On Geopolitical Issues, the 2006 Elections, Shifting Voting Demographics, Etc.
(Dialogue With Mark Bonocore --Part I of IV)

Mark's words will be in shale font in this four part dialogual sequence. Any citing of statements of mine prior to this material will be in blue font. Previous citations of Mark's words will be in fire coloured font. Any sources I use will be in darkblue font any exceptions to the pattern just outlined will be explicitly noted. And while admittedly I wax and wain a bit on the whole Hillary election thing, in general my views are what was expressed when Mark and I conducted this dialogue on a discussion list last year.

Mark (and company):

I have moved this discussion to a different thread because it was simply getting difficult for me to follow after a while. For the sake of easier reading, I have divided this response into four parts and (along with the previous threads) may blog it if time or circumstances permit it. But without further ado...

On 10/22/05, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX wrote:
In a message dated 10/20/2005 5:08:44 PM Pacific Standard Time, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX writes:
I am aware of what they are trying to do Mark. It is just that they have not adapted yet to the alternative media formats. Their sort only dominates when they can handcuff disputations and set it up so that it is several libs against one token conservative. But in the alternative media (which is the future of media), they not only cannot do this but they are at the mercy of people being able to select what they want and do not want to listen to or watch.

True. But, you don't think Hillary's going to let Sean Hannidy or Fox News moderate her debates, do you? :-)

She will have to engage the alternative media to some extent Mark...this is not 1992 where it could be avoided (or even 1996 when it was still an upstart). The alternative media has been the deciding factor in the past three elections (2000, 2002, and 2004) and Hillary is smart enough to know that they cannot be avoided completely if she wants to move beyond her base of supporters.

As a result, newspaper circulation has declined significantly, the major news programs are losing ratings, and FoxNews is beating CNN, MSNBC, and CBS combined!!!

Again, all true ... But most people who can vote don't watch the news. Many get their politics from John Stewart's Daily Show on Comedy Central! How scary is that?

My sister just ordered a "John Stewart in '08" sweatshirt Mark...I am not unaware of this. However, most [with my sister's outlook] know that The Today Show is a fake news program.

On the radio, it is not even close..are you aware that Air-America is on the verge of collapse because they cannot turn a profit??? No one is listening to them except the "bush-is-hitler" crowd and they are a very small minority at best. In cyperspace, the libs are also losing the war of persuasion. All they have is scaremongering propaganda and prevarication and guess what: those cards are not playing well anymore.

Yes. But, might I suggest that you are an intellectual with intellectual tunnel vision here.

I have been called a lot worse than that before so go ahead ;-)

Again, the vast majority of Americans (who have the same right to vote as informed and sensible people) don't follow politics or the news. It is this "mob" that the dems will try to appeal to.

And a good percentage of those people do not even vote to begin with...a key factor you are not taking into account. By contrast, people who view things as we do generally speaking are a growing number and we do vote.

They just need a good reason ( e.g. a dip in the economy; some disaster in Iraq, etc.) to do it. This is why Bush is commonly blamed for everything bad that happens, and that mentality trickles down to the common man, who is willing to believe it. Katrina = Bush's fauly; the riot in Cleveland = Bush's fault; Sadam's trial is postponed = Bush's fault. :-) The technique is to establish a psychological "manta" of sorts for the idiots in our society. And we have no shortage of idiots.

But need I remind you that this tactic failed in 2000, it failed in 2002, and it failed in 2004??? As long as the Democrats do not give people a reason to vote for them, human nature is not to change course; ergo apathy in this case plays into our favour.

And do the people who can vote really care anything about this??? I refer to the soccer moms and the other disciples of Oprah. :-) It's not about ability, it's about popularity. Scary!

[Snipping heap big historical documentation on my part pace Mark's earlier comments]

That is an excellent historical analysis, Shawn; but I think you're missing two elements --the two elements that the modern Democrats rely on: 1) the power of the media, which is a far more useful tool than it was in the days of Roosevelt; and I'm not talking about news programs and the like, but the ability of the entertainment industry ( e.g. TV, music, movies, etc.), which has a air of "royality" about it for most Americans, to indoctrinate people on a cultural level and weaken the resolve of their nominally Christian/conservative convictions (there was nothing like this in the days of Roosevelt or JFK ...I refer to a united liberal control of the entertainment industry),

The same media who has pulled out all the stops the past six years and failed to carry the day in a single election??? Mark, I think what you are not recognizing is that this approach has run its course aka what Arianism did by the late 300's. Will it still be a factor in the next election and into the future??? Sure the same way the Arians were after 381 or so. The MSM's heyday was 1964-1994...starting with the Johnson political smear of Goldwater and ending with the Republicans sweeping into the Congress. Since that time, they have been losing ground on all fronts and have been throwing more and more public temper tantrums. And the past six years, things have solidified and we are seeing a paradigmatic tilt in the direction of the MSM having significantly less influence and diminishing by the year.

and 2) the growing stupidity on the part of average Americans.

Actually, I think the stupidity factor also peaked sometime in the 1990's. That is not to say that there is a shortage of stupidity out there today...God knows there is not...but I am not so sure anymore that this is a growing factor anymore.

If some TV news show did a man-on-the-street interview in c. 1960, the man-on-the-street would be reasonably well informed ( e.g. knowing who the Vice President was, etc.); the interviewer would get intellegent answers to their questions, and the person would respond in full sentences. If one does a man-on-the-street interview today, unless it's someone like yourself (a rarity), they will get blabbering nonsense and a lot of blank states and embarrassed laughter. This is the fruit of a liberal-run NEA and intentionally declining standards in our school systems. In short, people have been "dumbed-up"; and "dumbed up" people are easily led ...to vote Democrat. :-)

I would have agreed with your analysis ten years ago Mark. However, the structures were different then...the MSM had a monopoly on public discourse and there were no substantial alternative voices. Again, voter turnout in 2000 and 2004 was high (particularly 2004) and we know what happened in those elections. 2002 was not high but midterms generally are not anyway. 2006 will be a midterm election and low voter turnout favours incumbants as a rule. You still seem to be seeing things through the lens of a monopolistic MSM apparatus I am afraid...

The one and only thing that seriously threatens Hillary's bid (not that Bush has made the same mistakes as his dad and allowed the media the demonize him with no response or counter-move) is the war and the threat of terror.

There is also the economy. If it remains strong through 2008, she will not win. PERIOD.

Could be. But Carval et al are very clever.

True. But they have a lot more against them now than they did in the 1990's Mark. It is not the same playing field anymore and if Carvel does not realize this (and I am not so sure he does actually...based on what I have seen of him on the talking heads programs the past couple of years), he will not be as effective as he was in the past.

If the person the Republicans pick can be demonized, it will be relatively easiy to position Hillary as the one who will "preserve our present prosperty."

That is why you are not likely to see a front runner prior to the 2006 elections...

making it seem as if the Rep is an outsider who will want to take it away from us.

Again, this is from the old playbook which has failed to work the past three elections (read: since the coming-of-age of the alternative media).

If Gingich runs, I am confident that they will do something like this.

Gingrich would be a good choice to act as a distractor...he cannot win the nomination but for people like the Dems to spend their time and money demonizing him to allow someone else (i.e. a mirror opposite of Gingrich) to be the nominee: in baseball they call this a "changeup."

Hillary = a Senator whose been "keeping America strong" ....as if she was part of the Bush administration, etc. :-)

Um Mark, put the peyote down...NOW!!! ;-) ;-) ;-)

It's hilarious, but look at what people will believe these days!

You are approaching this without recognizing the change in political dynamics the past eight years...almost like Mondale in 1984 with all due respect ;-)

I should note that lest this be misunderstood that I actually do appreciate you playing "Mr. Thunderstorm" here since I am sure there are many who hold your view in at least a macro sense. My response here is one of cautious optimism based on historical precedent -both the previous hundred years of presidential history as well as the last three elections in the age of the increasingly discredited MSM.

But, the liberals are working on this too. Have you seen that new show on one of the networks starring Gena Davis, called "Commander in Chief." It's about America's first woman President, and notice the title. :-) She becomes President during the war on terror, etc. No accident.

True. However, Geena Davis is a babe and Hillary is not.

I know a lot of people who think otherwise. :-) ..sick people, to be sure; but Hillary is considered very "easy on the eyes" in some circles.

Maybe at a blind person's convention...though frankly Hillary could get a grimace out of Ronnie Milsap.

Women also tend to see her this way --i.e., her new "warm and motherly" (vs. "cold and dykey") make-over via her Senatorial run. :-)

In New York sure but winning in NY does not translate into winning nationally. You may not know this being from Philly and all but we folks out west here (with our "stagecoaches", "shootumups at noon", and "tumbleweeds") as a rule despise you eastern folks as uppity elists bums, etc. (Present company excluded of course.) We are aware that back east there is a general view that everyone west of the Hudson River (and south of Mason-Dixon) are a bunch of "inbred Jeds." Hillary has sought to identify herself as an eastern establishment type and that does not play well out here anymore. If you do not believe me, ask Howard Dean, John Edwards, John Kerry, Paul Tsongas, and Michael Dukakis.

