sure.
{4} See footnote two.
{5} As far as awareness of the statements go, it was not until the nineteenth century and the pronouncement of Pope Pius VII (1821) that the position of the popes on freemasonry with regards to the scope of the prohibition was reasonably clear as prior to that, there was a degree of controversion on the matter for various and sundry reasons. But the further proscriptions by Pope Leo XII (1825), Pope Pius VIII, (1829) and Pope Gregory XVI (1832) were clearly universal in scope. This is why there were devout Catholics in many countries (including Ireland and America) who were involved with the masons at times prior to the early nineteenth century. However puzzling this may be, for one who understands the background on the matter, it is not the problem that many with anachronistic interpretations on the matter would lead people to believe.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Points to Ponder:
(On the Sanctity of Human Life and Nazi Atrocities)
Fellow Christians! In the pastoral letter of the German bishops of June 26, 1941, which was read out in all the Catholic churches in Germany on July 6, 1941, it states among other things: It is true that there are definite commandments in Catholic moral doctrine which are no longer applicable if their fulfillment involves too many difficulties.
However, there are sacred obligations of conscience from which no one has the power to release us and which we must fulfil even if it costs us our lives. Never under any circumstances may a human being kill an innocent person apart from war and legitimate self-defense. On July 6, I already had cause to add to the pastoral letter the following explanation: for some months we have been hearing reports that, on the orders of Berlin, patients from mental asylums who have been ill for a long time and may appear incurable, are being compulsorily removed. Then, after a short time, the relatives are regularly informed that the corpse has been burnt and the ashes can be delivered. There is a general suspicion verging on certainty, that these numerous unexpected deaths of mentally ill people do not occur of themselves but are deliberately brought about, that the doctrine is being followed, according to which one may destroy so-called 'worthless life,' that is, kill innocent people if one considers that their lives are of no further value for the nation and the state.
I am reliably informed that lists are also being drawn up in the asylums of the province of Westphalia as well of those patients who are to be taken away as so-called 'unproductive national comrades' and shortly to be killed. The first transport left the Marienthal institution near Münster during this past week. German men and women, section 211 of the Reich Penal Code is still valid. It states: 'He who deliberately kills another person will be punished by death for murder if the killing is premeditated.'
Those patients who are destined to be killed are transported away from home to a distant asylum presumably in order to protect those who deliberately kill those poor people, members of our families, from this legal punishment. Some illness is then given as the cause of death. Since the corpse has been burnt straight away, the relatives and also the criminal police are unable to establish whether the illness really occurred and what the cause of death was.
However, I have been assured that the Reich Interior Ministry and the office of the Reich Doctors' Leader, Dr. Conti, make no bones about the fact that in reality a large number of mentally ill people in Germany have been deliberately killed and more will be killed in the future. [Cardinal Clemens von Galen (circa August 3, 1941)]
To be Continued...
(On the Sanctity of Human Life and Nazi Atrocities)
Fellow Christians! In the pastoral letter of the German bishops of June 26, 1941, which was read out in all the Catholic churches in Germany on July 6, 1941, it states among other things: It is true that there are definite commandments in Catholic moral doctrine which are no longer applicable if their fulfillment involves too many difficulties.
However, there are sacred obligations of conscience from which no one has the power to release us and which we must fulfil even if it costs us our lives. Never under any circumstances may a human being kill an innocent person apart from war and legitimate self-defense. On July 6, I already had cause to add to the pastoral letter the following explanation: for some months we have been hearing reports that, on the orders of Berlin, patients from mental asylums who have been ill for a long time and may appear incurable, are being compulsorily removed. Then, after a short time, the relatives are regularly informed that the corpse has been burnt and the ashes can be delivered. There is a general suspicion verging on certainty, that these numerous unexpected deaths of mentally ill people do not occur of themselves but are deliberately brought about, that the doctrine is being followed, according to which one may destroy so-called 'worthless life,' that is, kill innocent people if one considers that their lives are of no further value for the nation and the state.
I am reliably informed that lists are also being drawn up in the asylums of the province of Westphalia as well of those patients who are to be taken away as so-called 'unproductive national comrades' and shortly to be killed. The first transport left the Marienthal institution near Münster during this past week. German men and women, section 211 of the Reich Penal Code is still valid. It states: 'He who deliberately kills another person will be punished by death for murder if the killing is premeditated.'
Those patients who are destined to be killed are transported away from home to a distant asylum presumably in order to protect those who deliberately kill those poor people, members of our families, from this legal punishment. Some illness is then given as the cause of death. Since the corpse has been burnt straight away, the relatives and also the criminal police are unable to establish whether the illness really occurred and what the cause of death was.
However, I have been assured that the Reich Interior Ministry and the office of the Reich Doctors' Leader, Dr. Conti, make no bones about the fact that in reality a large number of mentally ill people in Germany have been deliberately killed and more will be killed in the future. [Cardinal Clemens von Galen (circa August 3, 1941)]
To be Continued...
Monday, December 12, 2005
Points to Ponder:
(On Putting Social Principles Into Action)
There are three stages which should normally be followed in the reduction of social principles into practice. First, one reviews the concrete situation; secondly, one forms a judgment on it in the light of these same principles; thirdly, one decides what in the circumstances can and should be done to implement these principles. These are the three stages that are usually expressed in the three terms: look, judge, act.
It is important for our young people to grasp this method and to practice it. Knowledge acquired in this way does not remain merely abstract, but is seen as something that must be translated into action.
Differences of opinion in the application of principles can sometimes arise even among sincere Catholics. When this happens, they should be careful not to lose their respect and esteem for each other. Instead, they should strive to find points of agreement for effective and suitable action, and not wear themselves out in interminable arguments, and, under pretext of the better or the best, omit to do the good that is possible and therefore obligatory. [Pope John XXIII: Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra §236-238 (c. May 15, 1961)]
(On Putting Social Principles Into Action)
There are three stages which should normally be followed in the reduction of social principles into practice. First, one reviews the concrete situation; secondly, one forms a judgment on it in the light of these same principles; thirdly, one decides what in the circumstances can and should be done to implement these principles. These are the three stages that are usually expressed in the three terms: look, judge, act.
It is important for our young people to grasp this method and to practice it. Knowledge acquired in this way does not remain merely abstract, but is seen as something that must be translated into action.
Differences of opinion in the application of principles can sometimes arise even among sincere Catholics. When this happens, they should be careful not to lose their respect and esteem for each other. Instead, they should strive to find points of agreement for effective and suitable action, and not wear themselves out in interminable arguments, and, under pretext of the better or the best, omit to do the good that is possible and therefore obligatory. [Pope John XXIII: Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra §236-238 (c. May 15, 1961)]
First Draft of An Album Review:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[This is the rough draft of an album review which I plan to revise and abridge for posting at Amazon before the end of the month. -ISM]
*****
A Masterpiece of Music and Musings...
Roger Waters is given a giant share of the credit for Pink Floyd growing from the psychedelic brainchild of Syd Barrett in the mid to late 1960’s to attaining its status as a “super-group” in the early 1970’s by right-minded observers. Dark Side of the Moon (1973) was the first of a succession of blockbuster albums throughout the next ten years culminating with 1979’s The Wall and 1983’s The Final Cut. With each album since Barrett’s departure, there was some reflection of Waters’ growing influence within the group while he cultivated his songwriting talents. However, what is most evident from Dark Side on is Waters’ continuing focus on the struggles of modern society. And there are significant convergences between his view and my more ressourcement (read: authentically conservative) ones however strange that may seem on the surface. But this is not the time to go into the false dichotomies of “left” and “right” but instead to focus on this very moving (and profoundly under-appreciated) piece of work.
The horrors of war have long been a major theme of his writing along with the theme of alienation: of people from modern society, from modern technology, etc. Some of this is stuff that even amateur psychologists could discern: Roger’s father died in WWII when Roger was an infant. As a result of this tragedy, Waters grew up having no father present and no small degree of derision for government in general. This is a condition which was compounded as he came to view the promises of the postwar period (on which his fathers’ sacrifice along with that of countless others was to some extent initially justified) being betrayed by an increasingly materialistic, artificial existence. The album itself follows the pattern of every Waters project since Dark Side: having a concept to it that permeates the entire album. In the opening track The Ballad of Bill Hubbard, the album begins with a theme straight out of 1983’s The Final Cut: the sound a station being tuned in: with the latter it was a radio, on this album it is a TV.
The Ballad of Bill Hubbard is mostly instrumental and Jeff Beck plays some very stirring soloing guitar while from the “TV”, there is recollections being given by Alf Razzell about his last recollections of Bill Hubbard…having to leave him in No-Man’s Land on the western front in 1917 where he died. From there, the “TV” changes and the first part of the What God Wants trilogy of tunes on this album. Jeff Beck makes another appearance with some very strident playing while Roger sings about how God “wants” all the contrary things various people claim He “wants.” The metaphor of “the monkey” makes its debut in this along with a reference to “the alien prophet” and “the alien comic” which seem out of place but will make sense later on.
Perfect Sense (in two parts, the second is particularly striking) presents modern warfare as it is often utilized by the media” as a game. Waters underscores this by having Marv Albert “call the plays” as a submarine engages an oil rig and blows it up. The game fascination is summed up in the song The Bravery of Being Out of Range: an aggressive song, which underscores a scathing indictment of those cheer on each media exposure of war as if it is “entertainment.” The next two songs (Late Home Tonight in Parts I and II) are acoustic and look at families on both sides of the war divide -emphasizing the difference between engagement and detachment to some extent.
From there, the album moves into Too Much Rope -the weakest of the songs on the album but still containing more food for thought than anything in the so-called “pop music charts.” From there, the second part of the What God Wants set comes up and this time it opens with a tele-evangelist trying to raise funds and listing the various denominations of money that “God Wants” among other things (poverty, wealth, etc).
What God Wants in the third installment opens with musical and effects echoes from earlier Floyd songs (from 1975’s Shine On You Crazy Diamond and 1971’s Echoes respectively). Another mention of the “alien prophet” and several animals in the vicinity of money: some obvious and others not so. (Shades of 1977’s Animals in some respects here.) And that brings us to two of the best songs on an album of very good songs: Watching TV and Three Wishes.
Watching TV involves Tianinemon Square and how Roger was affected by it. It is acoustic and the duet (with Don Henley) is moving. Showing that history is not for fools, Roger recounts some Chinese history before moving into a list of people whom this Chinese girl is different from throughout history building up to a depressing indictment of modern soullessness. The conclusion is...well...I do not want to give it away but it really hits like a hammer to put it mildly.
Three Wishes builds to some extent on the latter by showing that the artist himself is not free of admitted selfishness. It is a testament of sorts to the human condition and how we say we want to be altruistic but (when the chips are down) we often seek our own self-interests first and then feel the guilt afterwards. Jeff Beck plays a Dave Gilmour-like solo, which eases the tension a little bit but not much. And from there, the album moves into It’s a Miracle recounting “achievements” of modern civilization by outlining the excesses in a somewhat sarcastic fashion.
The last song on the album is Amused to Death. The imagery is vivid and it is at that point where the alien figures referred to at times throughout the album are identified: they are alien anthropologists who found the remains of the human race around the TV sets and after trying to figure out why we died out conclude that “this species has amused itself to death.” The fadeout finishes with the voice of Alf Razzell again recognizing finally the humanity of his fallen comrade many decades ago: no longer a nightmarish image to him for reasons too numerous to deal with here.
The album as a whole as well as in its individual parts (the songs) paint a very vivid picture that provide plenty of food for musing. Much as Johnny Cash's final video Hurt showed vividly what an artist can do with pictures, Roger Waters with music, sound effects, and various spoken voices paints a similarly compelling picture with this album. I cannot recommend this album enough for those who like music to have some relevance to reality rather than being merely an escape from it. For those who do not fit the latter description, this album is not for you: go back to listening to your mindless Top 40 drivel and leave masterpieces such as this for those who can truly appreciate them.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[This is the rough draft of an album review which I plan to revise and abridge for posting at Amazon before the end of the month. -ISM]
*****
A Masterpiece of Music and Musings...
Roger Waters is given a giant share of the credit for Pink Floyd growing from the psychedelic brainchild of Syd Barrett in the mid to late 1960’s to attaining its status as a “super-group” in the early 1970’s by right-minded observers. Dark Side of the Moon (1973) was the first of a succession of blockbuster albums throughout the next ten years culminating with 1979’s The Wall and 1983’s The Final Cut. With each album since Barrett’s departure, there was some reflection of Waters’ growing influence within the group while he cultivated his songwriting talents. However, what is most evident from Dark Side on is Waters’ continuing focus on the struggles of modern society. And there are significant convergences between his view and my more ressourcement (read: authentically conservative) ones however strange that may seem on the surface. But this is not the time to go into the false dichotomies of “left” and “right” but instead to focus on this very moving (and profoundly under-appreciated) piece of work.
The horrors of war have long been a major theme of his writing along with the theme of alienation: of people from modern society, from modern technology, etc. Some of this is stuff that even amateur psychologists could discern: Roger’s father died in WWII when Roger was an infant. As a result of this tragedy, Waters grew up having no father present and no small degree of derision for government in general. This is a condition which was compounded as he came to view the promises of the postwar period (on which his fathers’ sacrifice along with that of countless others was to some extent initially justified) being betrayed by an increasingly materialistic, artificial existence. The album itself follows the pattern of every Waters project since Dark Side: having a concept to it that permeates the entire album. In the opening track The Ballad of Bill Hubbard, the album begins with a theme straight out of 1983’s The Final Cut: the sound a station being tuned in: with the latter it was a radio, on this album it is a TV.
The Ballad of Bill Hubbard is mostly instrumental and Jeff Beck plays some very stirring soloing guitar while from the “TV”, there is recollections being given by Alf Razzell about his last recollections of Bill Hubbard…having to leave him in No-Man’s Land on the western front in 1917 where he died. From there, the “TV” changes and the first part of the What God Wants trilogy of tunes on this album. Jeff Beck makes another appearance with some very strident playing while Roger sings about how God “wants” all the contrary things various people claim He “wants.” The metaphor of “the monkey” makes its debut in this along with a reference to “the alien prophet” and “the alien comic” which seem out of place but will make sense later on.
Perfect Sense (in two parts, the second is particularly striking) presents modern warfare as it is often utilized by the media” as a game. Waters underscores this by having Marv Albert “call the plays” as a submarine engages an oil rig and blows it up. The game fascination is summed up in the song The Bravery of Being Out of Range: an aggressive song, which underscores a scathing indictment of those cheer on each media exposure of war as if it is “entertainment.” The next two songs (Late Home Tonight in Parts I and II) are acoustic and look at families on both sides of the war divide -emphasizing the difference between engagement and detachment to some extent.
From there, the album moves into Too Much Rope -the weakest of the songs on the album but still containing more food for thought than anything in the so-called “pop music charts.” From there, the second part of the What God Wants set comes up and this time it opens with a tele-evangelist trying to raise funds and listing the various denominations of money that “God Wants” among other things (poverty, wealth, etc).
What God Wants in the third installment opens with musical and effects echoes from earlier Floyd songs (from 1975’s Shine On You Crazy Diamond and 1971’s Echoes respectively). Another mention of the “alien prophet” and several animals in the vicinity of money: some obvious and others not so. (Shades of 1977’s Animals in some respects here.) And that brings us to two of the best songs on an album of very good songs: Watching TV and Three Wishes.
Watching TV involves Tianinemon Square and how Roger was affected by it. It is acoustic and the duet (with Don Henley) is moving. Showing that history is not for fools, Roger recounts some Chinese history before moving into a list of people whom this Chinese girl is different from throughout history building up to a depressing indictment of modern soullessness. The conclusion is...well...I do not want to give it away but it really hits like a hammer to put it mildly.
Three Wishes builds to some extent on the latter by showing that the artist himself is not free of admitted selfishness. It is a testament of sorts to the human condition and how we say we want to be altruistic but (when the chips are down) we often seek our own self-interests first and then feel the guilt afterwards. Jeff Beck plays a Dave Gilmour-like solo, which eases the tension a little bit but not much. And from there, the album moves into It’s a Miracle recounting “achievements” of modern civilization by outlining the excesses in a somewhat sarcastic fashion.
The last song on the album is Amused to Death. The imagery is vivid and it is at that point where the alien figures referred to at times throughout the album are identified: they are alien anthropologists who found the remains of the human race around the TV sets and after trying to figure out why we died out conclude that “this species has amused itself to death.” The fadeout finishes with the voice of Alf Razzell again recognizing finally the humanity of his fallen comrade many decades ago: no longer a nightmarish image to him for reasons too numerous to deal with here.
The album as a whole as well as in its individual parts (the songs) paint a very vivid picture that provide plenty of food for musing. Much as Johnny Cash's final video Hurt showed vividly what an artist can do with pictures, Roger Waters with music, sound effects, and various spoken voices paints a similarly compelling picture with this album. I cannot recommend this album enough for those who like music to have some relevance to reality rather than being merely an escape from it. For those who do not fit the latter description, this album is not for you: go back to listening to your mindless Top 40 drivel and leave masterpieces such as this for those who can truly appreciate them.
I have not discussed the amazing 2005 season of the Seattle Seahawks on this weblog yet. In fact, I have rarely discussed the Seahawks at Rerum Novarum in a long time if ever.{1} The main reason for this is that they have a history of marring my usually accurate predictions by doing worse than they should do...and I prefer to not make predictions on them anymore as a rule because they tend to backfire. A perusal of my trackrecord the past seven years with them should suffice to show what I am talking about.
---In 1999, I was very excited when they signed Mike Holmgren as head coach. Holmgren was the architect of the West Coast Offense for San Francisco when they won two of the four Super Bowls with Joe Montana as quarterback. He had moved onto coaching and had taken Green Bay to two Superbowls winning one and losing the other to John Elway (long believed by your host to be the greatest quarterback of his era, period). I predicted they would go 10-6...possibly as well as 12-4 and they started out 8-2 that season. However, they then nosedived as was their wont in past seasons and finished at 9-7. So much for my 10-6 prediction that year.
---In 2000, I predicted that they would finish if not 10-6 then at least 9-7...the Kingdome being leveled and their playing home games at Husky Stadium having some affect on the record. But they went 6-10 once again meaning I mispredicted how they would do.
---In 2001, I was again optimistic that they would go 10-6 and they went 9-7 missing the playoffs.
---In 2002, I was less optimistic but still figured they would win at least half of their games. The result: 7-9.
---In 2003, I predicted 10-6 and they went 10-6.
---In 2004, I predicted 10-6, possibly 11-5 and they went 9-7 blowing some serious leads in a few games they should have won (and not only to vindicate my prediction mind you).
---This year, I predicted they would go at least 10-6 but possibly as good as 12-4 and make it to at least the second round of the playoffs: easily my most optimistic prediction in years. Thus far, they are 11-2 and look to exceed my predictions for once. Assuming they actually do, my record the past seven seasons will be 2-5: very unShawnlike certainly but I cannot be right all the time now can I???
Anyway, after the crushing of San Fran last night by a wider margin than I had predicted (I said 44-12, they won 41-3), I feel confident enough to note my preseason predictions for 2005 not only because I am on the verge of being right again but to point out that NostraShawnus sometimes has a fuzzy magic ball...albeit not with geopolitical stuff of course.{2} But everyone has their weaknesses prediction-wise and in my case it is sports; ergo the reason you do not see sports discussed much here at Rerum Novarum ;-)
Notes:
{1} I may have touched on it in 2003 but certainly not last year or even this year thus far.
{2} But with sports stuff enough to make me not bet on sportsteams.
---In 1999, I was very excited when they signed Mike Holmgren as head coach. Holmgren was the architect of the West Coast Offense for San Francisco when they won two of the four Super Bowls with Joe Montana as quarterback. He had moved onto coaching and had taken Green Bay to two Superbowls winning one and losing the other to John Elway (long believed by your host to be the greatest quarterback of his era, period). I predicted they would go 10-6...possibly as well as 12-4 and they started out 8-2 that season. However, they then nosedived as was their wont in past seasons and finished at 9-7. So much for my 10-6 prediction that year.
---In 2000, I predicted that they would finish if not 10-6 then at least 9-7...the Kingdome being leveled and their playing home games at Husky Stadium having some affect on the record. But they went 6-10 once again meaning I mispredicted how they would do.
---In 2001, I was again optimistic that they would go 10-6 and they went 9-7 missing the playoffs.
---In 2002, I was less optimistic but still figured they would win at least half of their games. The result: 7-9.
---In 2003, I predicted 10-6 and they went 10-6.
---In 2004, I predicted 10-6, possibly 11-5 and they went 9-7 blowing some serious leads in a few games they should have won (and not only to vindicate my prediction mind you).
---This year, I predicted they would go at least 10-6 but possibly as good as 12-4 and make it to at least the second round of the playoffs: easily my most optimistic prediction in years. Thus far, they are 11-2 and look to exceed my predictions for once. Assuming they actually do, my record the past seven seasons will be 2-5: very unShawnlike certainly but I cannot be right all the time now can I???
Anyway, after the crushing of San Fran last night by a wider margin than I had predicted (I said 44-12, they won 41-3), I feel confident enough to note my preseason predictions for 2005 not only because I am on the verge of being right again but to point out that NostraShawnus sometimes has a fuzzy magic ball...albeit not with geopolitical stuff of course.{2} But everyone has their weaknesses prediction-wise and in my case it is sports; ergo the reason you do not see sports discussed much here at Rerum Novarum ;-)
Notes:
{1} I may have touched on it in 2003 but certainly not last year or even this year thus far.
{2} But with sports stuff enough to make me not bet on sportsteams.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
Miscellaneous Musings:
---I have found it rather annoying that the media reports on the war in Iraq and the presidents poll numbers as if the negative reaction majority parallels the view of the most extremist moonbats. As I have noted before on polling, it is very easy to manipulate poll numbers. And the truth of the matter is, a good percentage of those who are "dissatisfied with President Bush's handling of the war" are those who would support a less bureaucratic and more militarily focused approach over there.
For I happen to be one of those who would be classified as "dissatisfied with President Bush's handling of the war" and it is not because I think we should tuck tail and run like not a few of those who pose as "peacemakers"{1} would like to see happen. I would like to believe that they are simply ignorant of history and the can of worms that such an approach to the matter would inexorably open but on my more pessimistic days this is not possible to do.
---On the issue of the Congress, everyone knows that they voted themselves a pay raise again...this kind of action is about as predictable as the sun rising in the east. The phrasing from a Roll Call blurb was of particular interest to me:
Friday’s passage of the $65.9 billion Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development conference report included a provision that earmarked some $2 million for Members’ annual pay hike. [LINK]
Presumably you catch that folks: Congress passed a bill and snuck their pay raise in on a rider!!! Longtime readers of this weblog know about my disdain for rider proposals but I will nonetheless reiterate them anew here since (as usual) their pay raises were attached to a rider on another bill and it serves as a good premise for reminding people of my proposals for rider reform legislation at the state and federal levels (particularly the latter):
I will avoid discussing the constitutionality of federal disaster relief acts but this serves to show how the rider is used to pass stuff without accountability. Having noted that, here are my proposals for making this process accountable to the voting public.
1) Any proposed rider to a bill must have some reasonably demonstrable congruency with the subject of the main funding bill being voted on. The current practice of attaching unrelated or non-sequitur funding proposals to major funding bills would thereby be eliminated.
2) Any proposed rider should requires a separate congressional "rider attachment vote" so that those who want it and those who do not are on the record.
3) Any proposed rider should require at least two thirds concurrence by each house of Congress insuch that anything less means that the rider initiative fails to attach to the bill.
4) Any proposed rider that succeeds in getting two thirds concurrence by each house of Congress officially attaches with the provision that the president has the right to line-item veto that rider proposal.
5) If the president vetoes such rider proposal but signs the main funding bill to which it was attached, Congress can override and perminently attach said rider to the main funding bill with the concurrence of seventy-five percent of both houses of Congress. If said seventy-five percent concurrence of both houses of Congress cannot be mustered for an override, the override fails and the rider is officially declared dead.
6) And of course the rider proposals -pass or fail- must all be entered into the record for perusal of the people under the 1978 Freedom of Information Act along with (i) the names of the proposers and subsequent sponsors of said rider (ii) their party affiliation and (iii) the state which they represent. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 20, 2004)]
But the rider issue aside for a moment, I want to ask what Congress has done to justify a raise in pay. From what I can ascertain, they deserve a pay cut if anything. A Congress which cannot put together a budget that balances{2} does not deserve a pay increase. PERIOD. This is not rocket science folks. If the federal government got its nose out of the areas which it does not have Constitutionally delegated authority to intervene in, the budget could easily be balanced. Heck, at the current rate of taxation, the debt itself could be paid off in about seven years or less.{3} But there are too many selfish people out there who prefer their own isolated self-interests to the common good. There is also the issue of baseline budgeting which no one wants to honestly face{4} but that is to open another tangent I do not have the time to delve into at the moment.
---I mentioned in late October that there would be some emails on various subjects blogged in November. That was the plan but time did not allow for it to happen. However, I will be posting some of them before Christmas time-willing. There is also at least two more installments of the "'neo con' challenge" series which was first publicly issued in late October and revisited in early November. In response to the former, a series thread was started earlier this month{5} which will be added to in December. Unfortunately, those who were originally issued the challenge have been conspicuous in their universal silence viz. what was requested of them but their cowardice does not surprise me in the slightest.
---Finally, it is refreshing to learn that the CIA will be investigating their use of black highlighters on security documents since their founding in the late 1940's...hopefully we will not have to go another sixty years with the most important parts of top security documents highlighted in a colour that makes them next to impossible to read... ;-)
Notes:
{1} Frankly a good approach to these sorts would be to reinstate the US Sedition Act and put them under survaillance.
{2} Or at least a plan that balances the budget in a short span of time. I am not fond of congressional "promises" on these matters since they have a history of being pretty useless but then again, these are supposed to be Republicans who are concerned about these matters.
{3} [T]he Devilcrat House of Congress lied to [Reagan] about cutting three dollars spending for every dollar tax increase back in 1981. Had they done that, the economy would have grown us out of a deficit by about 1986-87 and there would have been surpluses the last two years of [Reagan's] term. (They proved that they were still lower than a snake's belly in a wagon-wheel rut when they pulled the same scam against Bush Sr.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 12, 2003)]
{4} [W]ho cares what the President proposes. The role of setting a budget is that of the Congress. The problem is that the role of impounding funds -shared by every president from Nixon back to Washington- was abolished by President Nixon when he signed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Since then, deficits have skyrocketed and an important check on Congressional excesses was cast aside.
This Act needs to be rescinded...[W]hile there were still deficits prior to 1974, the national deficits starting in 1975 increased at an exponential rate.[...]
What needs to be reasserted -and vigorously so- is the ignored principle of the Constitution (and not the only ignored principle of the Constitution) that [t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. That is as good a place to start as any.
For those who are not aware, I just quoted the tenth amendment of the Constitution: an intended safeguard against exactly what we see today. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 31, 2003)]
{5} The two threads thus far of the "'neo con' challenge" which have been posted are viewable HERE and HERE.
---I have found it rather annoying that the media reports on the war in Iraq and the presidents poll numbers as if the negative reaction majority parallels the view of the most extremist moonbats. As I have noted before on polling, it is very easy to manipulate poll numbers. And the truth of the matter is, a good percentage of those who are "dissatisfied with President Bush's handling of the war" are those who would support a less bureaucratic and more militarily focused approach over there.
For I happen to be one of those who would be classified as "dissatisfied with President Bush's handling of the war" and it is not because I think we should tuck tail and run like not a few of those who pose as "peacemakers"{1} would like to see happen. I would like to believe that they are simply ignorant of history and the can of worms that such an approach to the matter would inexorably open but on my more pessimistic days this is not possible to do.