The only times an eastern establishment type mentality has succeeded is when packaged in "good 'ol boy attire." That explains Clinton, Carter, and LBJ. I remind you that Humphrey failed in 1968, McGovern in 1972, and Mondale in 1984. They were all northern liberals -in Humphrey's case a more honourable northern liberal but the same stigma nonetheless.

Hillary would have been wiser to have run as a Senator from Arkansas (or some other southern state) to set herself up presidentially but she would not have had a prayer in Arkansas. That is why she went with New York where being liberal gives you a thirty point head start in the polls if not more.

Again, Mark, truth be told: we "rednecks" despise the eastern establishment and its self-anointed "ivory tower intellectuals." That may not be evident from out there in Philly, etc. but trust me: it is true. And if you doubt me, look at the presidential maps in 2000 and 2004 and check out all that red. (Though in truth, we should be blue since the Democrats are the true marxists and thus are properly coloured red.)

Even in Washington state, the last governors race needed to be stolen from us by the corrupt King County machine...which in this election coming up there are actually lifetime Dems supporting one of the GOP candidates because of a recognized need to break the back of the city machine. There is even talk about partitioning off King County after the city limits into another county...that is how pissed off many KC residents are with the way their county is monopolized by the Seattle machine (and has been for decades now).

My point is Mark, we are seeing a seismatic shift taking place with a political realigning which started in 1980 and has been moving ever since (with very few signs of stopping). This political realigning is to our advantage; ergo I am cautiously optimistic most of the time.

I'm taking that line directly from a Saturday Night Live sketch. My hope of course is that she ages badly over the next two years. :-) Yet, there's always plastic surgery, I suppose.

She is not to be underestimated certainly. However, you overestimate her.

This is an attempt (not a very successful one, I'll grant you) by the media machine to get America ready and comfortable with Hillary by casting, not a dykey shrew, but a "Mary Tyler Moore" type actress in the role of the President --the hope being that it will help people to embrace the "icon" that Hillary will personally fill.

But Hillary does not have the physical looks of Geena Davis or 1960's-1980's Mary Tyler Moore. See my previous comments.

Sorry, I think I didn't make my point clear enough. The reason I mentioned Mary Tyler Moore was because she is an icon of "the girl next door" in American mythology. Geena Davis has this same quality, which is why they cast her as the President, rather than Glenn Close or Meryl Streep, etc.

Close would have been a good actress to try and clone Hillary for a TV show...except Close is easier on the eyes.

Now, granted, Hillary is no girl next store. But, the mentality in casting Geena Davis is to get Americans comfortable with a female war-time President who is archetypally female. For, if a "girly-girl" can be president during a war, then so can Hillary. Admittedly, it's a pretty lame attempt to win over the psych of the country. But, they're trying. ...and it could have worked. :-)

Wouldas and couldas do not escape from the fact that it has not been working.

So far, the show's ratings have been terrible. :-) But, give the liberals a chance. That's just one tactic of many for trying to influence the American electorate. You ain't seen nothing yet. :-)

Actually, we saw a lot in the 1990's with the BS over so-called "budget cuts", we say a bunch of BS in the 2000 presidential campaign, we saw even more BS in the 2004 campaign as well. There is nothing new in any of it nor will there be in what they will try for 2006 or 2008.

I agree Mark but perhaps you should consider what the bad ratings for that show signify in part. I have heard through the grapevine that it is not a bad show. They certainly have good actors ( i.e. Geena Davis, Donald Sutherland). So the show is not failing because it is a bad show but instead for another reason.

Well, I think the show is failing because of the "law of diminishing demands" ---a little facet of business that the entertainment industry never seems to learn. The target audience for the show is already occupied with "The West Wing." So, I think that's the real problem. For example, if you put on a show about a red-haired kid with his "cool" Italian buddy growing up in the 1950's while "Happy Days" was already on the air, it would not do well because "Happy Days" owns the market. The producers of "Commander in Chief" basically concluded that their show will be successful because it's "The West Wing meets Gilmore Girls" (or however they pitched it). :-) In other words, they overestimated the popularity of "The West Wing" with audiences (assuming that folks "couldn't get enough" of West Wing), and perhaps their blind spot was their desire to use the popularity of West Wing (which was created during liberal Hollywood's euphoria over Clinton) as a piece of propoganda to promote Hillary. The interesting thing, of course, will be to watch whether or not the network actually pulls the show. :-)

Your analysis is good but it points out the weakness in our adversaries. As for whether the show will or will not be pulled, here is my prediction: not before the 2008 primaries.

Hollywood has a history of permitting failing financial enterprises to continue because they support their ideologies. ...i.e., every anti-Christian movie ever made ( e.g. The Last Temptation of Christ) looses money, yet Hollywood continues to make them. Why? :-) I thought it was "show business"? Not.

Precisely.

But, these only work with thinking people. What about the millions upon millions of morons out there, all of whom have the same vote as you or me?

I am one who favours making voters not of equal weight.

Amen! :-) White, educated, male, landowners. :-) ...Okay, at least educated landowners. Hee hee.

I favour everyone who is of age being able to vote. However, votes should be weighted by various factors. We need to recognize that the current voting criteria has been outstripped and adjust it accordingly.

And I have serious problems with women voting too.

And people wonder why Mark is a bachelor ;-) ;-)

They consistently prove (as a demographic) that they don't know what they're doing ---that they do not make reasonable, but emotional, choices ( e.g. "Oh, he's so handsome, so I'm voting for him.").

But now you are engaging in your own kind of activism Mark. It is the height of inconsistency to rail against self-serving activism from the so-called "left" and then do it yourself. This is a major reason why the Miers nomination is in trouble...people like me who do not want to see activism on any side.

It is no accident that Black men were given the vote in this country before women were. An all-male (head of the household) electorate produces unity in families, which in turn are the building-blocks of society. Giving women the vote has pitted wives against husbands and done much to undermine the structure of the family. No one is willing to address this right now, but history will see it very clearly.

We shall see...

I have not worked out a system for it yet but it would start with a civics test. Those who cannot pass it either lose half a vote or those who pass it gain a half a vote.

Actually, I think one has to be careful there, given who will design the test. :-) If it's some state bureaucracy, you can bet that liberals will have their hand in it to tilt things "leftie" and disqualify those who think differently than they do. I think the better test would be being a "mench" (the Yiddish word) in the local society. If you are a known doctor, or other professional, who has attained a certain ("patrician") standard in our fluid society (in which a poor person can advance himself through opportunity in education and the economy), then your vote counts more than that of an unemployed crack addict. I think this is justice.

That is part of it yes. However, then there is the issue of anyone using the federal government for their own self-interests. The role of the federal government is supposed to be a small one for many reasons. Claude Frederic Bastiat noted them as succinctly as anyone when he explained that the role of law is justice plain and simple. And using the federal leviathan to rob one class of people to enrich another is no more just than if you were to rob your neighbour to enrich yourself.

Another way to deal with it would be to base it on income tax returns. If they must tax our income, then it should benefit out right to vote. So, if you're "flipping more of the bill," you should get more say in how the government spends your money.

See my previous comments.

Then there is private property ownership. Since those who own property should have a greater stake in controlling the federal leviathan, a half a vote more for property owners. Then there is marriage...it is a stable bedrock of society and contributes to both just public order as well as society's common good. For that reason, half of a vote more for married people than unmarried people.

Good ideas.

By this scale, a married property owning person who can pass a civics test would have three times the voting influence over someone who does not own property, is not married, and cannot pass a basic civics test. Oh and btw, those who get divorced are stripped of the half a vote they gained when they were married.

:-) Very nice. They should also be taxed more (the woman as well as the man), since they are damaging society. It's too easy to get out of a marriage today. The personal "pursuit of happiness" does not give people the right to mess up society for everyone else.

(Shawn M circa 10/19/05) This is where I have sought to address things through the matrix of Bastiat's three fundamental rights of man Mark. My contribution to that classical theory is to bring out in greater explicitness the implied "common good" aspect in Bastiat's work and add to the equation the principle of "public order" as defined by [Dignitatis Humanae]. The long and short of it is this: I have sought to codify an explicit template for addressing ALL societal issues that is completely consistent and not at all arbitrary. And in doing that, inexorably one must seek the needs of the many over the wants of the few. (Mr. Spock was right in essence.)