---On the issue of the Congress, everyone knows that they voted themselves a pay raise again...this kind of action is about as predictable as the sun rising in the east. The phrasing from a Roll Call blurb was of particular interest to me:
Friday’s passage of the $65.9 billion Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development conference report included a provision that earmarked some $2 million for Members’ annual pay hike. [LINK]
Presumably you catch that folks: Congress passed a bill and snuck their pay raise in on a rider!!! Longtime readers of this weblog know about my disdain for rider proposals but I will nonetheless reiterate them anew here since (as usual) their pay raises were attached to a rider on another bill and it serves as a good premise for reminding people of my proposals for rider reform legislation at the state and federal levels (particularly the latter):
I will avoid discussing the constitutionality of federal disaster relief acts but this serves to show how the rider is used to pass stuff without accountability. Having noted that, here are my proposals for making this process accountable to the voting public.
1) Any proposed rider to a bill must have some reasonably demonstrable congruency with the subject of the main funding bill being voted on. The current practice of attaching unrelated or non-sequitur funding proposals to major funding bills would thereby be eliminated.
2) Any proposed rider should requires a separate congressional "rider attachment vote" so that those who want it and those who do not are on the record.
3) Any proposed rider should require at least two thirds concurrence by each house of Congress insuch that anything less means that the rider initiative fails to attach to the bill.
4) Any proposed rider that succeeds in getting two thirds concurrence by each house of Congress officially attaches with the provision that the president has the right to line-item veto that rider proposal.
5) If the president vetoes such rider proposal but signs the main funding bill to which it was attached, Congress can override and perminently attach said rider to the main funding bill with the concurrence of seventy-five percent of both houses of Congress. If said seventy-five percent concurrence of both houses of Congress cannot be mustered for an override, the override fails and the rider is officially declared dead.
6) And of course the rider proposals -pass or fail- must all be entered into the record for perusal of the people under the 1978 Freedom of Information Act along with (i) the names of the proposers and subsequent sponsors of said rider (ii) their party affiliation and (iii) the state which they represent. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 20, 2004)]
But the rider issue aside for a moment, I want to ask what Congress has done to justify a raise in pay. From what I can ascertain, they deserve a pay cut if anything. A Congress which cannot put together a budget that balances{2} does not deserve a pay increase. PERIOD. This is not rocket science folks. If the federal government got its nose out of the areas which it does not have Constitutionally delegated authority to intervene in, the budget could easily be balanced. Heck, at the current rate of taxation, the debt itself could be paid off in about seven years or less.{3} But there are too many selfish people out there who prefer their own isolated self-interests to the common good. There is also the issue of baseline budgeting which no one wants to honestly face{4} but that is to open another tangent I do not have the time to delve into at the moment.
---I mentioned in late October that there would be some emails on various subjects blogged in November. That was the plan but time did not allow for it to happen. However, I will be posting some of them before Christmas time-willing. There is also at least two more installments of the "'neo con' challenge" series which was first publicly issued in late October and revisited in early November. In response to the former, a series thread was started earlier this month{5} which will be added to in December. Unfortunately, those who were originally issued the challenge have been conspicuous in their universal silence viz. what was requested of them but their cowardice does not surprise me in the slightest.
---Finally, it is refreshing to learn that the CIA will be investigating their use of black highlighters on security documents since their founding in the late 1940's...hopefully we will not have to go another sixty years with the most important parts of top security documents highlighted in a colour that makes them next to impossible to read... ;-)
Notes:
{1} Frankly a good approach to these sorts would be to reinstate the US Sedition Act and put them under survaillance.
{2} Or at least a plan that balances the budget in a short span of time. I am not fond of congressional "promises" on these matters since they have a history of being pretty useless but then again, these are supposed to be Republicans who are concerned about these matters.
{3} [T]he Devilcrat House of Congress lied to [Reagan] about cutting three dollars spending for every dollar tax increase back in 1981. Had they done that, the economy would have grown us out of a deficit by about 1986-87 and there would have been surpluses the last two years of [Reagan's] term. (They proved that they were still lower than a snake's belly in a wagon-wheel rut when they pulled the same scam against Bush Sr.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 12, 2003)]
{4} [W]ho cares what the President proposes. The role of setting a budget is that of the Congress. The problem is that the role of impounding funds -shared by every president from Nixon back to Washington- was abolished by President Nixon when he signed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Since then, deficits have skyrocketed and an important check on Congressional excesses was cast aside.
This Act needs to be rescinded...[W]hile there were still deficits prior to 1974, the national deficits starting in 1975 increased at an exponential rate.[...]
What needs to be reasserted -and vigorously so- is the ignored principle of the Constitution (and not the only ignored principle of the Constitution) that [t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. That is as good a place to start as any.
For those who are not aware, I just quoted the tenth amendment of the Constitution: an intended safeguard against exactly what we see today. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 31, 2003)]
{5} The two threads thus far of the "'neo con' challenge" which have been posted are viewable HERE and HERE.
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Points to Ponder:
(A Prayer for the Government)
We pray, Thee O Almighty and Eternal God! Who through Jesus Christ hast revealed Thy glory to all nations, to preserve the works of Thy mercy, that Thy Church, being spread through the whole world, may continue with unchanging faith in the confession of Thy Name.
We pray Thee, who alone art good and holy, to endow with heavenly knowledge, sincere zeal, and sanctity of life, our chief bishop, Pope n., the Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the government of his Church; our own bishop, n., all other bishops, prelates, and pastors of the Church; and especially those who are appointed to exercise amongst us the functions of the holy ministry, and conduct Thy people into the ways of salvation.
We pray Thee O God of might, wisdom, and justice! Through whom authority is rightly administered, laws are enacted, and judgment decreed, assist with Thy Holy Spirit of counsel and fortitude the President of these United States, that his administration may be conducted in righteousness, and be eminently useful to Thy people over whom he presides; by encouraging due respect for virtue and religion; by a faithful execution of the laws in justice and mercy; and by restraining vice and immorality. Let the light of Thy divine wisdom direct the deliberations of Congress, and shine forth in all the proceedings and laws framed for our rule and government, so that they may tend to the preservation of peace, the promotion of national happiness, the increase of industry, sobriety, and useful knowledge; and may perpetuate to us the blessing of equal liberty.
We pray for his excellency, the governor of this state , for the members of the assembly, for all judges, magistrates, and other officers who are appointed to guard our political welfare, that they may be enabled, by Thy powerful protection, to discharge the duties of their respective stations with honesty and ability.
We recommend likewise, to Thy unbounded mercy, all our brethren and fellow citizens throughout the United States, that they may be blessed in the knowledge and sanctified in the observance of Thy most holy law; that they may be preserved in union, and in that peace which the world cannot give; and after enjoying the blessings of this life, be admitted to those which are eternal.
Finally, we pray to Thee, O Lord of mercy, to remember the souls of Thy servants departed who are gone before us with the sign of faith and repose in the sleep of peace; the souls of our parents, relatives, and friends; of those who, when living, were members of this congregation, and particularly of such as are lately deceased; of all benefactors who, by their donations or legacies to this Church, witnessed their zeal for the decency of divine worship and proved their claim to our grateful and charitable remembrance. To these, O Lord, and to all that rest in Christ, grant, we beseech Thee, a place of refreshment, light, and everlasting peace, through the same Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior. Amen. [Bishop John Carroll (circa 1791-1798)]
(A Prayer for the Government)
We pray, Thee O Almighty and Eternal God! Who through Jesus Christ hast revealed Thy glory to all nations, to preserve the works of Thy mercy, that Thy Church, being spread through the whole world, may continue with unchanging faith in the confession of Thy Name.
We pray Thee, who alone art good and holy, to endow with heavenly knowledge, sincere zeal, and sanctity of life, our chief bishop, Pope n., the Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the government of his Church; our own bishop, n., all other bishops, prelates, and pastors of the Church; and especially those who are appointed to exercise amongst us the functions of the holy ministry, and conduct Thy people into the ways of salvation.
We pray Thee O God of might, wisdom, and justice! Through whom authority is rightly administered, laws are enacted, and judgment decreed, assist with Thy Holy Spirit of counsel and fortitude the President of these United States, that his administration may be conducted in righteousness, and be eminently useful to Thy people over whom he presides; by encouraging due respect for virtue and religion; by a faithful execution of the laws in justice and mercy; and by restraining vice and immorality. Let the light of Thy divine wisdom direct the deliberations of Congress, and shine forth in all the proceedings and laws framed for our rule and government, so that they may tend to the preservation of peace, the promotion of national happiness, the increase of industry, sobriety, and useful knowledge; and may perpetuate to us the blessing of equal liberty.
We pray for his excellency, the governor of this state , for the members of the assembly, for all judges, magistrates, and other officers who are appointed to guard our political welfare, that they may be enabled, by Thy powerful protection, to discharge the duties of their respective stations with honesty and ability.
We recommend likewise, to Thy unbounded mercy, all our brethren and fellow citizens throughout the United States, that they may be blessed in the knowledge and sanctified in the observance of Thy most holy law; that they may be preserved in union, and in that peace which the world cannot give; and after enjoying the blessings of this life, be admitted to those which are eternal.
Finally, we pray to Thee, O Lord of mercy, to remember the souls of Thy servants departed who are gone before us with the sign of faith and repose in the sleep of peace; the souls of our parents, relatives, and friends; of those who, when living, were members of this congregation, and particularly of such as are lately deceased; of all benefactors who, by their donations or legacies to this Church, witnessed their zeal for the decency of divine worship and proved their claim to our grateful and charitable remembrance. To these, O Lord, and to all that rest in Christ, grant, we beseech Thee, a place of refreshment, light, and everlasting peace, through the same Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior. Amen. [Bishop John Carroll (circa 1791-1798)]
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
"Tracking the Ever-Elusive So-Called 'Neo Con'" Dept.
This is a continuation of the thread posted HERE. To assist in continuity, the questions your host asked of the reader in the previous installment will be reposted here in blue font.
[D]o you think that these "neo-cons" have to have a particular position on certain issues other than abortion??? For example, does a "neo-con" have to have a particular position on the war in Iraq, on the death penalty, on environmental policy, on free trade, on government spending, on taxes, on labour, on mass transit, on "social justice", on civil rights, or on a myriad of other issues commonly bandied about by those who utilize (in a generally derisive fashion) that label of expression??? Are there certain issues noted above (or others I may have missed) which are prerequisites for being a "neo-con" and certain others which are more of an optional import??? Often certain people of Jewish descent are also referred to as "neo-cons" who are not Catholics (i.e. David Horowitz, Michael Medved) so I am wondering if catholicity is a non-negotiable requirement to be a "neo-con" or is it a frame of mind or reference that can be had by people of any demographic but merely is more common in the demographic you refer to above than in other demographics???
The "issues of the day" are insignificant, Shawn, fluctuating from one season to the next. Abortion today could be as hard-fought as, say, gambling is tomorrow. The heart of the matter is actually a question of one's loyalty: Is a man more loyal to his pope than to his President?
Interesting. Again you deserve props because this is a very unexpected definition. I will admit that those I primarily had in mind to present working definitions are themselves Catholics but since they are too scared to (at least thus far) present workable descriptions on this subject, I will accept yours as a starting point. I would however be remiss in noting that your dichotomization between religious and civil authority is not one that I accept. One who recognizes that each authority has its own sphere and properly keeps those spheres separated does not have to worry about what you are asserting. That there are not a few who fail to do this I will not disagree...indeed it is those kinds of people whom my challenge was primarily aimed at ironically enough.
The man whose mind is controlled by his pope will believe whatever his pope tells him to believe since that pope holds the residence of his eternal resting place by holding, as he does, the Eucharist. A President holds merely a man's national security, which becomes insignificant, comparatively. Everyone dies, eventually.
Again, it depends on how you quantify "belief." There are different genres of beliefs. What you are outlining above is one which makes it contingent upon accepting anything the pope says and that is a form of neo-ultramontanism. Again, those I was issuing the challenge to have thus far refused to answer questions I raised which (in some cases) were intended to separate areas of legitimate diversity (for Catholics) from those areas where there is not legitimate diversity.
Believing that, a man's allegience, then, is always for his pope and not for his "king." That man becomes, in essence then, a traitor.
If your dichotomization is accepted then that makes sense but I do not accept it. If you want to discuss this sometime, let me know. I for one do not see that there needs to be a "divided conscience" on this matter in the fashion that you do.
Ahh, the power in the Eucharist: the difference between heaven and hell!
Ahh, how freeing, rather, for kings and for nations to believe that man's salvation is assured by Grace Through Faith in Christ Alone!
Is this an attempt on your part to assert sola fide S??? If it is, then I should let you know that the sola fide hound does not hunt for reasons I have covered in years gone by both on this weblog and also in a web essay on justification. See this weblog thread for details on both.
P.S. No wonder the Eucharist gets so much attention these days, eh? (When I was a kid it was hardly mentioned.)
You must have grown up on the 1970's and 1980's then right??? Nonetheless, thank you for offering a working definition to consider. All I will note on it at the moment is that it fits the description of some of those I issued the challenge to far more than those whom they commonly label as "neo cons." But that is neither here nor there.
To be Continued...
This is a continuation of the thread posted HERE. To assist in continuity, the questions your host asked of the reader in the previous installment will be reposted here in blue font.
[D]o you think that these "neo-cons" have to have a particular position on certain issues other than abortion??? For example, does a "neo-con" have to have a particular position on the war in Iraq, on the death penalty, on environmental policy, on free trade, on government spending, on taxes, on labour, on mass transit, on "social justice", on civil rights, or on a myriad of other issues commonly bandied about by those who utilize (in a generally derisive fashion) that label of expression??? Are there certain issues noted above (or others I may have missed) which are prerequisites for being a "neo-con" and certain others which are more of an optional import??? Often certain people of Jewish descent are also referred to as "neo-cons" who are not Catholics (i.e. David Horowitz, Michael Medved) so I am wondering if catholicity is a non-negotiable requirement to be a "neo-con" or is it a frame of mind or reference that can be had by people of any demographic but merely is more common in the demographic you refer to above than in other demographics???
The "issues of the day" are insignificant, Shawn, fluctuating from one season to the next. Abortion today could be as hard-fought as, say, gambling is tomorrow. The heart of the matter is actually a question of one's loyalty: Is a man more loyal to his pope than to his President?