These people are not influenced by intellectual argument, but by the content of media entertainment and their "feelings." The liberals know this; we haven't learned to do it yet ...nor do we seem driven too. It's all about the packaging, my friend. The media can sell people feces if it's packaged correctly and has a catchy jingle. :-)

I know Mark. However, there is a growing percentage of people who have learned the way the media distorts things...have you read Bernie Goldberg's best seller Bias by chance???

I have not. But, I would submit that that "growing percentage" is among educated, thinking people (who are also commonly led by the media), not among the majority of Americans.

But again, most Americans who are uneducated do not vote. And all the media attempts to get them to do so have as a rule not been successful. It is one of the few benefits we get from the general apathy actually...

Look at at how Arius converted 80% of the Empire --not with sound theological argument, but with catchy hymns ( e.g. "There was a time when He was not."). It's this easily-led moron factor that Hillary and the Clintons will use against us. If Kerry had tapped into it successfully in 04, he'd be the President right now. The Clintons are far more skilled at it.

You overestimate the jingle factor.

Do I? :-) And how many Catholics blindly follow both the jingles (and so the advertised "morality") of the singer who calls herself "Madonna"? ...or plung in your more modern example. What you have to appreciate is that Bill and Hillary are not political figures. They're "movie stars." ...ergo, they are "media royalty."

See what I noted previously about the media and their actual influence on these matters. Might I suggest that as a man of the media you are overestimating things a bit in the current milieu???

Futhermore, neither John Kerry nor Hillary Clinton has the kind of "pied piper" charm that Bill Clinton did.

Bill wasn't running with Kerry. :-) ...nor was the media machine really behind Kerry. ...nor could it be, since Kerry didn't have any "media magic" ---that's what pretty-boy Edwards was for, and they didn't use him properly.

It is true that he was a master manipulator but he was also naturally charismatic and personable. Kerry was not and Hillary is not. And this is a more important factor than the "packaging"

Shawn, did you ever hear anyone describe how Fred Astair made Ginger Rodgers "look good" when they danced?? :-) Astair was the real dancer; she just followed his lead. Bill and Hillary have the same media dynamic. If he gets up there and looks at her with "love" in his eyes, etc., it will "read" for people. This is the act. :-) It's a stupid one, and we see it (because we know better); but most Americans do not.

I disagree with you Mark for one good reason: Bill Clinton has a trackrecord of not having good coattails to hang on. You appear to not take this factor into consideration at all and it is a significant one.

You give Carvel too much credit. Dick Morris was the brainchild behind the Clintons and their election/governing "triangulation" strategy.

[Y]es, Morris kept in in power; but Carvel got him elected.

In a three party election where the third party seriously took from the incumbent. That was FAR more significant than anything Carvel did...

He is on our side now Mark

Is he? :-) I'm not so sure about Morris. The man is the devil, even if he's really on our side.

Sometimes you have to play the hands you are dealt in politics Mark...

and does not like Hillary at all.

Is that real? I don't know.

From all appearances yes. Morris appears to have liked Bill personally but not Hillary. Furthermore, Morris appears to have had a paradigm shift after 9/11 much as ex-marxist Christopher Hitchens did.

At the very least, Morris will cancel out Carvel if the Republicans listen to him.

Well, that's the thing; the Republicans don't listen to him. Maybe that's a wise decision; I don't know. Also, Morris' "Hillary vs. Condie" idea seems really wacky to me. Condie could probably win; but it almost seems like Morris is trying to set the Republicans up.

Condi would be best as VP on the ticket.

And hopefully Mary Matalin can successfully run blocker against Carvel on the homefront...she is married to him last time I checked.

Thus proving the the world is weirder than one can possibly imagine. :-) Actually, my friend Mike and I have a theory about that. Matalin never moves her face, and Carvel is overly-animated to the point of cartoon-like elasticity . We think that Matalin was attracted to him on some deep, genetic level, in the hope that her offspring will be normal, by cancelling each other's genes out. Hee hee.

Perhaps...a strange theory but no stranger than some I have heard ;-)

I personally think that democracy is fundamentally flawed and alien to Christian civilization (the very thing that we and our Evangelical friends really want); and as long as our present Constitution is in place, the liberals will eventually win the game due to their realistic take on human nature.

We have discussed this before. I remind you again my friend that this is a respresentative Republic and differs significantly from a democracy in many key respects.

Semantics. Call it what you like. The point is that people in this nation decide their own political destiny, and thus determine the culture. That is a mistake. A mob cannot be trusted to discern and determine truth. This is what a king is for. This is what the Divine right of kings preached; and its doctrine was very Catholic.

Actually, you are wrong about this Mark. However, you are right about the mob part of it which is why this nation was constructed as it was. More on this to follow...

To be Continued...

On IHS Press, Potential Fascist Connections, Antisemitism, Etc.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

In all honesty, I am not surprised at many of the responses that have been made to the recent posting by Christopher Blosser of the problematical connections between IHS Press (the publishers of the series of books titled "neo-conned") and certain insidious financers of that project. Chris' posting was added to a miscellaneous threads posting to this humble weblog three days ago and can be accessed HERE. It is worth reading if you have not already and Matthew Anger (whose research contributed significantly to the latter thread's content) deserves props for his research on the matter. But that point aside, some who have been zealously promoting this series have sought to take a moral theology approach to justifying these books propagation amongst their readers.

Now before dealing with that, let me make it crystal clear that I am not interested in this because of some kind of "fear" that these works will be read. Readers of this weblog know very well that I have made mincemeat of not a few of the paltry "arguments" pro-offered by some of the people in this camp. Indeed, I have so dispaired of seeing much in the way of viable argumentation from those who wield the undefined term "neo-con" around that I have sought to arrange a dialogue on the matter with someone opposed the war in Iraq and whom I could send arguments to use against me if they want to. As it is, a good friend (whose mental razor is darn sharp) fits the bill here and thus a dialogue will take place on these things soon time-willing on both of our ends.{1}

I recognize that noting these things in the fashion I have will sound pompous to some readers. However, in order to avert a predictable argument from those who have enthusiastically endorsed this book series, it bears noting however it comes across. After all, the "trying to suppress the truth" canard is one that some of them will wield if it is not checked in advance as I have just done. But enough on that and onto the moral theology argument.

First of all, the comparison between us using Apple and IBM computers and those companies donating to immoral causes has no direct parallel in supporting a book series which received funding from antisemitic and fascistic sources. For one thing, Apple and IBM are huge conglomerates and the labernyth of connexions involved viz. where their assets are allocated is a far more remote matter than a book publisher like IHS getting funding from an antisemitic or fascistic source.

It would be akin to McDonalds contributing to Planned Parenthood and me doing it: who in their right minds would put the customers of McDonalds on a par with an individual who consciously decides to contribute to PP??? The notion is absurd. Likewise, if what Matthew Anger uncovered was not known, then those who promoted the books would not be at fault for their ignorance. But once made aware of it, their support would take on a different gravity altogether.

Pope John Paul II taught in Evangelium Vitae that support of a lessor evil to prevent a greater evil is licit:

[W]hen it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects. [Pope John Paul II: Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae 73 (circa March 25, 1995)]

This principle does not apply only to abortion but can also be applied to other areas as well. However, one would need to assess whether or not opposing the war in Iraq was sufficient enough to invoke sources with antisemitic or fascistic promotional ties to do it. I cannot see how this argument could be made since the Church has not pronounced on the war in Iraq{2} whereas she has done so against antisemitism and at least implicitly against fascism.{3} For this reason, the "supporting the lessor evil" principle cannot be applied to the matter in question because just war criteria is a movable feast viz. the various factors which can be accounted for in its assessment. By contrast, antisemitism and fascism are not.

Furthermore, the idea that Christopher Blosser and Matthew Anger in criticizing the books for the funding meaning that they were claiming that certain authors who contributed to the series are thus antisemitic can be neatly grouped under the umbrella of the argumentation fallacy of questionable premise at the very least. One does not have to be a supporter of antisemitism to be involved in a project where antisemites fund the project for distribution to others. And obviously those who contributed to that series who did not know about the funding source are not blameworthy as long as they recognize when made aware of this information what happened and act accordingly.{5} But those who do not act accordingly after being notified of this information do not deserve the benefit of the doubt in my opinion because they are obviously placing ideology ahead of principles rather than the other way around.

Notes:

{1} See these threads for information on the genesis and progress of this planned dialogue to the present time:

On Arguments Opposed to Military Involvement in the Middle East (circa January 4, 2006)

A Proposed Dialogue on Military Involvement in Iraq (circa January 28, 2006)

The Arguments Opposed to the War in Iraq As Sent By Us to Our Dialogical Opposition For Their Development Thereof (circa January 29, 2006)

{2} Those who claim that Pope John Paul II pronounced on this matter can go HERE and answer the first of the four challenges I made to someone who made (and to my knowledge, still makes) this unproven assertion.