Interesting. Again you deserve props because this is a very unexpected definition. I will admit that those I primarily had in mind to present working definitions are themselves Catholics but since they are too scared to (at least thus far) present workable descriptions on this subject, I will accept yours as a starting point. I would however be remiss in noting that your dichotomization between religious and civil authority is not one that I accept. One who recognizes that each authority has its own sphere and properly keeps those spheres separated does not have to worry about what you are asserting. That there are not a few who fail to do this I will not disagree...indeed it is those kinds of people whom my challenge was primarily aimed at ironically enough.
The man whose mind is controlled by his pope will believe whatever his pope tells him to believe since that pope holds the residence of his eternal resting place by holding, as he does, the Eucharist. A President holds merely a man's national security, which becomes insignificant, comparatively. Everyone dies, eventually.
Again, it depends on how you quantify "belief." There are different genres of beliefs. What you are outlining above is one which makes it contingent upon accepting anything the pope says and that is a form of neo-ultramontanism. Again, those I was issuing the challenge to have thus far refused to answer questions I raised which (in some cases) were intended to separate areas of legitimate diversity (for Catholics) from those areas where there is not legitimate diversity.
Believing that, a man's allegience, then, is always for his pope and not for his "king." That man becomes, in essence then, a traitor.
If your dichotomization is accepted then that makes sense but I do not accept it. If you want to discuss this sometime, let me know. I for one do not see that there needs to be a "divided conscience" on this matter in the fashion that you do.
Ahh, the power in the Eucharist: the difference between heaven and hell!
Ahh, how freeing, rather, for kings and for nations to believe that man's salvation is assured by Grace Through Faith in Christ Alone!
Is this an attempt on your part to assert sola fide S??? If it is, then I should let you know that the sola fide hound does not hunt for reasons I have covered in years gone by both on this weblog and also in a web essay on justification. See this weblog thread for details on both.
P.S. No wonder the Eucharist gets so much attention these days, eh? (When I was a kid it was hardly mentioned.)
You must have grown up on the 1970's and 1980's then right??? Nonetheless, thank you for offering a working definition to consider. All I will note on it at the moment is that it fits the description of some of those I issued the challenge to far more than those whom they commonly label as "neo cons." But that is neither here nor there.
To be Continued...
Monday, December 05, 2005
Points to Ponder:
(On Some Catholic Bloggers)
I have noticed a mentality among some Catholic bloggers which I usually describe to myself as "auto-magisterial." It seems to me to derive from the attitudes and practices of Evangelical Christianity.
Evangelical Christians, not having a magisterium, tend to become easily convinced by their own opinions and to treat them as definitive. This is characteristic of Protestantism as a whole, of course, and is the reason why it has splintered and continues to splinter into multifarious sects and parties.
Once Evangelical Christians become Catholics, some of them tend to keep the habit of mind. And some bloggers--not all converts from the Evangelical churches--tend to exhibit these or similar attitudes which seem proud and intellectually arrogant. Often, they are just trying to be good and loyal Catholics, but they are led to a sort of neo-Ultramontanism which can't see the difference between binding Magisterial teaching (even the non-infallible kind) and explanatory glosses or prudential judgments or even personal opinions...
Stephen Hand's treatment of the War in Iraq is a glaring and extreme example...there is something about the easy and often adulatory audience on the net, combined with the authoritative note that tends to creep into their pronouncements that breeds a sort of hothouse pride that seems unhealthy. ["Jeff" (circa 12/04/05)]
(On Some Catholic Bloggers)
I have noticed a mentality among some Catholic bloggers which I usually describe to myself as "auto-magisterial." It seems to me to derive from the attitudes and practices of Evangelical Christianity.
Evangelical Christians, not having a magisterium, tend to become easily convinced by their own opinions and to treat them as definitive. This is characteristic of Protestantism as a whole, of course, and is the reason why it has splintered and continues to splinter into multifarious sects and parties.
Once Evangelical Christians become Catholics, some of them tend to keep the habit of mind. And some bloggers--not all converts from the Evangelical churches--tend to exhibit these or similar attitudes which seem proud and intellectually arrogant. Often, they are just trying to be good and loyal Catholics, but they are led to a sort of neo-Ultramontanism which can't see the difference between binding Magisterial teaching (even the non-infallible kind) and explanatory glosses or prudential judgments or even personal opinions...
Stephen Hand's treatment of the War in Iraq is a glaring and extreme example...there is something about the easy and often adulatory audience on the net, combined with the authoritative note that tends to creep into their pronouncements that breeds a sort of hothouse pride that seems unhealthy. ["Jeff" (circa 12/04/05)]
Sunday, December 04, 2005
"Tracking the Ever-Elusive So-Called 'Neo Con'" Dept.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Update: Upon reviewing the introduction of this post again earlier today, it was evident that the first paragraph was too long and needed to be adjusted a bit for a smoother text flow. That was done by dividing it into two paragraphs and supplying some additional segue bits. - ISM 12/5/05 1:58 pm]
Readers of this humble weblog are asked to consider what the Loch Ness Monster, Sasquatch, and the existence of aliens have in common. In all three cases, there are those who are in varying degrees obsessed with proving the existence of those creatures but thus far, there has been no incontrovertible proof brought forward. However, despite that and the way some of those zealots can react when their hobby or (perhaps in some cases, livelihood) is challenged, at the very least they have brought forward some evidences (whatever else you want to say about them) to attempt to substantiate the claims made. The same cannot be said for zealots of another type and with a different agenda...the latter being the subject of this thread posting you are currently reading.
There are after all certain individuals who similarly have a kind of fetish with the term "neo con" and like to use the expression (usually in a derogatory fashion) in application to a lot of different people. This attitude is of course similar to a kind of cultic deadagenting whereby the cult member seeks a pre-emptory assassination attempt of the character of a critic rather than having the common decency to consider the criticisms made on their merits or lack thereof. Your host cannot be the only one who believes that if the zealots who love to throw around the term "neo con" in a blanket and derisive fashion were to meet us all at least as far as the apologists for Nessie, Sasquatch, and space aliens have that the aforementioned people could be taken at least somewhat seriously. However, that has thus far not happened. With that in mind, Our intention with this series (and any additions to it) is to assist the aforementioned ideologues in establishing what could be called motives of credibility{1} for their claims.
The readers are reminded before we begin this thread (and potentially add to it over time) that your host has sought to point out the inappropriateness of this kind of labelling on many occasions...the core problem is the same even if there are varying frames of reference if you will. And with the case of certain personages who love to use this term who have thus far shirked in true chickensh*t fashion from taking responsibility for their own past and present statements, it seemed appropriate to your host to issue a very simple challenge to such people to identify the characteristics of what a so-called "neo con" is, what their underlying philosophies are, what are signature issues where they have readily identifiable positions, etc.
This is surely not a difficult thing to do; however, the manner in which the perpetrators have fled like vampires from a crucifix from the aforementioned challenge has been for Us very telling to say the least. Certainly We understand why they want to avoid that one so it seemed appropriate to issue the second and much easier challenge: produce evidences to argue for the existence of these so-called "neo cons." We at Rerum Novarum first noted this idea publicly in late October of 2005 in an audioposting{2} and followed it up a bit later with a brief revisiting of the subject with Christopher Blosser. In other words, it has not been for want of trying on the part of some people to challenge these kinds of people to put up or...well...you know the rest.
The aforementioned unsavoury sorts (to put it nicely) have ignored such simple requests for accountability and have continued to prattle on about these so-called "neo cons" including labelling certain parties as such when they have not bothered to explain what their criteria is for doing this. Your host must confess as a result of these circumstances that he has greater faith in the existence of Nessie, Sasquatch, space aliens, etc. than he does for those carping critics actually proving either (i) the existence of their fabled "neo cons" or (ii) that they even have a spine themselves and are not invertebrates. That is all that We can conclude based on what has happened to date which is why it seems appropriate to establish a series where this issue can be dealt with intermittently.
The idea for this series came about unexpectedly when your host found in his email a note from a reader who had responded to the previously noted audiopost challenge and sent in some proposed critieria. The rest of this post will be the first of the two emails received on the matter from that person whose words below will be in dark greem.
Dear Shawn,
I regret if I'm late in responding to your request for definitions of the word "Neocon." Please forgive me; I only just listened to your audio blog on the subject. If you are still taking suggestions, however, here you go:
The New Conservatives are those relatively new to America's conservative party, which is long known as the Republican Party. The Republican Party was traditionally home to the fiscal conservative, business-building, profit-making, job-producing Capitalists.
Since Rerum Novarum was penned by PLXIII one hundred years ago and until at least the last Presidential election of 2004, when John Kerry was threatened with ex-communication for voting against Rome's wishes (dragging Catholics away from the Democratic to the Republican Party -- no matter how they really feel about abortion -- but concerned that they might be next for voting for them) the Democrats in America became known as the "victims."
Thanks to PLXIII's encouragement in Rerum Novarum to pipe up against traditional American Republicans, these victims began beefing about the jobs the Republicans made for them by investing in industry and risking it all on free commerce, job-producing capitalistic ventures. They handed out jobs to these "neo-victims" eagerly and even advanced those who showed initiative by showing up on time for work, for instance. You see, these otherwise hard-working people became convinced due to the anthem preached in Rerum Novarum that they were "victims" who should oppose all that the Republican Party stood for. Oppose Big Business! Oppose those with money and power! Oppose all those without whom we are dependent upon government handouts!
It began formally with Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal years but eventually moved through the Kennedy/Johnson administration's Great Society as well, thanks to the influence of fiercely committed Catholics in the Democratic Party. These "victims," who had before happily cashed the paychecks they earned by the sweat of their brow before Rerum Novarum, became today's breed of Democrats who stand in line, now, at a window in the government center to collect the "paycheck" doled out to them from Uncle Sam for doing nothing but standing there once a month with their hand out. And all those who work for a living and pay taxes to support their "jobs" are, in reality, their slaves.
In short, New Conservatives, i.e., "neo-cons," Shawn, are the traditionally Democratic Catholics who moved over to the Republican Party en masse on the abortion issue -- but who have yet to change their allegience to their pope. And they are often woefully ignorant altogether of the damage done to this country and its citizens by the foreign power of the papacy.
Well S, you deserve props for setting something down on paper. Give me some time to mull over what you wrote and I will see if I take issue with anything you say.
In scanning the thread briefly (I will read it more in detail later), you did not mention certain specificities I was looking for so I will highlight them here and ask for further input.
For example, do you think that these "neo-cons" have to have a particular position on certain issues other than abortion??? For example, does a "neo-con" have to have a particular position on the war in Iraq, on the death penalty, on environmental policy, on free trade, on government spending, on taxes, on labour, on mass transit, on "social justice", on civil rights, or on a myriad of other issues commonly bandied about by those who utilize (in a generally derisive fashion) that label of expression??? Are there certain issues noted above (or others I may have missed) which are prerequisites for being a "neo-con" and certain others which are more of an optional import??? Often certain people of Jewish descent are also referred to as "neo-cons" who are not Catholics (i.e. David Horowitz, Michael Medved) so I am wondering if catholicity is a non-negotiable requirement to be a "neo-con" or is it a frame of mind or reference that can be had by people of any demographic but merely is more common in the demographic you refer to above than in other demographics.
Seriously, I think these questions are good ones since we have here a term that is utilized a lot and not a few of its users are lacking interest in providing answers to these kinds of questions.
Why, I'd bet a dollar to a donut, Shawn, that you, in fact, are the epitome of a "neo-con." Right?
Not by your definition from what I can ascertain at a brief glance. But thanks for providing some pointers for consideration. If I can persuade you to respond to the questions I have in the paragraph above (for additional clarification), it would be appreciated.
To be Continued...
Notes:
{1} What is meant by motives of credibility are criteria that themselves contribute to substantiating the potential veracity of what is being asserted. Thus, for those who propagate and widely apply the term "neo con" who do not bother to provide said motives of credibility for their usage and application of that term, there is no reason to presume that they have any credibility on the matter in question.
{2} Though it had been mulled about for some time and discussed in private channels prior to the aforementioned audioposting.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Update: Upon reviewing the introduction of this post again earlier today, it was evident that the first paragraph was too long and needed to be adjusted a bit for a smoother text flow. That was done by dividing it into two paragraphs and supplying some additional segue bits. - ISM 12/5/05 1:58 pm]
Readers of this humble weblog are asked to consider what the Loch Ness Monster, Sasquatch, and the existence of aliens have in common. In all three cases, there are those who are in varying degrees obsessed with proving the existence of those creatures but thus far, there has been no incontrovertible proof brought forward. However, despite that and the way some of those zealots can react when their hobby or (perhaps in some cases, livelihood) is challenged, at the very least they have brought forward some evidences (whatever else you want to say about them) to attempt to substantiate the claims made. The same cannot be said for zealots of another type and with a different agenda...the latter being the subject of this thread posting you are currently reading.
There are after all certain individuals who similarly have a kind of fetish with the term "neo con" and like to use the expression (usually in a derogatory fashion) in application to a lot of different people. This attitude is of course similar to a kind of cultic deadagenting whereby the cult member seeks a pre-emptory assassination attempt of the character of a critic rather than having the common decency to consider the criticisms made on their merits or lack thereof. Your host cannot be the only one who believes that if the zealots who love to throw around the term "neo con" in a blanket and derisive fashion were to meet us all at least as far as the apologists for Nessie, Sasquatch, and space aliens have that the aforementioned people could be taken at least somewhat seriously. However, that has thus far not happened. With that in mind, Our intention with this series (and any additions to it) is to assist the aforementioned ideologues in establishing what could be called motives of credibility{1} for their claims.
The readers are reminded before we begin this thread (and potentially add to it over time) that your host has sought to point out the inappropriateness of this kind of labelling on many occasions...the core problem is the same even if there are varying frames of reference if you will. And with the case of certain personages who love to use this term who have thus far shirked in true chickensh*t fashion from taking responsibility for their own past and present statements, it seemed appropriate to your host to issue a very simple challenge to such people to identify the characteristics of what a so-called "neo con" is, what their underlying philosophies are, what are signature issues where they have readily identifiable positions, etc.