{3} For a magisterial pronouncement against antisemitism, there is the following from the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council:

[I]n her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone. [Second Vatican Ecumenicaql Council: Declaration Nostra Aetate (c. October 28, 1965)]

Against fascism though a magisterial condemnation is a harder thing to demonstrate -in part because of an unfortunate period where the Church aligned too close to fascism during the pontificate of Pope Pius XI. However, if you accept (as I do) that totalitarianist forms of government in principle have been condemned by the popes, that makes it easier to sustain the theory that fascism was proscribed by the popes. Most reasonably informed Catholics know of Pius XI's Mit Brennader Sorge (condemning Naziism) and the various condemnations of communism by popes from Pope Leo XIII through Pope John Paul II.

With regards to fascism, there was a general condemnation of certain elements of fascism by Pope Pius XI in the early 1930's. This was contained within an encyclical on Catholic Action so it was more indirect. Nonetheless, the pope manifested his intention in the following passage from that writing:

In everything that We have said up to the present, We have not said that We wished to condemn the [Fascist] party as such. Our aim has been to point out and to condemn all those things in the programme and in the activities of the party which have been found to be contrary to Catholic doctrine and Catholic practice, and therefore irreconcilable with the Catholic name and profession. And in doing this We have fulfilled a precise duty of Our episcopal ministry towards Our dear sons who are members of the party, so that their conscience may be at peace. [Encyclical Letter Non Abbiamo Bisogno 62 (c. June 29, 1931)]

There is also the news that Pope Pius XI died a day before he planned to issue a scathing condemnation of fascism and antisemitism. This is noted by the Wikipedia article on Pope Pius XI and apparently the source was the private diary of Cardinal Eugene Tisserant. In light of what I know of the problems that Pius XI had with the fascists throughout his reign, this does not sound farfetched to me.

{4} As Deacon Fournier has been doing to his credit.

The Chronicles of Hand weblog has been updated

"Chuck Norris" Dept.

I saw this sequence earlier today and thought it was worth posting to lighten the mood a bit before resuming with serious subject matter...

Chuck Norris uses Tabasco Sauce for eye drops.

Chuck Norris can get Blackjack with just one card.

Chuck Norris got a perfect score on his SAT's, simply by writing Chuck Norris for every answer.

Chuck Norris has to use a stunt double when he does crying scenes.

Chuck Norris has never looked a baby in the eyes cause it might him cry but if he does it also makes him want to punch a baby.

Chuck Norris has held the World Championship in every weight class at the same time.

On Valentine's Day, Chuck Norris gives his wife the still beating heart of one of his enemies. Being very romantic, Chuck Norris believes every day should be Valentine's Day.

Chuck Norris could shoot someone and still have time to roundhouse kick him in the face before the bullet hit.

Chuck Norris's body temperature is 98.6 degrees... Celsius.

The Seven Wonders of the ancient world were: Chuck Norris' left and right hands, his left and right feet, his belly button, his liver, and his beard.

When Chuck Norris goes to Vegas, he doesn't have to gamble. The casinos just give him stacks of money.

In an emergency, Chuck Norris can be used as a floatation device.

Chuck Norris can hold his breathe for nine years.

Chuck Norris trick-or-treated as himself as a child.

Chuck Norris puts the laughter in manslaughter.

Chuck Norris' beard hair is believed to be an aphrodisiac in China.

Chuck Norris is not only a noun, but a verb

Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing:

This is basically a continuation of the St. Blog's miscellaneous threads posting from earlier in the month.

All praise Prof. Alan Dershowitz (Tony Blankley)

In short: I concur to a macro extent with the views of Mr. Blankley as expressed above.

Continuous Cronyism Update: Pretend the Ports Were Private (Ilana Mercer)

I am liking this idea even less than when I blogged on the matter recently.

IHS Press, Potential Fascist & Antisemitic Connections, Etc.: A Chronicle of Disturbing Patterns (Christopher Blosser)

Those who are promoters of that IHS book compendium on so-called "neo-cons" may want to reassess their enthusiastic support for it after reading what Chris compiled in the thread above.

Matthew Anger's Fringewatcher BLOG

Though I could probably make a biblical scroll of areas where Matthew Anger and I do not agree, he contributed significantly to the material compiled by Christopher Blosser above by basically breaking the story and keeping an eye on it for a couple of months now (updating it here and there as new information was obtained). My props to him for a job well done and this weblog will be added in the next update to this weblog (sometime next month).

The Battle Hymn of the Republic (Julia Ward Howe)

A classic hymn which most people do not know the words of anymore (unfortunately).

A Weapon Against Cheaters (Beth Cleaver)

You folks who have thought about cheating may want to reconsider in light of what Beth refers to above.

Finally, MC Hammer now has a blog:

The MC Hammer BLOG

I will have to ask him how he got audblog to work since I have had problems with it for a few months now.

Points to Ponder:
(On "Nothing New Under the Sun")

As St. Augustine reminds us, misguided souls "imagine that there is something extraordinary in the mishaps of their own time and that they did not happen in other periods" (City of God, IV.1). On the contrary, the evils due to fallen human nature are a persistent condition. They cannot be eliminated by associating them with problems of class or race. Neither can we live in a perpetual "crisis mode," a hallmark of radical ideology which begets desperation and the idea that "ends justify the means." One calls to mind C.S. Lewis' warning that the Devil likes to tempt us by presenting two options – both of them wrong. This is true of the far-left and the far-right. [Matthew Anger (circa December 26, 2005)]

On Zeal, Nature and Ecclesiology, Dale Vree and New Oxford Review, Etc.
(Aka "From the Mailbag" Dept.)

The text below comprises about 99% of an email correspondence from last week with only minor adjustments made to the text (including the removing of the name of the party in question pending their permission to use it of course).

Shawn,

A nice, closely reasoned and judicious piece on Vree.

Thankyou XXXX.

I like the Mentzer quote.

I owe a debt to Mike Mentzer in more ways than I can count. (He was a non-Catholic and an Objectivist interestingly enough.) It is a long story but I have had in mind for many years a project that would be the first of its kind anywhere. Since it may be something you would find of interest, here in a nutshell I will touch on it.

Essentially, I would seek to apply Mentzer's theories in the realm of exercise science --after demonstrating and substantiating the theory that there is and can be only one valid scientific theory of resistance training and that Mentzer's refining of Arthur Jones' basic theory is it-- to ecclesiology. I would then by the same methodology seek to demonstrate objectively that there is and can be only one valid form of ecclesiology and it is the Catholic understanding.

This has been on my mind for a long time...indeed before I ever wrote an essay for the web I entertained the idea of writing on these subjects.{1} However, as well read as I was in those fields many years ago, I realized about two years ago that I still needed to learn more and to field test a few things first to refine my previous understanding. In that sense it is a good thing that the essay I have had in mind had not up to this point been written because I would have had too many lacunas in my knowledge at that time to have handled it properly.

The ecclesiology stuff has been filled in serendipitously in recent years as has almost all of the lacunas I had in precise applications of certain theories of stress and adaptation which will be part of the project when I get around to starting it. Some of what I will be doing in the gym this year after I drop another twenty pounds will be to field test these principles in the way I refined them in 2004 and the one year gym sabbatical interim where I thought a lot about these matters and how to best approach them upon my return to training later this year. (Thus far I have done only cardio for the most part except working muscles that often get overlooked or short shrift like forearms, lower back, abs, and calves.) If things go according to plan, I will be able to start drafting the piece in either late 2006 or in 2007 time-willing with some field tested theories to substantiate what I know via reason and logic (and my experience from years back) to be true. Of course 2007 will be roughly eight years after I originally conceived of the idea{2} but heck: sometimes ideas take time to round into shape.

Though I used the term "neocon," I can't claim to know anything about them. I use it to represent conservative Catholics who aren't rad-trads. Vree had an interesting historical analysis that traced "neocon" to disaffected Trotskyites, but that's another matter.

Yes, that was not what I was referring to.

You're analysis of zeal, culling from St. Francis de Sales, is well-taken, with the importance of erring on the side of charity and patience and mildness, avoiding pride that slips over into imprudence, presumption, injustice, and bitterness.

The quotes were from a book titled Light and Peace the author of which was Fr. R. P. Quadrupani, a barnabite priest. It was first published in 1795 and has gone through about twenty-five editions (ten or so in English). And though I have problems with recommending stuff from Tan Books as a rule, you can find this book there and trust me...it is a very good investment of about $8.

Imprudent zeal, you say, drives others away, rather than drawing them in. Good points with which few would disagree.

Perhaps but in application it is a different animal than assent abstractually as I am sure you would agree.

You also are careful to add the caveats (note 7) that there are (of course) times when it is necessary to take a harsher or less irenic approach to dealign with people and situations ... though as a rule this should not be the approach taken.

Yes but rules do have exceptions to them and sometimes people need to be slapped around. You may know that I was recently pretty brutal to XXXX XXXXXXXXX for example but I had good reasons for it. I exhausted myself last year trying irenic reasoning with them as well as setting out in detail privately what the problems were earlier this year when it appeared we might actually be able to reconcile. But their decision to take that conversation subject public{3} to preen for the peanut gallery was what triggered it primarily...though there were also issues of scholastic integrity{4}, egregious violations of basic rules of logic and reason{5}, and in general a manifested lack of respect for the discipline of the dialogue{6} to say nothing about general norms of theological interpretation.{7}

All of this was coupled with their public prevarications on the matter made it necessary for me to really take the cudgel out. In short, I recognize that there are times to take a harsher approach to people but this should not (in my view) be done lightly or too often.

You also state that your critique isn't intended to imply that DV's work as a whole is without merit, but that essentially he is perhaps taking the wrong approach for (oftentimes) the right reasons. Well-put in each case.

Thank you. There is a problem I think in a lot of people dismissing a writer because of certain stylistic factors without considering if the arguments they are making have merit to them or not.

The hard question that remains is how to discern when and where and how to meet the culture of death properly -- when an irenic, patient, genteel, respectful, approach that wouldn't disturb the "wine and cheese" set just wouldn't cut it.

True. It is not easy to do but it seems to me that we should err on the side of caution here.

Jesus was merciful, but never patient or compassionate to unrepentant hypocrites.

True but as God Incarnate, He could read souls and we cannot.

Nor were the prophets.

They had divine inspiration too. I am not saying that we need to be God Incarnate or have divine inspiration to reprove others in harsher tonalities; only that the further removed we are from those advantages the more carefully we should tread. Barring a trackrecord indicating habitual tendencies of obvious obstinateness on the part of those involved, erring on the side of caution is wise.

I think you set a clear example. I think it can be done.

I agree it can be done. I also think that none of us are going to do it perfectly without some kind of divine inspiration which we should never presume to have. Too many Catholic writers act as if they are divinely commissioned if you know what I mean and that is the source of many problems.

I'm not sure what you mean by your comment that Vree may have been "another one of those converts who merely swapped dogmatic contents when they became Catholic but did not attain a proper Catholic mindset." What's a Catholic mindset?

A Catholic mindset is one that recognizes the proper degree of diversity in the unity of the profession of the faith. It is a mindset that seeks to approach people and situations charitably and give the benefit of the doubt whenever it can reasonably be done. It is a mindset that recognizes that Catholicism is universal and thus embraces a broad spctrum of viewpoints and thus transcends their own personal opinions. While certainly we can argue passionately and persuasively for our views (and this is just fine as far as I am concerned) in the end we have to recognize that the locus for determining the boundaries of our assent is the Magisterium and not the opinions of others however learned and saintly they may well be.

One that's firm but polite and statesmanlike, like Billy Graham's? You couldn't be speaking of doctrine, could you?

Not doctrine but certainly there are applications of doctrine where differences of opinion can exist. A Catholic mindset (as I call it) recognizes this even sometimes reluctantly whereas someone without it seeks to either elevate their own opinions on matters with the mantle of magisterial sanction or denigrate the views of others by implying a lack of congruity with the magisterium. In that series on zeal, one of the paragraphs (not in the posting you read though originally it was: I cut it out for the sake of economy) explains this well:

Again there are pious persons whose zeal consists in wishing to make everyone adopt their particular practices of devotion. Such a one, if she have a special attraction for meditating on the Passion of our divine Lord or for visiting the Blessed Sacrament, would like to oblige every one, under pain of reprobation, to pass long hours prostrate before the crucifix or the tabernacle. Another who is especially devoted to visiting the poor and the sick and to the other works of corporeal mercy, acknowledges no piety apart from these excellent practices. Now, this is not an enlightened zeal. Martha and Mary were sisters, says Saint Augustine, but they have not a like office: one acts the other contemplates. If both had passed the day in contemplation, no one would have prepared a repast for their divine Master; if both had been employed in this material work, there would have been no one to listen to His words and garner up His divine lessons. The same may be said of other good works. In choosing among them each person should follow the inspirations of God's grace, and these are very varied. The eye that sees but hears not, must neither envy nor blame the ear that hears but sees not. Omnis spiritus laudet Dominum: let every spirit praise the Lord, says the royal prophet. (Ps. CL, 5.)

The principle outlined above with devotions also applies to an individuals personal views on theology, philosophy, history, liturgical matters, disciplinary protocols, etc. As you noted, it is a fine line certainly but one we must seek to walk and with care. With Vree's stuff I only noted a pattern I had seen in what I had read of his stuff. As to the extent of the pattern, I do not know as I have not read nearly as much of his stuff as you and ZZZZZ have.

Anyway, a fine piece of writing. I appreciated it.

Thankyou XXXX. Btw, I got your email on the Vree neo-con article. As I noted in the "Blosser vs. Blosser" posting, it is next in line for examination in the "tracking the elusive so-called 'neo-con'" series whenever I get around to finishing it. Whatever one wants to say of what Vree says in it, at least he actually sets out an explanation for what he means by the term. If only Stephen Hand and others of that ilk (who use the term often but shirk from explaining what they mean by it) would act as honourably but I digress.

Notes:

{1} I touched on this a bit here if you are interested.

{2} It was applying what I knew of Mentzer's theories to ecclesiology which is what in retrospect is what brought me out of radical so-called "traditionalism." However, it is one thing to consistently apply a particular theory and another to claim and attempt to substantiate that a given theory or idea is objectively the only correct one. Btw, the definition of "theory" I used in my essay response to David Palm two years ago (and which I posted to my Miscellaneous BLOG at that time) was taken virtually verbatim from Mentzer's writings.

{3} I wrote on this subject in light of this person's mishandling of private correspondence in this thread to my Miscellaneous BLOG.

{4} Manifested in two ways (i) their quoting sources out of context and (ii) failing to disclose to their readers certain biases in their sources which were essential. I was particularly incensed to see them misquoting something I wrote three years ago in a different context to try and buttress their shoddy arguments.

{5} There were many argumentation fallacies utilized by this person but the most prevalent one was argumentu ad veridunciam a subject I have written on before several times including HERE.

{6} Some Principles For Authentic Dialogue and the Proper Use of Sources in Papers (circa February 9, 2006)

{7} The subject of general norms of theological interpretation was handled indirectly in this thread:

"Dogmatic Theology Five Cents, the Doctor is In" Dept. (circa February 4, 2006)

Miscellaneous Musings:

The series of confirmation predictions posted by Us contemporary to the Judge Samuel Alito hearings have been panning like gold at Sutters Mill in 1849 it seems.{1} Having already noted the predictions vindicated by events in a posting from earlier this month, it seems appropriate to note another in the sequence which was written not without reason back in early January:

---President Bush will afterwards figure he has appeased his supporters enough and do something stupid figuring he can get away with it. (Depending on what that is, it is difficult to say whether or not he will succeed at it or not.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 10, 2006)]

Well friends, chalk Us up as 6-6 thus far since President Bush has done something monumentally stupid in agreeing to support the handing over of management of several US ports to an Arab nation.

The issue here only in part pertains to national security matters as the rest of it is perception. For even if this proposal does not pose a risk to national security (as some have insisted){2}, there is still the perception that this is a selling out of national security. The Democrats who have been as a rule quite weak on national security now have a cudgel to beat the president with and to give the appearance of being concerned with this issue for "national security reasons."

For no matter how the Bush Administration tries to spin this, the Democrats have their willing accomplices in the MSM to give their view credibility. Though it is still early and less than a year is a long time in politics as We have noted not a few times before{3}; nonetheless this does not bode well for the congressional Republicans in 2006 if they do not make a stand here.

Also, readers of this weblog for some time are aware of your host's subscription to what he calls the Syria Hypothesis viz. the subject of WMD's in Iraq. That theory has received some support recently from a former Iraqi general but that is all that will be said on the matter at the moment...other than Our position on the war (as articulated over three years ago) never was based on WMD's anyway.

Notes:

{1} Not that longtime readers of this weblog would find accuracy in Our predictions to be a surprise of course.

{2} Your host must admit to having doubts viz. the veracity of this position at the present time.

{3} A year before a presidential election is an eternity in politics. [Except from Rerum Novarum (circa December 9, 2003)]

Remember, there is 44 more days until that primary and even a month is a long time in politics. [Except from Rerum Novarum (circa December 14, 2003)]

Miscellaneous Threads for Reviewing:

I have dragged my feet for too long on not posting another installment in this category. The threads here will be mainly from fellow St. Blogs contributors and I will put together another one of these threads soon for other threads which are in draft form awaiting posting. Without further ado though...

Deus Caritas Est - A Eucharistic Encyclical (Deacon Barth E. Bracy)

A very interesting (to say the least) commentary on Pope Benedict XVI's first encyclical.