This is surely not a difficult thing to do; however, the manner in which the perpetrators have fled like vampires from a crucifix from the aforementioned challenge has been for Us very telling to say the least. Certainly We understand why they want to avoid that one so it seemed appropriate to issue the second and much easier challenge: produce evidences to argue for the existence of these so-called "neo cons." We at Rerum Novarum first noted this idea publicly in late October of 2005 in an audioposting{2} and followed it up a bit later with a brief revisiting of the subject with Christopher Blosser. In other words, it has not been for want of trying on the part of some people to challenge these kinds of people to put up or...well...you know the rest.
The aforementioned unsavoury sorts (to put it nicely) have ignored such simple requests for accountability and have continued to prattle on about these so-called "neo cons" including labelling certain parties as such when they have not bothered to explain what their criteria is for doing this. Your host must confess as a result of these circumstances that he has greater faith in the existence of Nessie, Sasquatch, space aliens, etc. than he does for those carping critics actually proving either (i) the existence of their fabled "neo cons" or (ii) that they even have a spine themselves and are not invertebrates. That is all that We can conclude based on what has happened to date which is why it seems appropriate to establish a series where this issue can be dealt with intermittently.
The idea for this series came about unexpectedly when your host found in his email a note from a reader who had responded to the previously noted audiopost challenge and sent in some proposed critieria. The rest of this post will be the first of the two emails received on the matter from that person whose words below will be in dark greem.
Dear Shawn,
I regret if I'm late in responding to your request for definitions of the word "Neocon." Please forgive me; I only just listened to your audio blog on the subject. If you are still taking suggestions, however, here you go:
The New Conservatives are those relatively new to America's conservative party, which is long known as the Republican Party. The Republican Party was traditionally home to the fiscal conservative, business-building, profit-making, job-producing Capitalists.
Since Rerum Novarum was penned by PLXIII one hundred years ago and until at least the last Presidential election of 2004, when John Kerry was threatened with ex-communication for voting against Rome's wishes (dragging Catholics away from the Democratic to the Republican Party -- no matter how they really feel about abortion -- but concerned that they might be next for voting for them) the Democrats in America became known as the "victims."
Thanks to PLXIII's encouragement in Rerum Novarum to pipe up against traditional American Republicans, these victims began beefing about the jobs the Republicans made for them by investing in industry and risking it all on free commerce, job-producing capitalistic ventures. They handed out jobs to these "neo-victims" eagerly and even advanced those who showed initiative by showing up on time for work, for instance. You see, these otherwise hard-working people became convinced due to the anthem preached in Rerum Novarum that they were "victims" who should oppose all that the Republican Party stood for. Oppose Big Business! Oppose those with money and power! Oppose all those without whom we are dependent upon government handouts!
It began formally with Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal years but eventually moved through the Kennedy/Johnson administration's Great Society as well, thanks to the influence of fiercely committed Catholics in the Democratic Party. These "victims," who had before happily cashed the paychecks they earned by the sweat of their brow before Rerum Novarum, became today's breed of Democrats who stand in line, now, at a window in the government center to collect the "paycheck" doled out to them from Uncle Sam for doing nothing but standing there once a month with their hand out. And all those who work for a living and pay taxes to support their "jobs" are, in reality, their slaves.
In short, New Conservatives, i.e., "neo-cons," Shawn, are the traditionally Democratic Catholics who moved over to the Republican Party en masse on the abortion issue -- but who have yet to change their allegience to their pope. And they are often woefully ignorant altogether of the damage done to this country and its citizens by the foreign power of the papacy.
Well S, you deserve props for setting something down on paper. Give me some time to mull over what you wrote and I will see if I take issue with anything you say.
In scanning the thread briefly (I will read it more in detail later), you did not mention certain specificities I was looking for so I will highlight them here and ask for further input.
For example, do you think that these "neo-cons" have to have a particular position on certain issues other than abortion??? For example, does a "neo-con" have to have a particular position on the war in Iraq, on the death penalty, on environmental policy, on free trade, on government spending, on taxes, on labour, on mass transit, on "social justice", on civil rights, or on a myriad of other issues commonly bandied about by those who utilize (in a generally derisive fashion) that label of expression??? Are there certain issues noted above (or others I may have missed) which are prerequisites for being a "neo-con" and certain others which are more of an optional import??? Often certain people of Jewish descent are also referred to as "neo-cons" who are not Catholics (i.e. David Horowitz, Michael Medved) so I am wondering if catholicity is a non-negotiable requirement to be a "neo-con" or is it a frame of mind or reference that can be had by people of any demographic but merely is more common in the demographic you refer to above than in other demographics.
Seriously, I think these questions are good ones since we have here a term that is utilized a lot and not a few of its users are lacking interest in providing answers to these kinds of questions.
Why, I'd bet a dollar to a donut, Shawn, that you, in fact, are the epitome of a "neo-con." Right?
Not by your definition from what I can ascertain at a brief glance. But thanks for providing some pointers for consideration. If I can persuade you to respond to the questions I have in the paragraph above (for additional clarification), it would be appreciated.
To be Continued...
Notes:
{1} What is meant by motives of credibility are criteria that themselves contribute to substantiating the potential veracity of what is being asserted. Thus, for those who propagate and widely apply the term "neo con" who do not bother to provide said motives of credibility for their usage and application of that term, there is no reason to presume that they have any credibility on the matter in question.
{2} Though it had been mulled about for some time and discussed in private channels prior to the aforementioned audioposting.
Friday, December 02, 2005
A Long Overdue Rerum Novarum Update:
It has been nearly five months since this weblog was fully updated...easily the longest period without such an update. There are many reasons for this which your host does not care to go into at the moment except to note that there were three very minor updates made in that interim which bear noting. The first of these was done on October 4, 2005 and was primarily a weeding of the side margin of various articles -though a few sites were also added at that time and a few links renamed. The second one was done on October 6, 2005 and was basically your host receiving some assistance in template tweaking from Christopher Blosser to add to the side margin both a scrolling archives feature as well as a "last ten postings" feature as well to significantly cut down on side margin bulkage and make matters far more streamlined. There was then a third one where a link was added and the Religion of Peace logo was installed in the side margin. But we have finally gotten to the big update so let Us tend to it now without further ado...
Weblog Special Reports, Commemorations, Retrospectives, Miscellaneous Stuff, Etc…
Guest Editorial on Colleges and Their Lack of Faculty Diversity (Written by Tim Tull; Prefatory Comments by I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
On the Subject of Beer Revisited [>>>]
Miscellaneous Musings on Time--An Audio Post [>>>]
Remembering Chris [>>>]
My Political/SocialMusings…
On Political/Social Subjects in General
Briefly on the Karl Rove Situation [>>>]
Briefly on CAFTA and So-Called "Free Trade" [>>>]
Miscellaneous Musings on John Bolton, AirUnAmerica, Helen Thomas, and King County Corruption [>>>]
Briefly on Cindy Sheehan [>>>]
On the High Gas Prices and the Economics Involved Therein [>>>]
On Able Danger and A Potential Defense Department Coverup [>>>]
On the DeLay "Indictment " [>>>]
On the Miers Nomination and Activist Conservative Agendas (Dialogue with Kevin Tierney) [>>>]
Miscellaneous Mutterings on Polling--An Audio Post [>>>]
Briefly Revisiting Able Danger [>>>]
More on Harriet Miers (With Kevin Tierney) [>>>]
Wrapup Musings on the Miers Nomination [>>>]
On the Niger Uranium Document Forgeries [>>>]
Focus on Able Danger Stupid (Parts I-II) [>>>]
On the US Constitution, the Fundamental Rights of Man, Etc…
Points to Ponder on Normative Questions and Theories (Walter E. Williams) [>>>]
Points to Ponder on the Constitutional View of All Minority Groups (Allan Bloom) [>>>]
On Physician Assisted Suicide, the Supreme Court, and Original Intent--An Audio Post [>>>]
Briefly on Claude Frederic Bastiat and "The Law (With Christopher Blosser) [>>>]
On the Recent War and War in General
On Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Profound Problems With Ivory Tower Revisionist Pontifications [>>>]
Expanding Futher on the Subject of Double Effect Viz. the Atomic Bombings [>>>]
Threads on the Atomic Bomb Droppings, Military and Statistical Calculations, the Moral and Ethical Aspects of the Subject Matter in Question, Etc... (A Rerum Novarum Recapitulation Thread) [>>>]
Abstract Theorizing and Hypothetical Wartime Situations With SecretAgentMan (Parts I-II) [>>>]
Another Flawed Argument From Pseudo "Peacemakers" Bites the Dust [>>>]
On Political Election Topics
Dems Find No Vote Fraud in Ohio [>>>]
Election Voting Fraud Revisited [>>>]
Bridging Reason and Faith: My Philosophical/Ethical Musings…
On Particular Philosophical/Ethical Subjects
For Preserving the Historical Record [>>>]
Briefly on Making a Valid Argument and Avoiding Argumentation Fallacies [>>>]
On Dialogue and When it is a Waste of Time [>>>]
On Stephen Hand and Certain Statements He Needs to Account For [>>>]
Miscellaneous Musings on Dialogue--An Audio Post [>>>]
Points to Ponder on the Role of the Historian (Herbert Butterfield) [>>>]
Points to Ponder on the Myopic Vision of the Whig Historian (Herbert Butterfield) [>>>]
Miscellaneous Morning Musings on Blogging, the So-Called "Neo-Cons", and the Miers Nomination--An Audio Post [>>>]
Briefly Revisiting the Term "Neo-Con" and its Usage (With Christopher Blosser) [>>>]
Of or Pertaining to 'Progressivist' Philosophies (Falsely So-Called)
More on Marxists, Their Methodology, and Other Tidbits [>>>]
Points to Ponder on So-Called "Progressivism" as a Religion (David Horowitz) [>>>]
Points to Ponder on Openness (Allan Bloom) [>>>]
Miscellaneous Notes on the Hypocrisy of the "Bird Flu Epidemic" Crowd--An Audio Post [>>>]
My Theological Musings…
On the Mystery of the Church
"Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus" Dept. (Responding to a Critique) [>>>]
On Certain Controverted "Hotpoint" Theological Subjects
Very Briefly on Purgatory and Foundational Presuppositions [>>>]
Abrogated Threads:
Recommended* Articles on Various Subjects…
Recommended* Socio-Political Articles on Various Subjects
New York Times v. Janice Rogers Brown (Nat Hentoff) [>>>]
Are Liberals Begging For It? (Ronald Wieck) [>>>]
A Tale of Two Tax Cuts (Justin Lee Jones) [>>>]
The Democrats Sign Up With the Anti-Semites (Richard Baehr) [>>>]
Keep the Pressure on Your Senators to Nix a Gonzales Nomination (Steve Dillard) [>>>]
Will the Real News Fabricator Please Stand Up? (Debbie Schlussel) [>>>]
Alice in Realityland (Chrenkoff) [>>>]
Our Strange War - Looking Ahead, Our Options (Victor Davis Hanson) [>>>]
The Global Shift: The World Will Soon Better Appreciate the United States (Victor Davis Hanson) [>>>]
Why You Can't Believe Polls Anymore (Dick Morris) [>>>]
Pro-Democrat Vote Fraud Probed in Florida (Carl Limbacher) [>>>]
Let Rumsfeld Be (Victor Davis Hanson) [>>>]
A Dangerous Surplus of Sons? (David Glenn) [>>>]
Mexamerica , Here We Come (Patrick J. Buchanan) [>>>]
An Open Letter to the Hollywood Bunch (Charlie Daniels) [>>>]
Has the Counter-Revolution Begun? (Patrick J. Buchanan) [>>>]
An Open Letter to the Democratic Party (William J. Bennet) [>>>]
Innocent Religion is Now A Message of Hate (Abdel Rahman) [>>>]
John Kerry's Deadly Foreign Policy (Wilson C. Lucom) [>>>]
It's a Brave New World After Terri Schiavo Dies (Timothy Birdnow) [>>>]
Articles Added:
Recommended* Socio-Political Articles on Various Subjects
A War to Be Proud of (Christopher Hitchens) [>>>]
Louis Freeh: Let's Get Hearings On Able Dange (Captain Ed) [>>>]
Internet Rules--The Miers Denouement Shows The Power of the New Media (John Fund) [>>>]
First Fight Yourself, Then Society (Dennis Prager) [>>>]
Catholics For Marx (Fr. Robert Sirico) [>>>]
[A Certain So-Called "Peacemaker" and Their] Dick Durbinesque Definition of Torture (Greg Mockeridge) [>>>]
Reforming Social Security: Lessons from Thirty Counties (Michael DeBow) [>>>]
Why does the New York Times Insist on Calling Jihadists "Insurgents"? (Christopher Hitchens) [>>>]
The Friends of Cindy Sheehan (John Hindraker) [>>>]
DeLay's Prosecutor Offered "Dollars for Dismissals (Byron York) [>>>]
McCain Economy Bloc (Robert Novak) [>>>] >
Where the WMDs Went (Jamie Glasnov) [>>>]
Random Thoughts (Thomas Sowell) [>>>]
Bomb Technology Enters Iraq from Iran (Charles Aldinger) [>>>]
Ammunition For Poverty Pimps (Walter E. Williams) [>>>]
Do We Really Care About Children? (Walter E. Williams) [>>>]
Lefty Professors Crush Dissent (Beth Cleaver) [>>>]
UN Confirms: WMD smuggled out of Iraq? (The Anchoress) [>>>]
Recommended* Religious/Theological Articles on Various Subjects
Benedict XVI and Liturgical Reform (Dom Alcuin Reid OSB) [>>>]
War and the Eclipse of Moral Reasoning (Dr. Philip Blosser) [>>>]
All things to the contrary notwithstanding.
It has been nearly five months since this weblog was fully updated...easily the longest period without such an update. There are many reasons for this which your host does not care to go into at the moment except to note that there were three very minor updates made in that interim which bear noting. The first of these was done on October 4, 2005 and was primarily a weeding of the side margin of various articles -though a few sites were also added at that time and a few links renamed. The second one was done on October 6, 2005 and was basically your host receiving some assistance in template tweaking from Christopher Blosser to add to the side margin both a scrolling archives feature as well as a "last ten postings" feature as well to significantly cut down on side margin bulkage and make matters far more streamlined. There was then a third one where a link was added and the Religion of Peace logo was installed in the side margin. But we have finally gotten to the big update so let Us tend to it now without further ado...