The Liberation of Iraq & The War on Terror - A Roundup (Christopher Blosser)

A roundup of threads on the war in Iraq in particular and the war on terror in general.

The Chronicles of Hand

This time the absurdity is calling for the impeachment of President Bush. Careful note should be made of the implied endorsement of this viewpoint by certain parties but enough on that matter for now.

Big profits for Big Oil... who cares? (Chris Burgwald)

My views on this matter are not a secret but essentially I concur with the gist of what Chris Burgwald refers to above.

'Ideology' requires ideas (Chris Burgwald)

While I generally use the term "ideologue" in a derogatory fashion; nonetheless I agree with Chris' premise in the posting above. The problem is, most whom I refer to as "ideologues" do not generally have anything particularly original to offer. Instead, they promote certain viewpoints without concern for accuracy of facts or scholastic/personal integrity.

Bible Study on Proverbs, Part XI (Kevin Tierney)

Another meditation worth reflecting upon in light of the kinds of rancor we have seen in Catholic circles as of late.

The Mohammed Cartoons Blogburst (Lane Core, Jr.)

If this is what has the radical Muslim sorts with their burkas in a bunch then they really are a bunch of pansies. Compared to the Maplethorpe crap, this is tame stuff. Call me the next time someone submerges a picture of Mohammed in urine, or throws elephant dung at it and calls it "art" or other such atrocities. Then you will at least have some sympathies from someone such as myself but not until then.

Why The U.S. Cannot Afford to Write Off "Old Europe" (Greg Mockeridge)

In a word: give this thread a read to understand some of the underlying factors in the war on terror. I may also repost this thread (due to the importance of the subject matter it covers) in the next "miscellaneous threads" installment dealing with non-St. Blog's stuff.

Points to Ponder:
(On Double Standards)

[I]t seems to me that women want to play the old heads I win / tails you lose thing.

If a liberal wants to support a female candidate, it’s a Great Thing for Women’s Rights. If a liberal wants to oppose a female candidate — say, because she opposes abortion — that’s a Great Thing for Women’s Rights. And if a conservative opposes a female candidate that proves he’s sexist. But if he supports a female candidate, they’ll claim he’s supporting some backwards, “up with patriarchy,” docile, “she’s a nice girl, she’ll do what she tells us” candidate, and he’s still a sexist because he’s promoting “the wrong kind” of woman.

In short, “Women’s Rights” is a phrase with little real content any more. It’s just a bludgeon. A hate word. [Greg Krehbiel (c. 10/12/05)]

If I had to pick some people to be allies in a war of words and rhetoric, Pete Vere is one of those on a very short list who would be among the first chosen. I note that because it has come to the attention of your host that Pete Vere has fired some salvos at New Oxford Review for their savaging of one of the culture war icons up in Canada. As far as what Pete asserts and whether or not it is true, I am not in a position to comment on; however, I will note that it sounds like another example of the kind of imprudent zeal that permeates many of the articles at NOR regardless of whom the writer happens to be...a subject I touched on recently in a post to this humble weblog.

I should note in passing the irony in Pete taking on a battle here since he was the one who persuaded me in late July-early August of 2004 to not pursue a public chastising of a certain person-who-shall-not-be-named which (for a while) was advice that I heeded.{1} Beyond that, Pete is a big boy so I trust he does not need any public defending from me; ergo that is all I will say on the matter for now.

Note:

{1} Eventually, one of those who contacted me about such an endeavour actually put up when I offered them a forum to write a critique of the person in question. Thus, my attempt to sluff it off onto someone else backfired and I felt obligated to weigh in to support in macro form the allegations that person brought forward. (Ones which have been substantiated in spades ever since in the words and actions of the person in question.) But I digress.

The previously noted first draft of an album review (Albert King and Stevie Ray Vaughan In Session) was posted to Amazon a couple days ago with significant redacting of material due to word limits at the latter site. (One minor adjustment was made to the posted review which was also incorporated into the original draft: basically your host confused something a reviewer said at another site with the Amazon reviewers so that part was adjusted accordingly.) But beyond that, the review in draft form is better than the one posted to Amazon so I recommend giving it a read if you have the time and want a detailed review of a very excellent CD.

More on the Conspiracy Superbowl:
(With Kevin Tierney)

I must write a dissent from Shawn's opinion.

Impossible...do NOT make me carry this subject out in public for the next eight months plus Kev ;-)

The idea that there is bias against small market teams I don't think applies here. The steelers themselves were on the receiving end of what was a blatant fix, i.e. the Polamalou interception during the Indy game being reversed.

That was an interception though Kev...I watched the play several times. Furthermore, you are forgetting that that was a situation where you had the Steelers (a big market team) playing the media darling Indy Colts whose Payton Manning the marketing department wanted to see in the Superbowl. (I mean, he is arguably the best QB today in terms of a complete package.)

Furthermore, since calls during the second half went Seattle's way as well (the fumble being reversed) I don't think things are as bad as Shawn says.

That was the only example of a call going Seattle's way really. Still, even if we grant you your premise, things had been so poisoned to that point officiating-wise that Hasselbeck was in a position to have to force some things and the results included that play as well as the interception. I could note more than the three plays I did in the previous email but they are the ones which are unquestionably botched calls...the others I would note cannot have the same thing said about them.

The low block and pass interference calls were questionable, then again there was a questionable call against the Steelers as well.

Grabbing the jersey as the Pitt player did was contact which made Hasselbeck's fall a dead play instead of a live ball. The refs surprisingly did the right thing there...I say "surprisingly" since up to that point they had done so crappily for a team of officials with that much big game experience.

In this instance, the refs, if they were bad, were "equal opportunity." Considering their performance in this game as well as the Indy game, I do think there will be closer attention paid.

But of course there should be. The officiating in the playoffs this year was horrible...the Superbowl was merely the worst of the bunch.

Now as far as the game, Seattle proved that winning statistics does not translate into winning games. That's the beauty of sports in my opinion. The Steelers executed several plays that gave them the win.

Two plays...Ben's phantom "touchdown" was just that: a gift.

Despite a shaky first quarter, Ben showed flashes of brilliance afterwards. As his elbow touched the goal line (and the elbow was couching the ball) I will say that it's a touchdown, and especially there was not conclusive evidence to overrule it.

Elbow is not good enough...the ball must cross the plane of the line at least in part and no part of it did.

Ben's knowledge of the line of scrimmage in the huge pass to Hines Ward was a game turner in my view, it showed that the Steelers were not fleeing. The beautiful reverse pass to Hines Ward will no doubt go down as one of the best plays in Super Bowl History.

Yeah...they fooled the third string Hawks cb and safety on that one...lol.

The problem with it was Seattle bit that play hook, line, and sinker.

See my previous comments.

Bill Cower is notorious for running such "gadgets." They executed that play for huge gain 3 times during the regular season. That Seattle (and their normally respectable coach Mike Holmgren) did not prepare for that is a reason why they lost.

And that they had third string defensive players in on that play had no factor???

There's also the fact Seattle had nobody to blame but themselves. During the end of the second half when they were driving, it took forever for Hasselback to get his team organized in a no huddle. If anything, a Steelers timeout (one I saw no reason for) saved Seattle from getting a delay of game penalty, but most importantly stopped them from being able to drive for a touchdown, leaving them to attempt a very long field goal that was botched.

Yes, they shot themselves in the foot there...no question about it. But in a properly officiated game, they would not have been in panic mode as they were by that point.

When they were ready to take the lead, an interception was thrown.

Hasselbeck was pressing cause of the earlier botched calls taking back a touchdown and a virtually-certain second TD (first and goal from the 3 was the spot where Jackson was tackled in the middle of the field). Late in the game behind by two touchdowns, that can happen when you press even someone who rarely threw an inteception all year as in Hasselbeck's case.

And finally credit must be given to Jerome Bettis. The man did not put up stellar numbers, but he came through when it counted. The runs he was getting and the first downs he got in the 4th quarter took the wind out of Seattle's sails, essentially making the game elementary.

Bettis played well yes.

While the Steelers made a few mess ups, in the end it was smart playcalling and a solid defense that provided them the win. Seattle had several chances, but didn't capitalize due to errors on their own parts, not that of officiating. (The officials even ruled alongside them when the fumble was overturned, giving them another shot that didn't materialize.)

But Kev, that is one example to my three. And when you consider that on that play there was contact and the rules were properly applied (compared to the phantom "offensve pass interference" where Jackson did not even touch the player and the "low block" call which was equally ridiculous, I do not see the "equal time" you assert. Indeed, knowing the Hawks playbook as I do, the play where Hasselbeck was tackled and the ball came loose is the kind of play they run when pressing...something that a team not screwed out of at least two scores by the refs at that point of the game would not have had to do.