Weblog Special Reports, Commemorations, Retrospectives, Miscellaneous Stuff, Etc…
Guest Editorial on Colleges and Their Lack of Faculty Diversity (Written by Tim Tull; Prefatory Comments by I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
On the Subject of Beer Revisited [>>>]
Miscellaneous Musings on Time--An Audio Post [>>>]
Remembering Chris [>>>]
My Political/SocialMusings…
On Political/Social Subjects in General
Briefly on the Karl Rove Situation [>>>]
Briefly on CAFTA and So-Called "Free Trade" [>>>]
Miscellaneous Musings on John Bolton, Air
Briefly on Cindy Sheehan [>>>]
On the High Gas Prices and the Economics Involved Therein [>>>]
On Able Danger and A Potential Defense Department Coverup [>>>]
On the DeLay "Indictment " [>>>]
On the Miers Nomination and Activist Conservative Agendas (Dialogue with Kevin Tierney) [>>>]
Miscellaneous Mutterings on Polling--An Audio Post [>>>]
Briefly Revisiting Able Danger [>>>]
More on Harriet Miers (With Kevin Tierney) [>>>]
Wrapup Musings on the Miers Nomination [>>>]
On the Niger Uranium Document Forgeries [>>>]
Focus on Able Danger Stupid (Parts I-II) [>>>]
On the US Constitution, the Fundamental Rights of Man, Etc…
Points to Ponder on Normative Questions and Theories (Walter E. Williams) [>>>]
Points to Ponder on the Constitutional View of All Minority Groups (Allan Bloom) [>>>]
On Physician Assisted Suicide, the Supreme Court, and Original Intent--An Audio Post [>>>]
Briefly on Claude Frederic Bastiat and "The Law (With Christopher Blosser) [>>>]
On the Recent War and War in General
On Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Profound Problems With Ivory Tower Revisionist Pontifications [>>>]
Expanding Futher on the Subject of Double Effect Viz. the Atomic Bombings [>>>]
Threads on the Atomic Bomb Droppings, Military and Statistical Calculations, the Moral and Ethical Aspects of the Subject Matter in Question, Etc... (A Rerum Novarum Recapitulation Thread) [>>>]
Abstract Theorizing and Hypothetical Wartime Situations With SecretAgentMan (Parts I-II) [>>>]
Another Flawed Argument From Pseudo "Peacemakers" Bites the Dust [>>>]
On Political Election Topics
Dems Find No Vote Fraud in Ohio [>>>]
Election Voting Fraud Revisited [>>>]
Bridging Reason and Faith: My Philosophical/Ethical Musings…
On Particular Philosophical/Ethical Subjects
For Preserving the Historical Record [>>>]
Briefly on Making a Valid Argument and Avoiding Argumentation Fallacies [>>>]
On Dialogue and When it is a Waste of Time [>>>]
On Stephen Hand and Certain Statements He Needs to Account For [>>>]
Miscellaneous Musings on Dialogue--An Audio Post [>>>]
Points to Ponder on the Role of the Historian (Herbert Butterfield) [>>>]
Points to Ponder on the Myopic Vision of the Whig Historian (Herbert Butterfield) [>>>]
Miscellaneous Morning Musings on Blogging, the So-Called "Neo-Cons", and the Miers Nomination--An Audio Post [>>>]
Briefly Revisiting the Term "Neo-Con" and its Usage (With Christopher Blosser) [>>>]
Of or Pertaining to 'Progressivist' Philosophies (Falsely So-Called)
More on Marxists, Their Methodology, and Other Tidbits [>>>]
Points to Ponder on So-Called "Progressivism" as a Religion (David Horowitz) [>>>]
Points to Ponder on Openness (Allan Bloom) [>>>]
Miscellaneous Notes on the Hypocrisy of the "Bird Flu Epidemic" Crowd--An Audio Post [>>>]
My Theological Musings…
On the Mystery of the Church
"Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus" Dept. (Responding to a Critique) [>>>]
On Certain Controverted "Hotpoint" Theological Subjects
Very Briefly on Purgatory and Foundational Presuppositions [>>>]
Abrogated Threads:
Recommended* Articles on Various Subjects…
Recommended* Socio-Political Articles on Various Subjects
New York Times v. Janice Rogers Brown (Nat Hentoff) [>>>]
Are Liberals Begging For It? (Ronald Wieck) [>>>]
A Tale of Two Tax Cuts (Justin Lee Jones) [>>>]
The Democrats Sign Up With the Anti-Semites (Richard Baehr) [>>>]
Keep the Pressure on Your Senators to Nix a Gonzales Nomination (Steve Dillard) [>>>]
Will the Real News Fabricator Please Stand Up? (Debbie Schlussel) [>>>]
Alice in Realityland (Chrenkoff) [>>>]
Our Strange War - Looking Ahead, Our Options (Victor Davis Hanson) [>>>]
The Global Shift: The World Will Soon Better Appreciate the United States (Victor Davis Hanson) [>>>]
Why You Can't Believe Polls Anymore (Dick Morris) [>>>]
Pro-Democrat Vote Fraud Probed in Florida (Carl Limbacher) [>>>]
Let Rumsfeld Be (Victor Davis Hanson) [>>>]
A Dangerous Surplus of Sons? (David Glenn) [>>>]
Mexamerica , Here We Come (Patrick J. Buchanan) [>>>]
An Open Letter to the Hollywood Bunch (Charlie Daniels) [>>>]
Has the Counter-Revolution Begun? (Patrick J. Buchanan) [>>>]
An Open Letter to the Democratic Party (William J. Bennet) [>>>]
Innocent Religion is Now A Message of Hate (Abdel Rahman) [>>>]
John Kerry's Deadly Foreign Policy (Wilson C. Lucom) [>>>]
It's a Brave New World After Terri Schiavo Dies (Timothy Birdnow) [>>>]
Articles Added:
Recommended* Socio-Political Articles on Various Subjects
A War to Be Proud of (Christopher Hitchens) [>>>]
Louis Freeh: Let's Get Hearings On Able Dange (Captain Ed) [>>>]
Internet Rules--The Miers Denouement Shows The Power of the New Media (John Fund) [>>>]
First Fight Yourself, Then Society (Dennis Prager) [>>>]
Catholics For Marx (Fr. Robert Sirico) [>>>]
[A Certain So-Called "Peacemaker" and Their] Dick Durbinesque Definition of Torture (Greg Mockeridge) [>>>]
Reforming Social Security: Lessons from Thirty Counties (Michael DeBow) [>>>]
Why does the New York Times Insist on Calling Jihadists "Insurgents"? (Christopher Hitchens) [>>>]
The Friends of Cindy Sheehan (John Hindraker) [>>>]
DeLay's Prosecutor Offered "Dollars for Dismissals (Byron York) [>>>]
McCain Economy Bloc (Robert Novak) [>>>] >
Where the WMDs Went (Jamie Glasnov) [>>>]
Random Thoughts (Thomas Sowell) [>>>]
Bomb Technology Enters Iraq from Iran (Charles Aldinger) [>>>]
Ammunition For Poverty Pimps (Walter E. Williams) [>>>]
Do We Really Care About Children? (Walter E. Williams) [>>>]
Lefty Professors Crush Dissent (Beth Cleaver) [>>>]
UN Confirms: WMD smuggled out of Iraq? (The Anchoress) [>>>]
Recommended* Religious/Theological Articles on Various Subjects
Benedict XVI and Liturgical Reform (Dom Alcuin Reid OSB) [>>>]
War and the Eclipse of Moral Reasoning (Dr. Philip Blosser) [>>>]
All things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Saturday, November 26, 2005
Remembering Chris:
(Mournful musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Last night, I did not sleep more than an hour (if even that) due to a phone message I received about my friend Chris. We were five months apart in age and back in the days when titles such as "best friend" were used, he was my best friend. And the phone call was to say that Chris died the day before Thanksgiving in a hospital in Arizona. Pardon me if what I am about to write is disjointed...I am working off of virtually no sleep and because of the news from last night, my mind may not be clear. (Certainly my emotions are not stable as I write this.) Nonetheless, a few facts about my old friend seem particularly apropo at this time; ergo that is what I am about to set down in this post.
I am still in contact with some friends from school days...one I have known since eighth grade I talk with a few times a week as I do with one I have known since fifth grade. (The latter currently lives in California and was the author of the most recent guest editorial to this weblog.) Another friend I have known since first grade is still someone I am in touch with on and off and we have recently started talking again after a lapse of time in contact with one another. (Though we hardly saw one another at all for most of the 1990's and the new millennium except for 2004.) But Chris was my oldest friend -both of those I still considered friends as well as in reality.
Chris was born in Canada but had American parents; thus he had "dual citizenship." He was also born with a hole in his heart and had to have heart surgery as an infant to survive. (If memory serves, he was one of the first people to survive the kind of heart surgery he received at so young an age.) He and I knew one another since before preschool. There was about a four year period very early in my life when Chris and I saw one another seemingly on a daily basis (from the ages of five through eight). We got into more than our share of trouble of course and had a few personality quirks in common which probably explains why we generally got along. (I say "generally" because we also fought a lot too.)
When I was in my eighth year, Chris' family moved to Arizona because of Chris' problems with the moist climate of Washington State. I would see him in the summer months of second grade after that and he moved back here for the third grade school year and the summer. After that, his family moved again to Arizona and we only saw one another on rare occasions...he might come up for a couple of days or a week in the summer or something like that: a pattern that continued throughout grade school but ceased sometime around junior high if memory serves. We both for that reason grew up apart from that point on but every time we would run into one another, two things were in common: (i) the visits were never very long for various reasons including "time constraints" and (ii) it was like putting on an old pair of shoes. We did not fight anymore but that could probably be chalked up to getting older and realizing without verbalizing it something I spoke about in a recent audiopost viz. the scarcity of time. And while so much more could be noted than this (and I may do that if so inclined in the coming months), what is noted there will have to do for now.
Chris and I went for the better part of the 1980's and 1990's without seeing each other more than a few times...though in recent years that was starting to change a bit. The last three times I saw him were in 2001, 2002, and 2003 -the first was shortly after my father's funeral and the other two times were about a year apart from one another. The last time we spent probably four or five hours together talking about many things including old times. He had moved back to Washington State and was living in Everett in 2003. Unfortunately, I was still coming out of the throes of the tsunami of family deaths and other tragedies (circa 2000-2003 mostly) and was not inclined for a while to go out of my way to see anyone.
Sometime in 2004, he had gotten an artificial valve put into his heart and had additional problems with his health which resulted in him being flown back to Washington for his sister Michelle to look after as his health was not good. (I learned this from a newsletter that his sister sends out...like myself she is in the real estate field.) As one who was going through business realignments in that period, I chalked up my failure to go see him to just that: not enough time. He had not taken very good care of himself for some time and even did not quit smoking after his heart valve replacement as he should have. (Whether he stopped drinking or not I do not know.) But my reasoning was that Chris had always been a tough old bird and that I would be able to see him "tomorrow" or "someday" when things had gotten more stabilized on many other fronts (both mine as well as his). I say this because it was true but I am also not making excuses for my negligence: I could have gone out of my way on a few occasions but I did not do it and for the life of me I cannot figure out why.
I have had in mind for a while to see several people I have not spent much time with in recent years in the coming year (2006). And while I still intend to do that; nonetheless, I am hardly saying something original in noting that we all have those people whom we are close to who for a variety of circumstances we do not see much of over what can be a long stretch of years. Of course when this thought comes to our minds, many of us defend ourselves by saying that we will get back in touch with them "someday." Well, one of the first people on that list (if not the first) was to be my oldest friend Chris. But he died before I could do that and I will be asking myself for a long time when I think of him what I could have done differently...is there anything I could have set aside as truly less important to focus on what truly was more important.
One would think after all the family deaths in recent years that I would have gotten over putting friends and family aside as I did with my oldest friend. I told myself that I would see Chris "next year" aka "someday" and just because it was supposed to be next year does not remove the beam from my eye. For as John Fogarty once wrote in an old Creedence Clearwater Revival song:
Well, I'm here to tell you now, each and every mother's son,
That you better learn it fast, you better learn it young,
'Cause someday never comes.
I am profoundly sorry Chris...that I did not make that "someday" I was planning to see you again happen a long time ago. I will always cherish the many memories of our times together. May you rest in peace and it is my hope that we will meet again in a world beyond this valley of tears.
From left to right: Sarge, Chris DiSomma (d. 11/23/05) and Shawn McElhinney (circa a long time ago).
(Mournful musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Last night, I did not sleep more than an hour (if even that) due to a phone message I received about my friend Chris. We were five months apart in age and back in the days when titles such as "best friend" were used, he was my best friend. And the phone call was to say that Chris died the day before Thanksgiving in a hospital in Arizona. Pardon me if what I am about to write is disjointed...I am working off of virtually no sleep and because of the news from last night, my mind may not be clear. (Certainly my emotions are not stable as I write this.) Nonetheless, a few facts about my old friend seem particularly apropo at this time; ergo that is what I am about to set down in this post.
I am still in contact with some friends from school days...one I have known since eighth grade I talk with a few times a week as I do with one I have known since fifth grade. (The latter currently lives in California and was the author of the most recent guest editorial to this weblog.) Another friend I have known since first grade is still someone I am in touch with on and off and we have recently started talking again after a lapse of time in contact with one another. (Though we hardly saw one another at all for most of the 1990's and the new millennium except for 2004.) But Chris was my oldest friend -both of those I still considered friends as well as in reality.
Chris was born in Canada but had American parents; thus he had "dual citizenship." He was also born with a hole in his heart and had to have heart surgery as an infant to survive. (If memory serves, he was one of the first people to survive the kind of heart surgery he received at so young an age.) He and I knew one another since before preschool. There was about a four year period very early in my life when Chris and I saw one another seemingly on a daily basis (from the ages of five through eight). We got into more than our share of trouble of course and had a few personality quirks in common which probably explains why we generally got along. (I say "generally" because we also fought a lot too.)