If anyone else posts their thoughts, I might do a symposium on my website, just to demonstrate that there is more to us bloggers and commentators than reading theology books and arguing finer points of Catholic doctrine amongst each other. :)

Go ahead...post the geography of each poster too so we can see the true midwest and east coast biases for what they are ;-)

Oh and remember, my second favourite team is the Steelers though should you quote what I say in these emails which you can do since I will probably blog my own comments from the previous note as well as this one anyway. (Those who followed our dialogues before may find the subject of this one to be odd but oh well.)

On Able Danger and Hearings Being Opened in the House of Representatives:

I have heard through the grapevine that the United State House of Representatives will be convening hearings on Able Danger. Readers of this weblog know that your host has been one of those who was concerned that this matter would not be taken up and then (once it was) that it would be dropped without comment in the MSM. Nonetheless, with the news that the House Armed Services Committee will open hearings on Able Danger on February 15, 2006, it seems appropriate to repost in brief the threads I have written on this matter in recent months (or excerpts from multitopic threads) in order from oldest to newest. Let us hope that Senator Arlen Spector gets off his duff and reopens the Senate hearings on the matter. Having noted that, here is what I have written on the matter since I started writing on this issue publicly:

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...[I]f he is called and does not produce the cards, he will be finished politically. However, if he can deliver on what he says he can, then his prestige will increase. In fact, if the latter proves to be true, look for Rep. Weldon to become a Republican darkhorse candidate for the presidency in 2008 (whether he wants it or not). My money is on Weldon's gamble paying off because generally speaking people do not make public stances like this unless they can deliver. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 16, 2005)]

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)

Bug your senators people...including Senator Arlen Spector who expressed interest in [Able Danger] 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. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 19, 2005)]

And finally:

It’s Time To Investigate Able Danger and the 9/11 Commission (Andrew McCarthy)

As one who has not been quiet on the Able Danger subject myself,[...] I concur with Mr. McCarthy's assessments on the matter in question. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 26, 2005)]

More will be written of course should the grapevine prove reliable on this matter and hearings are opened in the House (and hopefully re-opened in the Senate). I do not give a damn about who or which party these hearings will "help" or "hurt" since what is at stake here is possible national security lapses in the past which (if they had not happened) may have averted what happened on 9/11. National security should be a non-partisan issue but I sense that this will be as politicized as any other issue is in today's climate and it should not be.

"Blosser vs. Blosser" Dept.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

There has been a recent mini blogwar on the subject of Dale Vree and the New Oxford Review. Readers of this weblog are aware that one of the recurring themes in recent months has been the subject of so-called "neo-cons" -the most recent thread of which can be found HERE. A few people have sent your host a writing on this subject from Dale Vree which will be incorporated into that series at some point in the near future. It is noted here only as an aside{1} but among those who sent Us that link for review and comment were Christopher Blosser and his father the esteemed Dr. Philip Blosser.

The sites of those gentlemen are among the ones your host reads with the greatest of frequency and interest. It also bears noting that the amicable but principled disagreement between them on this matter was one which certainly pleases Us -such things these days are unfortunately rare as the present writer has noted before (including recently). As both sides appear to have had their say on the matter for now (as have others such as fellow Blessed Sacrament parishioner Mark Shea), your host has decided to weigh in on one aspect of this matter and leave the rest to the Blossers to hash out amongst themselves. Without further ado, let Us get to it first by noting the threads each has posted on the matter:

Dale Vree, God's Faithful Pit Bull: Show Some Respect! (Dr. Philip Blosser)

Dale Vree and the New Oxford Review - Roundup and Analysis (Christopher Blosser)

Christopher and Dr. Philip Blosser write too well for Us to be able to do the above threads full justice in a mere posting such as this. For that reason, it is recommended that those reading this thread also read the above threads when they finish with this one. (Christopher includes additional threads from Dr. Blosser as well as ones from Amy Welborn and Mark Shea in his posting above.) With those threads in mind, the present writer intends in this post to highlight what he sees as a problem with the methodology of Dale Vree (DV) by using the words of Dr. Blosser to set the stage for the problems your host will then touch on briefly. First though, the words of Dr. Blosser:

Dale Vree has garnered for himself a reputation for being something like the Pit Bull of Catholic orthodoxy in the United States. Like a Pit Bull, he attacks, bites, latches on, and holds on. Like a Pitt Bull, he is tenacious. Like a well-trained Catholic attack dog, he goes after anything that smells of theological compromise. Liberals hate him. Dissidents despise him. Moderates fear him. Neoconservatives are annoyed by him. The trouble is, he unleashes his reserves of adrenalin against his targets at the first, faintest whiff of anything that smells remotely like heterodoxy, even if his target is a widely celebrated champion of Catholic neoconservatives like Richard John Neuhaus or Scott Hahn. In fact, the offending odor doesn't have to even be remotely related to heterodoxy: if he catches the least scent of inconsistency or compromise, this dog of war will unleash himself upon your allegedly hypocritical derriere even if you are Fr. Joseph Fessio, George Weigel, Deal Hudson, Legionaries of Christ founder Fr. Marcial Maciel, Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, or even Catholic-And-Loving-It blog magnate, Mark Shea. Needless to say, this has not made him many fast friends. [Dr. Philip Blosser: Excerpt from Dale Vree, God's Faithful Pit Bull: Show Some Respect! (circa February 4, 2006)]

Now before touching on what is outlined above, it seems appropriate to note something else that Dr. Blosser said which struck a chord with this writer. It was in the same article as the previous quote at a point where the latter was seeking to draw together a discomforting thread between the ancient world and the modern one via the contemporary view of the character of Socrates among college students...in this case Dr. Blosser's own students:

I've been startled by the steady increase in the percentage of my students who seem unable to find insufficient warrant in the defense of Socrates in the Apology for his acquittal. In fact, I have seen a steady rise in the number of students who have little if any patience with the person of Socrates at all, let alone comprehension of his purposes, and who find themselves lining up behind his accusers, even if they find his death sentence a little harsh for their tastes. (I tell you, my friends, a new Dark Age is upon us, and the barbarians at the gates are not on the outside!) [Dr. Philip Blosser: Excerpt from Dale Vree, God's Faithful Pit Bull: Show Some Respect! (circa February 4, 2006)]

Now longtime readers of this weblog are aware that one of those who had an important role in forming your host's mental template{2} was an iconoclastic individual named Michael J. Mentzer. This is a subject that has rarely been discussed at this humble weblog{3} though at some point it probably will be as a way of providing a bit of insight into Our weltanschauung here at Rerum Novarum. Reading Dr. Blosser's words above brought back to Our mind a parallel in something that Mike Mentzer said in an interview about twelve years ago. To paraphrase it as best We can from memory it went approximately as follows:

[W]e are living in a new Dark Ages, we really are. Most people have no concept of logic and how to use it. How to use their intellectual faculties to distinguish between truth and falsehood. Most people are intellectually dependent. [Michael J. Mentzer (circa 1993)]

It would seem (and not only on the basis of his quote from above) that Dr. Blosser could be said to share Our concern for the state of intellectual decline in civilization in general. Certainly he gives every impression of writing with an aim to help fill in that lacuna and (to his credit) he does so very well. However, it seems to Us that he is mistakening what Dale Vree does over at New Oxford Review{4} for the kind of zeal which is commended in the Catholic spiritual tradition. Before touching on that though, a revisiting of Dr. Blosser's words so that We can interact with them before getting to the subject of zeal:

Dale Vree has garnered for himself a reputation for being something like the Pit Bull of Catholic orthodoxy in the United States. Like a Pit Bull, he attacks, bites, latches on, and holds on. Like a Pitt Bull, he is tenacious.

Tenacity in and of itself is in Our view a virtue; ergo your host does not have a problem with Dale Vree exhibiting it.{5}

Like a well-trained Catholic attack dog, he goes after anything that smells of theological compromise.

This is one of the points to be touched on shortly.

Liberals hate him. Dissidents despise him. Moderates fear him. Neoconservatives are annoyed by him.

Aaah yes, the mythical so-called "neo-cons": something that it is one of Our intentions here at Rerum Novarum to finally in some fashion verify the existence (or lack thereof) at some point.