When I was in my eighth year, Chris' family moved to Arizona because of Chris' problems with the moist climate of Washington State. I would see him in the summer months of second grade after that and he moved back here for the third grade school year and the summer. After that, his family moved again to Arizona and we only saw one another on rare occasions...he might come up for a couple of days or a week in the summer or something like that: a pattern that continued throughout grade school but ceased sometime around junior high if memory serves. We both for that reason grew up apart from that point on but every time we would run into one another, two things were in common: (i) the visits were never very long for various reasons including "time constraints" and (ii) it was like putting on an old pair of shoes. We did not fight anymore but that could probably be chalked up to getting older and realizing without verbalizing it something I spoke about in a recent audiopost viz. the scarcity of time. And while so much more could be noted than this (and I may do that if so inclined in the coming months), what is noted there will have to do for now.
Chris and I went for the better part of the 1980's and 1990's without seeing each other more than a few times...though in recent years that was starting to change a bit. The last three times I saw him were in 2001, 2002, and 2003 -the first was shortly after my father's funeral and the other two times were about a year apart from one another. The last time we spent probably four or five hours together talking about many things including old times. He had moved back to Washington State and was living in Everett in 2003. Unfortunately, I was still coming out of the throes of the tsunami of family deaths and other tragedies (circa 2000-2003 mostly) and was not inclined for a while to go out of my way to see anyone.
Sometime in 2004, he had gotten an artificial valve put into his heart and had additional problems with his health which resulted in him being flown back to Washington for his sister Michelle to look after as his health was not good. (I learned this from a newsletter that his sister sends out...like myself she is in the real estate field.) As one who was going through business realignments in that period, I chalked up my failure to go see him to just that: not enough time. He had not taken very good care of himself for some time and even did not quit smoking after his heart valve replacement as he should have. (Whether he stopped drinking or not I do not know.) But my reasoning was that Chris had always been a tough old bird and that I would be able to see him "tomorrow" or "someday" when things had gotten more stabilized on many other fronts (both mine as well as his). I say this because it was true but I am also not making excuses for my negligence: I could have gone out of my way on a few occasions but I did not do it and for the life of me I cannot figure out why.
I have had in mind for a while to see several people I have not spent much time with in recent years in the coming year (2006). And while I still intend to do that; nonetheless, I am hardly saying something original in noting that we all have those people whom we are close to who for a variety of circumstances we do not see much of over what can be a long stretch of years. Of course when this thought comes to our minds, many of us defend ourselves by saying that we will get back in touch with them "someday." Well, one of the first people on that list (if not the first) was to be my oldest friend Chris. But he died before I could do that and I will be asking myself for a long time when I think of him what I could have done differently...is there anything I could have set aside as truly less important to focus on what truly was more important.
One would think after all the family deaths in recent years that I would have gotten over putting friends and family aside as I did with my oldest friend. I told myself that I would see Chris "next year" aka "someday" and just because it was supposed to be next year does not remove the beam from my eye. For as John Fogarty once wrote in an old Creedence Clearwater Revival song:
Well, I'm here to tell you now, each and every mother's son,
That you better learn it fast, you better learn it young,
'Cause someday never comes.
I am profoundly sorry Chris...that I did not make that "someday" I was planning to see you again happen a long time ago. I will always cherish the many memories of our times together. May you rest in peace and it is my hope that we will meet again in a world beyond this valley of tears.
From left to right: Sarge, Chris DiSomma (d. 11/23/05) and Shawn McElhinney (circa a long time ago).
Sunday, November 20, 2005
It seems since this thread was posted that someone was sending some of the links below to other people using my email addresses and misrepresenting it as if I sent those links to them. For the record, I did not do so. Therefore, whomever did send them, kindly do not do so in my name or with my email address in the future please.
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing:
My comments will be interspersed...
UN Confirms: WMD smuggled out of Iraq? (The Anchoress)
Those who have thought it strange that despite all the so-called "evidences" against "WMD's" and all the "Bush Lied" assertions made by various nattering nabobs why your host has not reversed course on his long-enunciated position on the war in Iraq;{1} well, it is quite simple really.
First of all, I take a long view on these matters and know well that these things take a while to round into shape.{2} Secondly, I am quite aware of the problems with a round the clock media influence{3} and how it can misrepresent more complex arguments quite easily.{4} Thirdly, your host never put any of his eggs into the WMD basket to begin with so all of the shrieking back and forth on this issue was seen by me as a case of missing the forest for the trees to a significant extent.{5}
And fourthly, your host has been an adherent to the "Syria Hypothesis" since before the war started and has noted this in various ways on this very weblog subsequent to the war.{6} Nonetheless, it is nice to see the long view approach that your host takes on issues such as this appear to receive yet more vindication...not to mention Our view that the media has an obvious bias in favour of quackish liberalism. But enough on that subject for now.
Moving onto the Captain's Quarters, there are these four threads worth considering:
Louis Freeh: Let's Get Hearings On Able Danger
The summary of the above thread is as follows (in his words):
We need to press Arlen Specter and Pat Leahy to fight the DIA and issue subpoenas if necessary. One man has already sacrificed his career for this effort, and that sacrifice should not pass unrewarded.
As one who has gone on record supporting a focus on Able Danger{7}, I cannot disagree in the slightest with the above assertion. Bug your senators people...including Senator Arlen Spector who expressed interest in this back in September but may well get wishy washy in true congressional fashion on the matter in question. Of course those of us who have Maria Cantvotewell and Patty Murray (the latter of whose lips have been firmly attached to the backside of Robert "Sheets" Byrd for the past thirteen years), it will not make much of a difference but one must try nonetheless. Moving from Able Danger to Democratic cowardice, we have this thread for consideration:
What Could Be More American Than A Vote?
Just a taste...
The Republicans made the right move -- instead of debating the issue through the media, they took the Democratic demands and introduced it as a resolution for debate where rhetoric actually counts, and where both sides get equal time. In the Democratic world, that equates to something vaguely unfair. They tried to hide behind a procedural block, and when that didn't work, they screamed and hollered in support of the idea of withdrawal -- and then promptly voted against it when it counted.
Since I cannot improve on what was just noted by the good captain, let us move onto the third thread:
Woodward Apologetics 101
This quote is priceless:
[J]ournalists only believe in protecting sources when leaks come from fellow liberals and/or serve to embarrass conservatives.
In fact, that quote belongs in the long-running "points to ponder" series so look for it in the future to be added. Moving on...
Iranians Admit Getting Blueprint For Nuclear Warhead (Captain Ed)
A show of hands please for those who trust in the UN to handle this matter properly by themselves...anybody...anybody... did not think so.{8}
Freedom Has a Taste the Protected Will Never Know (Beth Cleaver)
Well said. However, that is not to say that those of us who are protected by the freedom our fighting soldiers provide do not have an awareness of what they do as well as an appreciation for it. But we have more from Beth including this gem:
Boogie to Baghdad
I do not consider myself unfamiliar with the divers threads surrounding the war on terror subject but I must confess to not being familiar with this one (until now). It is in the 9/11 Commission Report; however I have not read most of it...mainly because they refused to deal adequately with Able Danger and (therefore) the ultimate position they take is significantly tainted as a result. Nonetheless, thanks for the heads up...another nail in the metal-filled coffin lid of the "Bush Lied" canard.
Laziest Post Ever
No Beth, that is the second laziest post ever. I still hold the record (I think) for the laziest post ever and it can be viewed HERE.{9}
403-3
Of course since there are 435 house members, a vote like that means there were twenty-nine people who either (i) abstained from voting or (ii) were absent. Still though, for all the Democratic congressional bluster about demanding "immediate withdrawal", when put to a vote, the craven way many of those windbags responded is quite telling.
Whatever else you want to say about Cynthia McKinney, (D-GA), José Serrano, (D-NY), and Robert Wexler, (D-FL) -at least they put their vote where their mouth is. Moving on...
The Iraq War: A History Lesson (Michelle Malkin)
Sounds to me like a worthy project. By the way, readers who peruse my post defending the use of force in Iraq will notice that I include situations and events from the 1990's in that assessment. The reason is that they are not an insignificant part of the overall equation. However, to include stuff that predates 9/11 is to shoot holes in the "Bush Lied" cadaver-of-an-argument so it is not surprising to me that those sorts ignore that stuff.
And via Michelle's blog we find this thread from a relatively new site called "All Things Conservative":
Operation Clean Sweep and Iraq Update (Bill Crawford)
Once again, the alternative media has to report the news that the MSM does not want to report for (presumably) ideological reasons.
Where the WMDs Went (Jamie Glasnov)
Former intelligence officer Bill Tierney concurs with your host both with regards to the war approach viz. Iraq as well as the Syria hypothesis...something which I remind you that the Duelfer Report did not rule out of the equation.
Huge Anti-Terror Protest in Jordan (Little Green Footballs)
Can anyone think of an MSM source other than the Washington Times who has reported on this event???
Kurt Vonnegut: Moonbat (Little Green Footballs)
Well, at the very least that will probably get Vonnegutless some feature coverage over at a certain site aptly called Treasonous Communist Rubbish.{10}
And finally, some of the stuff you can find with a word search at wikipedia include the following:
Backward message (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
I cannot believe someone actually put this into wikipedia!!! Nonetheless, I include it here since it mentions an album I wrote a review for Amazon on. (The rough draft of which will be posted to this weblog before the end of the month.)
Besides, it should stand to reason that a bad message played backwards on a record logically has its problems. After all, if we have something bad being played backwards it is akin to adding two numbers together of equal value, one positive and one negative (i.e. 2+-2). But then again, simple logic is often a problem for those who spend their time panting and otherwise hyperventilating over "backwards messages" on recordings along with various and sundry other forms of useless drivel (read: idiotarians and moonbats of various persuasions).
Notes:
{1} Why Those Who Hold Out For Peaceful Solutions With Iraq Are Wrong (circa February 9, 2003)
Nary a jot nor tittle of what I wrote in that post (nearly three years ago) has been altered by subsequent supposed "findings" or "facts" about WMD's, their existence or non-existence, etc. That is not to say that finding WMD's either in Iraq or elsewhere would not bolster the arguments made of course but an absence of them does not hurt my view at all.
{2} Points to Ponder on "Weapons of Mass Destruction" by Amir Taheri (circa December 14, 2003)
{3} Miscellaneous Reflections on the Most Recent Beheadings and the War on Terror--An Audio Post Part I (circa September 22, 2004)
Miscellaneous Reflections on the Most Recent Beheadings and the War on Terror--An Audio Post Part II (circa September 22, 2004)
{4} The media in its mainstream incarnations should be taken with many grains of salt if not a saltshaker with regards to any pronouncements it makes on the aforesaid complex issues. This is the foundation of the McElhinney Media Dictum finally defined after many years of adherence last year at the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG.
{5} Readers who have followed this weblog for a long time are aware that I never in the entire subject of the war in Iraq -even from the earliest of the postings where I took an unequivocal position in favour of the utilization of the military option there to the more immediate post war period and beyond to the present time- placed any of my eggs in the WMD basket. For those who wondered about my reasons for this, you now have some of them. In light of how many commentators are tossed to and fro with whatever the immediate media zeitgeist happens to say, it does not hurt on occasion to point to the very solid trackrecord of your weblog host and how often he has avoided falling into those traps. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 16, 2005)]
{6} Here is a list of many of the threads where this was noted explicitly or otherwise:
More on the Iraq War, the Syria Hypothesis, and the Duelfer Report (circa June 8, 2005)
Briefly on Iraq, WMD's, and Another Pseudo-"Progressivist" War Dogma Bites the Dust (circa March 14, 2005)
The Iraq - Al Queda Connection (circa September 18, 2004)
More on Extreme Ideologies (circa August 31, 2004)
Miscellaneous Mutterings on David Kay and His Testimony (circa January 30, 2004)
Points to Ponder on "Weapons of Mass Destruction" by Amir Taheri (circa December 14, 2003)
{7} Among which are these excerpts:
I surmize that...the existence of Able Danger and its coverup will prove to be a huge black mark on the previous administration. And in light of Hillary's longtime designs on the presidency, Able Danger would not be a benefit to her cause to put it mildly...
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. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa September 16, 2005)]
And these links:
On Able Danger and A Potential Defense Department Coverup (circa September 21, 2005)
Briefly Revisiting Able Danger (circa October 20, 2005)
"Focus on Able Danger Stupid" Dept. (circa November 2, 2005)
"Focus on Able Danger Stupid" Revisited (circa November 3, 2005)
{8} Those who did raise their hands, I will be nice and ask that you put the bong down and wait a while before voting again (either in what I just asked you, in the 2006 elections, etc).
{9} It is also perhaps the only time in the history of Rerum Novarum that the title for a post was longer than the post itself actually.
{10} An entity whose entire approach to complex issues is a mixture of equal parts moonbat and idiotarian with a serial propensity towards dowdification.
My comments will be interspersed...
UN Confirms: WMD smuggled out of Iraq? (The Anchoress)
Those who have thought it strange that despite all the so-called "evidences" against "WMD's" and all the "Bush Lied" assertions made by various nattering nabobs why your host has not reversed course on his long-enunciated position on the war in Iraq;{1} well, it is quite simple really.
First of all, I take a long view on these matters and know well that these things take a while to round into shape.{2} Secondly, I am quite aware of the problems with a round the clock media influence{3} and how it can misrepresent more complex arguments quite easily.{4} Thirdly, your host never put any of his eggs into the WMD basket to begin with so all of the shrieking back and forth on this issue was seen by me as a case of missing the forest for the trees to a significant extent.{5}
And fourthly, your host has been an adherent to the "Syria Hypothesis" since before the war started and has noted this in various ways on this very weblog subsequent to the war.{6} Nonetheless, it is nice to see the long view approach that your host takes on issues such as this appear to receive yet more vindication...not to mention Our view that the media has an obvious bias in favour of quackish liberalism. But enough on that subject for now.