The trouble is, he unleashes his reserves of adrenalin against his targets at the first, faintest whiff of anything that smells remotely like heterodoxy, even if his target is a widely celebrated champion of Catholic neoconservatives like Richard John Neuhaus or Scott Hahn. In fact, the offending odor doesn't have to even be remotely related to heterodoxy: if he catches the least scent of inconsistency or compromise, this dog of war will unleash himself upon your allegedly hypocritical derriere even if you are Fr. Joseph Fessio, George Weigel, Deal Hudson, Legionaries of Christ founder Fr. Marcial Maciel, Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, or even Catholic-And-Loving-It blog magnate, Mark Shea. Needless to say, this has not made him many fast friends. [Dr. Philip Blosser: Excerpt from Dale Vree, God's Faithful Pit Bull: Show Some Respect! (circa February 4, 2006)]

Okay, back to the one criticism your host has of Dale Vree and his methodology and it is this: he gives every appearance of not understanding what constitutes authentic zeal. To remind the readers with longer memories, We blogged on this subject back in September-October of 2002. The work was taken from an eighteenth century spiritual manual and some of the key pointers for identifying authentic zeal from its inauthentic copycat will now be noted in a lighter blue font:

Zeal for the salvation of souls is a sublime virtue, and yet how many errors and sins are committed daily in its name! Evil is never done more effectually and with greater security, says St. Francis de Sales, than when one does it believing he is working for the glory of God.

The saints themselves can be mistaken in this delicate matter. We see a proof of this in the incident related to the Apostles Saint James and Saint John; for Our Lord reprimanded them for asking Him to cause fire from heaven to fall upon the Samaritans. (Luke, IX., 54.)

Acts of zeal are like coins the stamp upon which is necessary to examine attentively, as there are more counterfeits than good ones. Zeal to be pure should be accompanied by great humility, for it is of all virtues the one which self-love most easily glides. When it does so, zeal is apt to become imprudent, presumptuous, unjust, bitter. Let us consider these characteristics in detail, viewing them, for the sake of greater clearness, in their practical bearings.

In every home there grows some thorn, something, in other words, that needs correction; for the best soil is seldom without its noxious weed. Imprudent zeal, by seeking awkwardly to pluck out the thorn, often succeeds only in plunging it farther in, thus rendering the wound deeper and more painful. In such a case it is essential to act with reflection and great prudence. There is a time to speak and a time to be silent, says the Holy Spirit. (Ecclesiastes III., 7.) Prudent zeal is silent when it realizes that to be so is less hurtful than to speak. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 29, 2002)]

And from part two of that series:

"If your zeal is bitter", says St. James, "it is not wisdom descending from on high, but earthly, sensual, diabolical". (James III, 14-15.) These words of an Apostle should furnish matter of reflection for those persons who, whilst making profession of piety, are so prone to irritability, so harsh and rude in their manner and language, that they might be taken for angels in church and for demons elsewhere.

The value and utility of zeal are in proportion to its tolerance and amiability. True zeal is the offspring of charity; it should then, resemble its mother and show itself like to her in all things. "Charity", says St. Paul, "is patient, is kind, is not ambitious, and seeks not her own." (1 Cor. XIII, 4-5.)...

Never allow your zeal to make you overeager to correct others, says [St. Francis de Sales]; and when you do it remember that the most important thing to consider is the choice of the moment. A caution deferred can be given another time: one given inopportunely is not only fruitless, but moreover paralyzes beforehand all the good that might have have subsequently been done.

Be zealous therefore, ardently zealous for the salvation of your neighbour, and to further make use of whatever means God has placed in your power; but do not exceed these limits nor disquiet yourself about the good you are unable to do, for God can accomplish it through others. In conclusion, zeal according to the teaching of the Fathers of the Church, should always have truth for its foundation, indulgence for its companion, mildness for its guide, prudence for its counsellor and director. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 4, 2002)]

By Our reckoning --both in what We have read of his work as well as Dr. Blosser's own account of DV's methodology{6}-- the latter's zeal is counterfeit, imprudent, and usually does more harm than good. Furthermore, a key aspect of authentic charity is also missing from his frequent jumping on (as Dr. Blosser concedes) anything that smells of theological compromise. The spiritual masters of the Catholic tradition do not look kindly on this sort of thing at all...to quote from Our spiritual instruction on zeal circa early 2004:

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.

*"Do not weigh so carefully the sayings and doings of others, but let your thought of them be simple and good, kindly and affectionate. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 24, 2004)]

Certainly on the points noted above, it seems to this writer that Dale Vree fails and fails often to conform himself to them.{7} All of which leads this writer to believe he is another one of those converts who merely swapped dogmatic contents when they became Catholic but did not attain a proper Catholic mindset. Your host is hesitant to mention that factor in the equation very often but it bears noting here at least in brief.{8}

Anyway, what is noted above is what has been viewed by Us as a key flaw in DV's slaw. As far as how long he has had it, if he always had it, if he acquired it over time, etc., We are not in a position to say -leaving those distinctions to the Blossers themselves to discuss should they want to. And certainly none of what is noted in Our criticisms above is intended to imply that DV's work as a whole is without merit.

Essentially it is in Our view a case of Dale Vree taking the wrong approach for (oftentimes) the right reasons. And with that in mind, it seems to Us that if he tended to the problems noted above in the future, it would be easier for his better efforts to influence others of a similar weltanschauung for the good rather than turn them off and thus render relatively fruitless the seeds he seeks to sow.

Notes:

{1} It seems to the present writer that the subject of so-called "neo cons" is at the core of a lot of Dale Vree's criticisms of certain persons often given that label for some mysterious and undefined reason. For that reason, though it will be indirect, Our analysis of Vree's statements on what constitutes a so-called "neo-con" may well be an important undercurrent to the disagreement between the Blossers on Vree recently aired at their respective weblogs.

{2} Responding to the Blogosphere Book Meme (circa June 14, 2005)

{3} One of the very few areas where this has been touched on by your host publicly was in a thread on the argumentation fallacy of argumentum ad vericundiam published to this very weblog back on August 27, 2004. Mentzer's influence was also brought up in one of the few mentions of an idea your host has had for nearly seven years viz. writing a technical piece tying ecclesiological principles into the laws of nature-- that subject and a bit more is viewable HERE. It may also be touched upon in an upcoming dip into the mailbag should an email response sent out in November of 2005 actually be blogged here at Rerum Novarum as We are contemplating doing for various and sundry reasons. (Oh and no, the goals for the end of 2004 did not get realized then but after a haitus of a few months your host got back on track late last year and is on schedule to achieve them by approximately autumn of 2006.)

{4} In the interest of disclosure, Our exposure to NOR cannot be said to be nearly as expansive as that of Christopher Blosser (to say nothing of Dr. Blosser's familiarity with NOR of course). We have read articles sent to Us over the years and have perused NOR's site at times looking for stuff We have either heard of or simply perusing the archives for stuff that grabbed Our fancy at a particular moment. But as far as an expansive and continual exposure to NOR, that is not something that your host makes any pretentions towards possessing.

{5} And not only because similar things have been said about Us over the years viz. how We approach the subjects written on in various mediums of expression. (Though that may well be part of it of course.)

{6} See footnote four.

{7} And (of course) there are times when it is necessary to take a harsher or less irenic approach to dealing with people and situations...though as a rule this should not be the approach taken of course.

{8} For the record, it is and has been Our view that among the converts who do not manifest this problem are Christopher Blosser, Dr. Philip Blosser, Fr. John Neuhaus, and Dr. Scott Hahn (to name a few that come to mind and which were mentioned above).

Points to Ponder:
(On Logic Being a Special Preserve of the Learned)

[I]t is easy to get caught up in all of the arguments of "is WWWWW's PhD valid or not", etc. but that is beside the point. Even if it was, a valid PhD does not grant them immunity from making crappy arguments. For that reason, focus on their arguments not their presumed "credentials" or lack thereof.

The truth is, one can be logical without being learned. My father did not have a high school diploma, could not read well due to poor vision, etc., but he hardly was incapable of making logical arguments. The two do not have an intrinsic connection insofar as they must be present at the same time. Obviously knowledge can assist someone in making an argument but the tools for making a proper argument are not (and never have been) a special preserve of the educated.

Indeed, the moment it is conceded (even tacitly) that one has to be learned to be logical is the moment that academic elitists can impose an intellectual tyranny onto the rest of humanity. The truth is, intellectuals are often quite stupid and can make stupid arguments. Likewise, recognized "experts" in a particular area of study also can make poor arguments or misjudge matters. This is why what must be assessed is the validity (or lack thereof) of a theory or thesis they seek to advance, not the status of the person involved. [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa February 11, 2006)]

With all the hulabaloo over the St. Blogs "Awards" that is circulating in the blososphere, it seems appropriate at this time to renew in substance (if not in exact details) a lot of my criticisms over the way things went last year since Santayana's dictum about learning from history is so often ignored by the masses of people who involve themselves in these things. I predict three things with this year's "awards" and they are as follows:

---Candidates will be nominated for (and possibly win) in categories where they have no business whatsoever even being nominated.

---A number of very fine weblogs will be overlooked yet again in this years nominations.

---There will be probably be yet more cheating this year as there was last year with blogs no one has heard of being nominated in categories and (possibly) winning.

Anyway, if I do not go at least two for three with these predictions (and most likely three for three) I will be shocked to put it mildly my friends. But I digress.