Moving onto the Captain's Quarters, there are these four threads worth considering:
Louis Freeh: Let's Get Hearings On Able Danger
The summary of the above thread is as follows (in his words):
We need to press Arlen Specter and Pat Leahy to fight the DIA and issue subpoenas if necessary. One man has already sacrificed his career for this effort, and that sacrifice should not pass unrewarded.
As one who has gone on record supporting a focus on Able Danger{7}, I cannot disagree in the slightest with the above assertion. Bug your senators people...including Senator Arlen Spector who expressed interest in this back in September but may well get wishy washy in true congressional fashion on the matter in question. Of course those of us who have Maria Cant
What Could Be More American Than A Vote?
Just a taste...
The Republicans made the right move -- instead of debating the issue through the media, they took the Democratic demands and introduced it as a resolution for debate where rhetoric actually counts, and where both sides get equal time. In the Democratic world, that equates to something vaguely unfair. They tried to hide behind a procedural block, and when that didn't work, they screamed and hollered in support of the idea of withdrawal -- and then promptly voted against it when it counted.
Since I cannot improve on what was just noted by the good captain, let us move onto the third thread:
Woodward Apologetics 101
This quote is priceless:
[J]ournalists only believe in protecting sources when leaks come from fellow liberals and/or serve to embarrass conservatives.
In fact, that quote belongs in the long-running "points to ponder" series so look for it in the future to be added. Moving on...
Iranians Admit Getting Blueprint For Nuclear Warhead (Captain Ed)
A show of hands please for those who trust in the UN to handle this matter properly by themselves...anybody...anybody... did not think so.{8}
Freedom Has a Taste the Protected Will Never Know (Beth Cleaver)
Well said. However, that is not to say that those of us who are protected by the freedom our fighting soldiers provide do not have an awareness of what they do as well as an appreciation for it. But we have more from Beth including this gem:
Boogie to Baghdad
I do not consider myself unfamiliar with the divers threads surrounding the war on terror subject but I must confess to not being familiar with this one (until now). It is in the 9/11 Commission Report; however I have not read most of it...mainly because they refused to deal adequately with Able Danger and (therefore) the ultimate position they take is significantly tainted as a result. Nonetheless, thanks for the heads up...another nail in the metal-filled coffin lid of the "Bush Lied" canard.
Laziest Post Ever
No Beth, that is the second laziest post ever. I still hold the record (I think) for the laziest post ever and it can be viewed HERE.{9}
403-3
Of course since there are 435 house members, a vote like that means there were twenty-nine people who either (i) abstained from voting or (ii) were absent. Still though, for all the Democratic congressional bluster about demanding "immediate withdrawal", when put to a vote, the craven way many of those windbags responded is quite telling.
Whatever else you want to say about Cynthia McKinney, (D-GA), José Serrano, (D-NY), and Robert Wexler, (D-FL) -at least they put their vote where their mouth is. Moving on...
The Iraq War: A History Lesson (Michelle Malkin)
Sounds to me like a worthy project. By the way, readers who peruse my post defending the use of force in Iraq will notice that I include situations and events from the 1990's in that assessment. The reason is that they are not an insignificant part of the overall equation. However, to include stuff that predates 9/11 is to shoot holes in the "Bush Lied" cadaver-of-an-argument so it is not surprising to me that those sorts ignore that stuff.
And via Michelle's blog we find this thread from a relatively new site called "All Things Conservative":
Operation Clean Sweep and Iraq Update (Bill Crawford)
Once again, the alternative media has to report the news that the MSM does not want to report for (presumably) ideological reasons.
Where the WMDs Went (Jamie Glasnov)
Former intelligence officer Bill Tierney concurs with your host both with regards to the war approach viz. Iraq as well as the Syria hypothesis...something which I remind you that the Duelfer Report did not rule out of the equation.
Huge Anti-Terror Protest in Jordan (Little Green Footballs)
Can anyone think of an MSM source other than the Washington Times who has reported on this event???
Kurt Vonnegut: Moonbat (Little Green Footballs)
Well, at the very least that will probably get Vonnegut
And finally, some of the stuff you can find with a word search at wikipedia include the following:
Backward message (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
I cannot believe someone actually put this into wikipedia!!! Nonetheless, I include it here since it mentions an album I wrote a review for Amazon on. (The rough draft of which will be posted to this weblog before the end of the month.)
Besides, it should stand to reason that a bad message played backwards on a record logically has its problems. After all, if we have something bad being played backwards it is akin to adding two numbers together of equal value, one positive and one negative (i.e. 2+-2). But then again, simple logic is often a problem for those who spend their time panting and otherwise hyperventilating over "backwards messages" on recordings along with various and sundry other forms of useless drivel (read: idiotarians and moonbats of various persuasions).
Notes:
{1} Why Those Who Hold Out For Peaceful Solutions With Iraq Are Wrong (circa February 9, 2003)
Nary a jot nor tittle of what I wrote in that post (nearly three years ago) has been altered by subsequent supposed "findings" or "facts" about WMD's, their existence or non-existence, etc. That is not to say that finding WMD's either in Iraq or elsewhere would not bolster the arguments made of course but an absence of them does not hurt my view at all.
{2} Points to Ponder on "Weapons of Mass Destruction" by Amir Taheri (circa December 14, 2003)
{3} Miscellaneous Reflections on the Most Recent Beheadings and the War on Terror--An Audio Post Part I (circa September 22, 2004)
Miscellaneous Reflections on the Most Recent Beheadings and the War on Terror--An Audio Post Part II (circa September 22, 2004)
{4} The media in its mainstream incarnations should be taken with many grains of salt if not a saltshaker with regards to any pronouncements it makes on the aforesaid complex issues. This is the foundation of the McElhinney Media Dictum finally defined after many years of adherence last year at the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG.
{5} Readers who have followed this weblog for a long time are aware that I never in the entire subject of the war in Iraq -even from the earliest of the postings where I took an unequivocal position in favour of the utilization of the military option there to the more immediate post war period and beyond to the present time- placed any of my eggs in the WMD basket. For those who wondered about my reasons for this, you now have some of them. In light of how many commentators are tossed to and fro with whatever the immediate media zeitgeist happens to say, it does not hurt on occasion to point to the very solid trackrecord of your weblog host and how often he has avoided falling into those traps. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 16, 2005)]
{6} Here is a list of many of the threads where this was noted explicitly or otherwise:
More on the Iraq War, the Syria Hypothesis, and the Duelfer Report (circa June 8, 2005)
Briefly on Iraq, WMD's, and Another Pseudo-"Progressivist" War Dogma Bites the Dust (circa March 14, 2005)
The Iraq - Al Queda Connection (circa September 18, 2004)
More on Extreme Ideologies (circa August 31, 2004)
Miscellaneous Mutterings on David Kay and His Testimony (circa January 30, 2004)
Points to Ponder on "Weapons of Mass Destruction" by Amir Taheri (circa December 14, 2003)
{7} Among which are these excerpts:
I surmize that...the existence of Able Danger and its coverup will prove to be a huge black mark on the previous administration. And in light of Hillary's longtime designs on the presidency, Able Danger would not be a benefit to her cause to put it mildly...
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. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa September 16, 2005)]
And these links:
On Able Danger and A Potential Defense Department Coverup (circa September 21, 2005)
Briefly Revisiting Able Danger (circa October 20, 2005)
"Focus on Able Danger Stupid" Dept. (circa November 2, 2005)
"Focus on Able Danger Stupid" Revisited (circa November 3, 2005)
{8} Those who did raise their hands, I will be nice and ask that you put the bong down and wait a while before voting again (either in what I just asked you, in the 2006 elections, etc).
{9} It is also perhaps the only time in the history of Rerum Novarum that the title for a post was longer than the post itself actually.
{10} An entity whose entire approach to complex issues is a mixture of equal parts moonbat and idiotarian with a serial propensity towards dowdification.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Briefly on Claude Frederic Bastiat and The Law:
The following note was sent to your host by a friend who maintains a very large website with various interconnected themes. Their words will be in shale font.
In adding new content to the 'Church and Liberal Tradition' website today I realized I was long negligent in adding Frederic Bastiat to the list of intellectual precursors:
Claude Frederic Bastiat
As well as adding 'The Law' to the recommended reading section. Just wanted to let you know the matter is resolved. =)
No problemo. I have come to consider that book as a prerequisite for properly understanding law and its function in society...so much so that anyone with a degree in economics or a liberal arts field who is not familiar with The Law, has a useless degree as far as I am concerned.
With regards to the Whig classification, I am not sure that Claude Frederic Bastiat would identify himself as a Whig though. (I guess it depends on how that term is defined.) He certainly supported free trade though I do not think for a minute he would support NAFTA or CAFTA.{1} I cannot see him supporting the crippling business and regulatory climate of businesses in this country and then NAFTA/CAFTA making it easy to go a short distance where these burdens are not a factor (i.e. Mexico, Central America, etc). If anything, he would support free trade without the artificial constraints imposed by useless taxes and regulations in the American climate.
If the only thing that stood between us and Mexico was the wages issue, I do not believe it is likely that many companies would move. But when there is the tons of red tape and other garbage added on top of the wages issue, I have a hard time faulting companies who choose to leave for leaving. The problem is squarely that of the federal government intervening where it has no business intervening and (furthermore) where one could argue that from a constitutional standpoint they are limited in their ability to intervene. Not that the feds care a whit about the Constitution of course (except when it benefits them to). But that is another subject altogether.
Note:
{1} Briefly on CAFTA and So-Called "Free Trade" (circa July 29, 2005)
The following note was sent to your host by a friend who maintains a very large website with various interconnected themes. Their words will be in shale font.
In adding new content to the 'Church and Liberal Tradition' website today I realized I was long negligent in adding Frederic Bastiat to the list of intellectual precursors:
Claude Frederic Bastiat
As well as adding 'The Law' to the recommended reading section. Just wanted to let you know the matter is resolved. =)
No problemo. I have come to consider that book as a prerequisite for properly understanding law and its function in society...so much so that anyone with a degree in economics or a liberal arts field who is not familiar with The Law, has a useless degree as far as I am concerned.
With regards to the Whig classification, I am not sure that Claude Frederic Bastiat would identify himself as a Whig though. (I guess it depends on how that term is defined.) He certainly supported free trade though I do not think for a minute he would support NAFTA or CAFTA.{1} I cannot see him supporting the crippling business and regulatory climate of businesses in this country and then NAFTA/CAFTA making it easy to go a short distance where these burdens are not a factor (i.e. Mexico, Central America, etc). If anything, he would support free trade without the artificial constraints imposed by useless taxes and regulations in the American climate.
If the only thing that stood between us and Mexico was the wages issue, I do not believe it is likely that many companies would move. But when there is the tons of red tape and other garbage added on top of the wages issue, I have a hard time faulting companies who choose to leave for leaving. The problem is squarely that of the federal government intervening where it has no business intervening and (furthermore) where one could argue that from a constitutional standpoint they are limited in their ability to intervene. Not that the feds care a whit about the Constitution of course (except when it benefits them to). But that is another subject altogether.
Note:
{1} Briefly on CAFTA and So-Called "Free Trade" (circa July 29, 2005)
Monday, November 14, 2005
Points to Ponder:
(On "Ignorance" and "Education")
My grandparents were ignorant people by our standards and my grandfather held only lowly jobs. But their home was spiritually rich because all the things done in it, not only what was specifically ritual, found their origin in the Bible’s commandments, and their explanation in the Bible’s stories and the commentaries on them, and had their imaginative counterparts in the deeds of the myriad of exemplary heroes. My grandparents found reasons for the existence of their family and the fulfillment of their duties in serious writings, and they interpreted their special sufferings with respect to a great and ennobling past. Their simple faith and practices linked them to great scholars and thinkers who dealt with the same material, not from outside or from an alien perspective, but believing as they did, while simply going deeper and providing guidance. There was a respect for real learning, because it had a felt connection with their lives. That is what a community and a history mean, a common experience inviting high and low into a single body of belief.
I do not believe that my generation, my cousins who have all been educated in the American way, all of whom are M.D.s or Ph.D.s, have any comparable learning. When they talk about heaven and earth, the relations between men and women, parents and children, the human condition, I hear nothing but clichés, superficialities, the material of satire. I am not saying anything so trite as that life is fuller when people have myths to live by. I mean rather that a life based on the Book is closer to the truth, that it provides the material for deeper research in and access to the real nature of things. Without the great revelations, epics, and philosophies as part of our natural vision, there is nothing to see out there and eventually little left inside. The Bible is not the only means to furnish a mind, but without a book of similar gravity, read with the gravity of the potential believer, it will remain unfurnished. [Allan Bloom: From The Closing of the American Mind pgs. 59-60 (c. 1987)]
(On "Ignorance" and "Education")
My grandparents were ignorant people by our standards and my grandfather held only lowly jobs. But their home was spiritually rich because all the things done in it, not only what was specifically ritual, found their origin in the Bible’s commandments, and their explanation in the Bible’s stories and the commentaries on them, and had their imaginative counterparts in the deeds of the myriad of exemplary heroes. My grandparents found reasons for the existence of their family and the fulfillment of their duties in serious writings, and they interpreted their special sufferings with respect to a great and ennobling past. Their simple faith and practices linked them to great scholars and thinkers who dealt with the same material, not from outside or from an alien perspective, but believing as they did, while simply going deeper and providing guidance. There was a respect for real learning, because it had a felt connection with their lives. That is what a community and a history mean, a common experience inviting high and low into a single body of belief.
I do not believe that my generation, my cousins who have all been educated in the American way, all of whom are M.D.s or Ph.D.s, have any comparable learning. When they talk about heaven and earth, the relations between men and women, parents and children, the human condition, I hear nothing but clichés, superficialities, the material of satire. I am not saying anything so trite as that life is fuller when people have myths to live by. I mean rather that a life based on the Book is closer to the truth, that it provides the material for deeper research in and access to the real nature of things. Without the great revelations, epics, and philosophies as part of our natural vision, there is nothing to see out there and eventually little left inside. The Bible is not the only means to furnish a mind, but without a book of similar gravity, read with the gravity of the potential believer, it will remain unfurnished. [Allan Bloom: From The Closing of the American Mind pgs. 59-60 (c. 1987)]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)